View Full Version : disapointed with rtr, you are my last hope
infierno
08-03-2005, 02:09
rtr is nothing special, awful skins, the AoR is ..... the battles last the same of vanilla, a gallic swordsmen unit of 80 ROUTED with 65 guys still alive.... the custom battles units with docens of units available make the teams having no weakneses (imagine the online battles) no new animations for phlanx specially, no plahanx can stop even the weakest elepaht, and of course, no AI (darthmod) formation improvements, the new music is boooring...
BI seems to be a hell of arcade but has a patch and some new formations or little improvements
now, waiting EB specially after seen my country's iberian warriors i cant wait, and i still cant wait to your decisions of mod BI. and cant wait for BI to patch rtr and omg, i cant wait BI AND EB + patch
*do you hope the patch will improve AI and the game so much? it really needs it ~D
is it true that CA is releasing 1.3 patch appart from BI? sooner o later?
i think rtr 6.0 is pretty damn fun. They have improved a lot of things. I just miss playing as the britons ;(
Divinus Arma
08-03-2005, 02:41
RTR 6.0 is out? Ho hum. ~:handball:
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-03-2005, 02:43
a gallic swordsmen unit of 80 ROUTED with 65 guys still alive
Hell of a lot more historical than whole armies fighting to the death. To my knowledge.
the new music is boooring
Then put the old back in. It can't be that hard.
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. Look at some of the pretty non-barbarian previews.
Malrubius
08-03-2005, 03:01
Nothing good can come of this thread. ~:eek:
Alexander, you're pretty right as well as being pretty good. ~:)
We've also had complaints that we're too focused on the Hellenistic factions, so I guess we must be doing something right. ~;)
RTR 6.0 is damn good my friend. It's the best thing we got and a far cry from Vanilla.
The AOR is amazing. IT's the best feature i think.
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.
Over 700 posts and your talking like a 1 poster here. EB has said numerous times that they are re-working every single faction. The previews are testamony. Take a look, all the faction have been tossed out the window and rebuilt.
Ok, sure, EB is going to be the best MOD. But RTR is a great MOD. I think many people thought it would be a different game altogether. I know I did, I read the home page news posting that said "no stone is left unturned". That is a bit far fetched, but the game is well designed.
The AI is smarter, calvary always goes for the flanks and suicide units are gone.
My only problem is the stupid animation for infantry while running.
pezhetairoi
08-03-2005, 06:18
Whoohoo, an EB convert. I haven't played RTR yet, there's something awful with the registry on my comp so i can't get it to work. But EB is definitely something you should try, that's for sure.
Samurai Waki
08-03-2005, 07:23
I actually enjoyed myself rather well with RTR. The map is shite compared to EBs and Units aren't as beautiful, but the AoR is brilliant. These guys are setting the bar rather high, I wonder how much higher EB will set it?
King of Atlantis
08-03-2005, 07:37
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.
Actually EB has a very balnced focus, where as RTR seems to ingore the barbs almost as much as vanilla.
caesar44
08-03-2005, 07:42
[QUOTE=Gelatinous Cube]Eb There's way too many Barbarian Factions for my tastes; I personally think you could get by with 2 or 3.
Agreed .
bodidley
08-03-2005, 08:01
Ignore? Nah, they get just the right amount of attention; as proper rebels, except for the few that actual did stuff important during the time period of 280 BC to 1 AD.
In that case, what did the Greek city-states do besides get conquered? ~;)
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
08-03-2005, 08:46
Well I think EB does it just right- historically! Their 'barbarians' are very aesthetically pleasing and will be fun to play with- they're also well researched and depicted correctly.
King of Atlantis
08-03-2005, 09:02
First off barbs have to be barbs.. It is hardcoded, plus the "barbarian" of the day werent as useless as you think. Their descedents managed to become the most influential force in modern time. Gaul was much more powerful at the time than the scatered city states. Infact i would like it if there were more barbs. A split between the aedui and averni would be nice and so woul illyria.
Eb is giving the barbs exactly what they deserve. If i made a ww2 mod and made sure to represent america would i be america centered?
Dont critize Eb for making the Barbarians historically accurate.
King of Atlantis
08-03-2005, 09:35
all im saying is your critizing a historically accurate mod for being historicall accurate.
bodidley
08-03-2005, 10:07
It was the Successor States that shaped the world until they got conquered by the romans.
Aye, the Macedonian successor states, but what about those piddling little city-states?
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
08-03-2005, 11:08
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.
BALANCED!? They focus to the some factions (Successors, rome) and don't give a shit to the another (Germanics, gauls...) and you say they have balanced focus.
Look at the EB prewiews, their every faction is historical. In RTR there is some historical factions, but many anhistorical too.
So which one has more balanced focus?
Samurai Waki
08-03-2005, 11:25
I still think the AoR is a neat feature!
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-03-2005, 11:36
The skins in RTR are beautiful, especially in the latest release and there is simply nothing wrong with them imo
well. I actually like RTR. just not in custom-battles (every faction can train every AoR unit->elephants, phalanxes, etc) so never mind online play.
the units are nice, really. but i'm still disapointed they had no Falcata's on the unit: falacata men . i'm just a sucker for those things. Also the germanians arent very nice. "framea men" as an example...Noble spearmen..another nice unit. and they have Siege:Total War in Greece
it's really a nice mod and i'm playing it until EB comes, but some things annoy me a bit.
No, I'm criticizing it because I don't think it spent the available faction slots in an ideal way.
Yes, you have the right to criticize.
You seem to be focused on those mediterranian cultures, but perhaps a mod with a smaller map mainly focused on this area fits better for you.
Little Legioner
08-03-2005, 12:55
I think EB shall make a better solution about on your points Infernio. They are developing this mod for more than one year that makes them a specialist over RTW dynamics. I believe they make their best in the coding limits of RTW.
In the other hand i don't expect too much core improvement for BI by the CA side. They declared it several times before such as this messages. I've pickep up from two of them in FAQ section:
Q: What do you think about to do for tightening the tactical deepness of the R: TW BI besides swimmable units and night battles?
A: Many aspects of the AI for battles has been worked on since RTW was published, and we think you'll find it gives you a better game. Then again, the cynics out there would expect us to say that, but short of making this an essay there's not a lot more to say other than it ahs been worked on.
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.
infierno
08-03-2005, 15:08
wasnt it supposed to make battles last more? the best roman and gaul forces, (units of 80 guys) running with 65 still alive is not a great step forward
other reasons seen in their forums:
roman skins sux, all different colours
this game could be called PHALANX WARS 6.0 (too many phalanx)
heavy cavalry heavy uderpowered, specially the charge
trarri can kill, better than phalanx ,all cavalry
heavy cavalry cant kill even non-speared cheap infantry units
roman skins sux, all different colours
Actually i like their roman, the feathers could have used a different pattern, but otherwise i think they are fine.
this game could be called PHALANX WARS 6.0 (too many phalanx)
Many nations fought in phalanx... You can't ignore that for the sake of gameplay. And nobody forces you to use phalanx, i had good results with army with lots of light inf.
heavy cavalry heavy uderpowered, specially the charge
trarri can kill, better than phalanx ,all cavalry
heavy cavalry cant kill even non-speared cheap infantry units
That i don't know, i didn't tested a cavalry charge alone for the moment. My cavalry always routed the ennemy but the moral was the main factor, not their effectiveness. I will check.
infierno
08-03-2005, 15:41
those are forums opinions, not all mine :)
anyway, in what BATTLE DIFFICULTY do you play?
infierno
08-03-2005, 15:50
my own complains are
music
Mass routing early in battle still occurs...I thought one of the aims of 6.0 was to balance the unit stats better to make this stop? (3 minutes stting up, 3 minutes battle 5 minutes killing routers)
custom battles and internet battles with all the mercenaries make no weaknesses on factions
some skins...........
cavalry underpowered
another forum opinion: You right, now upgrade of city buildings is not necessary lots good mercenaries with beter experiences than country unit aviable in everywhere, all temples give the same efect it is not funy..., Unfortunately after this changes the game lose climate
i repeat you are my last hope
Please try to avoid any comparisons between mods here, especially since none of you (including the closed beta testers) have seen what EB really has to offer yet.
On focus - EB is attempting to give the peoples of the period who had the opportunity to become great their due. This includes those that DID become great (the Romans, for instance) and those that were conquered.
It is up to the player to decide the course of history. Will great nations be destroyed and relegated to near obscurity, as they were in history? Or will they instead make their mark as a lasting civilization?
In this respect, we focus on those nations that attempted to conquer the world, or at least parts of it, and try to make each of them as historically accurate as possible. We do not want to force history to repeat itself (i.e. the same civilizations always win, and others are always shown as bumps in the road) but rather to set the table so that the player may decide the course of history based on initial parameters (and perhaps a few nudges in the first few years).
We're not "focused on barbarians," we give all people equal weight in our research. The Romans and Greeks were not the only civilizations that had power or culture in the period.
They were merely the victors.
infierno
08-03-2005, 16:13
what i must say is: EB "SEEMS" to be much more prepared and organized, with a very very pre-organized objetives: what we whant to make? with time and order
rtr is a small mod that has raised with less orders and with non-linked ideas
always with the word "SEEMS" but this is my opinion, after playing 6.0 i pray for a patch 6.5 to fix this if posible
next step is BI with 7.0
our final stop is EB
well. another minor point of critisism is the cavalry. the Hetairoi look great, absolutly terrifiing. but Every unit of cav has teh same charge bonus, thats not right:weight is an issue, and breed of horses...
also, why are there 8 different pikemen. "levie" pikemen, and a stand-up: pezetairoi. but why so freaking many!?! also, the hoplites look exactly like pikemen (length doesnt differ much, neither does shield-size) and some hoplites also have 60 men (normal-settings) in stead of 40. balancing is weird!
Nice mod, Huge step up. But graphic-wise not like EB (what we've seen). and I HATE RTR for keeping the "chosen swordsmen". i havent seen teh building system of EB, nor have i sene teh balancing. but god i hope its better than RTR, i know it can be so.
Silver Rusher
08-03-2005, 19:01
I agree. RTR is completely unbalanced. Playing as the Parthians you could win the campaign without ever using cavalry (except with generals) because they have so much infantry, even decent phalanxes, open to them. Also, the map extensions are quite poorly designed IMO, especially when compared with MM (map making genius there) or even the vanilla map, which isn't very detailed as it is. Scotland just looks wrong and the eastern extensions are blaaaand. :furious3:
Rome Total Realism isn't even very realistic/accurate either. The Gauls have a province in the middle of bloody Turkey (they must have been confused between Gaul and Gallatia). Epirus, Syracuse and several other independant states are members of the Greek Cities faction (they should have just chosen one greek faction and stuck with it, its just unbelievably inaccurate as it is). Illyria is in the game, a faction with quite poor influence, especially compared to Dacia, which they took out to combine with Thrace.
EDIT: If the information I supplied is in any way wrong, correct me by any means, but at least I won't be making a "realism" mod with incorrect information about history.
How can any one say that RTR, CA, or EB pander to any faction? It's the way it was for the most part. CA is guilty of spending too much time on Rome and nobody else, but CA was banking on the fact that we would playing nothing OTHER than Rome.
As far as EB paying more attention to the Barbarians... Have you seen Backtira? Have you seen Makedonia? Those previews are beautiful. All the previews look great.
EB oringially started off as a Barbarian mod. CA's generic "barbaian calvary, warbad etc.." was to bland and incorrect. It made the barbarians out to be some two-bit culture, where in fact they were quite vibrant!
Eb is most definately barbarian-centric. I'm not saying they don't work on civilized factions too, but it's clear that they are giving priority to barbarians. There's way too many Barbarian Factions for my tastes; I personally think you could get by with 2 or 3.
RTR 6.0 is such a vast leap over 5.4.1 that it's not even the same mod. There's a new intro, new skins for every unit, new loading screens, new music, new everything. It's very impressive. I'm not going to get into an EB/RTR pissing contest (I plan on playing both), but anyone who plays RTW owes it to themselves to try this mod.
Dear Gelatinous Cube ~:)
Do you know that EB has removed one "barbaric" faction for a Hellenic one.
They have replaced Numidia with Bactria.
This action is not very barbaric centric from EB ! ~:)
The case of 2-3 barbaric factions.
You can argue from a roman or hellenic centric point of view that the Germanic tribes,Britons and the Sarmatians where not very important because there was not much direct contact with these 3 barbaric groups and the Greek/Roman world during the time period that EB is using for this mod.
But from a gallic point of view the Germans where very important because the germans where very expansize force.
The Germans (and Dacia) where pushing the gauls from central europe and they where also very interested in Gaul...they did like to raid and invade gaul ~;)
The Britons where also very important for the gauls because they where kin, trade partners (Tin,Gold etc) enemies and allies..
The sarmatians where a very important force in eastern europe.
Sarmatians where greatly responsible for the dimise of the Scytians.
Removing the Germans,Britons, the Sarmatians and maybe also the Dacians wil make EB (allot) less realisticly if you are playing the Gauls because you don't have the presure from the Germans, Britons and Dacians and also important It will make playing a Barb faction very boring......
infierno
08-03-2005, 20:15
guys lets take a look after the initial shock release
first of all, in their official DID YOU LIKE RTR 6.0 poll, half of people voted BEFORE play or even dl it, but they were "sure" the mod will be good
i got this answer to my "REMOVE UNITS OF CUSTOM BATTLE!! THERE IS NO WEAKNESS IN FACTIONS NOW" THAS NOT REALISTIC GERMANS CAN HIRE ELEPHANTS --> answer: dont buy it OMG!!!!!!!!! so lets make a elephant with MG's in its top, but if you dont like it DONT BUY!
the skins are... i miss unified colors for the army...
why make a city if i can fight with mercenarys?
moral is low for all, battles last very few seconds specially with phalanx
too many phalanx
i can see the pros of this mod man.... maybe some skins and more accuarate units
bad mod + buggy game = uninstall and back to bf2
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-03-2005, 20:25
the skins are... i miss unified colors for the army...
But unified colors for an army is ahistoric. You did download a mod called Rome: Total Realism, didn't you?
And the community surrounding a mod is not the main concern of the mod - if people are rude, don't talk to them, but don't blame the .exe file. And people may get defensive like then when EB comes out; you can't know really.
I have yet to really try RTR6 yet (dl-ed it and just got it running last night) so I can't comment about bugs like the custom battle unit selection or about mercenary systems or morale. But there will be mods and patches for RTR6, just like there were for RTR5 - I'd garantee it. For now, put away RTR6, but maybe you should wait before permamently dismissing it.
Colovion
08-03-2005, 20:32
Eb is most definately barbarian-centric. I'm not saying they don't work on civilized factions too, but it's clear that they are giving priority to barbarians. There's way too many Barbarian Factions for my tastes; I personally think you could get by with 2 or 3.
your comment is essentially saying:
"I feel that Race Car drivers pay way too much attention to making their cars fast. I mean we get it; you drive fast cars - now concentrate on something else."
This is a mod dealing with HISTORICAL ACCURACY. Historically Europe didn't merely have 2 or 3 'barbarian' tribes. They had many more than the EB mod is portraying, but the amount portrayed in the EB mod will be the most accurate representation possible for the limits the game allots to the modders. Priority to the barbarians? Hardly. How about a priority to History.
Telling a modding team which attempts to base their modding decisions on history to merely cut parts of history out because you don't feel it's warranted is absurd. Please realize this.
Teleklos Archelaou
08-03-2005, 20:35
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.I know there were a lot of posts in response to yours GC, but I'd just like to say that I have some sympathy with the guys in Eb who keep complaining that we are spending too much time on the Hellenistic factions. Honestly, it seems like we've had a lot more guys who are interested in beefing up Hellenistic factions' descriptions, traits, etc. than we've had working on the barb ones. It's not to say that we don't have excellent people working on the barb ones, but it's just that more folks have been contributing to text and other conceptual improvements to the Hellenistic ones than we've had on the other side. Some of it is a bias inherent to ancient sources--we've got lots more info on the unique buildings for the east and Hellenic areas to be honest, so there will probably be more buildings there, but we've tried to add a lot to the other areas too whenever we see something that fits our time frame and was of some importance (and unique). From things like all new skins to thousands of new and detailed names to more accurate provinces to banners to unique buildings to new faction buildings, etc., we've got plenty of new improvement for the 'civilized' factions. Just can't wait to show them all to you!! ~D
I played a bit more to RTR, i quite like it. I like most of the skins, i like the aor (though it could be worked a bit more). I don't care that much about what the gauls really are or the greeks as those factions were an abstraction in vanilla too. They had to make some decisions given the limited number of factions available and it's they way they went. I agree galatia should rather have been a rebel province, but after all why say no to a generic "celtic" faction ? It's a choice.
However the moral seem indeed a bit low (but for the moment nothing exagerated). The same charge bonus for all cavalry while not that important in my eyes is indeed a bit lame and the aor units for all the factions in the multiplayer and custom battles is a wrong idea (they should have only let the aor units the factions used historically).
For the mercenaries, i don't know... I like using mercenaries even in vanilla and rtr 5.4 i used tons of them so i am maybe biased. But it's true there is quite a large variety available easily. On the other hand mercenaries were widely used historically...
For the parthians being able to use too much infantry, depend of their conquests, historically because they needed mobile army they didn't relyed on infantry but they could have raised lots of infantry from the subjugated peoples if they had wanted (much like the achemenid and the sassanid). So i don't see the problem.
For heaven sake. Given RTR some time. Patches will enhance it I"m sure, having said that-----Your armies to start off with are not all that good, therefore you're forced to retrain and keep units alive, so that later on they'll have enough experience and better weapon grade so that they CAN fight a long battle.
bodidley
08-03-2005, 22:19
There is a major difference between cultural identity and political control. On the basis of identity that would put the Galatians under the control of Gaul, all of the Macedonian successor states would be under one faction!
IMHO, the thing that bugs me most is that almost all elephant units in RTR have about 20 hitpoints.
OK, Elephants are quite strong, but you're not going to fool me into believing you couldn't kill one with three units of velites tossing all their spears at them...
Other than that, it is quite fun. I haven't really played all that much, but I like what I see. The only problem is that the over-balance of every faction has lead to quite unrealistic situations: in my current game (as the Romans), the Samaritans have just conquered Makedonia. Hmm.
Hmm... I haven't actually played the released version yet -- been moving and all, but as the "Lead Programmer" responsible for RTR 6 up until maybe a week before the release, I can address some concerns.
That all units are available in custom battle seems to have been an oversight (unless another decision was made...).
The "charge bonus" is a placebo and does absolutely nothing. I guess the values could have been varied for peace of mind, but it has no effect on gameplay.
We wanted the Galatians to have the flexibility of a faction; as rebels they would just sit and wait except in the very unlikely situation where they could join some "pop up" brigands, maybe one in a thousand.
Anyway, I'm glad some people liked the release and for those who didn't, we'd love to hear your constructive criticism and we'll try to address your concerns in the future.
Enjoy!
Mongoose
08-03-2005, 22:42
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.
Have you played EB? the team has stated many times that they will focus as much on other factions as the "Barbarians".
I can criticize all I please. A mod is no good without criticism. I've already said I plan on playing it, but it helps nobody for you to shout "Heretic!" when someone dislikes a particular aspect of the mod.
You can criticize all you want, no one is debating that. How ever, you criticism is based on ignorant guessing...not facts.
charge does nothing?argh...didnt know that, i tought that was a +"charge bonus" for the attack-number, damn CA.
well ok, well. now you are here. why can i recruit Italian Cavaly, Italian swordsmen, Italien skirmishers. it seems a bit lame, and a source-less excuse to make a heavy-swords-men merc. or am i wrong?
and why is it that my Hetairoi, richest folks of makedonia, have inferior stats oppessed to Mercenary-'Italien' cav.
will there be a 6.1 balancing patch?
PS: i really dont want to offend you. my english is so 'good' that i sometimes piss peopel of without meaning to do it. srry
well ok, well. now you are here. why can i recruit Italian Cavaly, Italian swordsmen, Italien skirmishers. it seems a bit lame, and a source-less excuse to make a heavy-swords-men merc. or am i wrong?
and why is it that my Hetairoi, richest folks of makedonia, have inferior stats oppessed to Mercenary-'Italien' cav.
will there be a 6.1 balancing patch?
I guess the "italian" AOR units are meant to represents the various people that rome fought early in her history, the "socii" who fought as an "alae" for each roman legion later and the peoples who joined Pyrrhus and Hannibal against Rome when they invaded Italy. For me that make sense.
As to the meaning of the stats for units i too have sometimes some difficulty to understand the balance, check if they can form in wedge, if they have a secondary attack or their numbers (or their morale etc). Italian allied cavalry was far better than the roman one but to have them superior to Macedonian Hetairoï would be strange to say the least.
King of Atlantis
08-03-2005, 23:20
Hmm... I haven't actually played the released version yet -- been moving and all, but as the "Lead Programmer" responsible for RTR 6 up until maybe a week before the release, I can address some concerns.
That all units are available in custom battle seems to have been an oversight (unless another decision was made...).
The "charge bonus" is a placebo and does absolutely nothing. I guess the values could have been varied for peace of mind, but it has no effect on gameplay.
We wanted the Galatians to have the flexibility of a faction; as rebels they would just sit and wait except in the very unlikely situation where they could join some "pop up" brigands, maybe one in a thousand.
Anyway, I'm glad some people liked the release and for those who didn't, we'd love to hear your constructive criticism and we'll try to address your concerns in the future.
Enjoy!
hey good mod, but the barbs do seemed a little left out. That would be my only problme with rtr
wedge is nerfed, so that doesnt matter. I Can't comprehend why merc's in Italy have superior def/atk in comparison to Hetairo;arguably the best cav of that era.
I btw like the fact they toned down teh number of elephants. and upped teh number of men on a tower. ( only saw seleucid elie btw)
Another compliment goes to the shield that teh general wields (romans) but again: why not with All factions, the empty left arm looks lame. ( or is it a 2-handed short sword ~;) )
also nice work on teh new captains
@cube, they look cool, and are inferior. so what? i was just asking if they have a factual justification for the unit. not flaming or bashing. just curious. (and hoping for a pretty picture~;) )
Well I can't really comment on specific unit stats... as I'm sure you can imagine there was a variety of approaches tried and various opinions on approaches and implimentations and so forth within the team.
One thing you should look at is the distribution of defense between armor and skill/shield, plus the morale, upkeep costs, and so forth.
About the number of elephants... check out the number of forest elephants with one rider in a unit.. and try to figure out how we accomplished that... :)
As for the "barb" factions, fleshing them out more is a goal for the next major release.
well. the elephant thing is a compliment, i really liked it.
ok, i'll look it up.
((-def:armor,skill))
Hetairoi (20 units)
-atk:12
-def:12, 6, 0 (18)
italian:
-atk:12
-def:8,10 (18)
so hetairoi indeed have better armor (slight) but ,somehow, are less capable of defending themselves with teh sarissa, while the italian cav wields (about, dunno) the exact same spear. did the *poor* merc get better training than the *rich* hetairoi?
I dont follow...
@cube, they look cool, and are inferior. so what? i was just asking if they have a factual justification for the unit. not flaming or bashing. just curious. (and hoping for a pretty picture~;) )
I guess the inspiration came from some osprey pictures and some thought on how the italian fought and how represent some generic aor italian units, for the picture it's the one on this page showing a lucanian a samnite and a campanian i guess. http://www.slitherine.com/Legion/Campaign_1.htm
keyser, ah i see, thanks. i'm sorry i was distrustfull..
https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6454/whatswrong8tt.png
is this an RTR fabrication, or has RTW always doen that. looks very, very gamy. can this be modded?
used Indain elie, for show. looks nice. altough there is also a unit with 2 Elies, and 4 bowmen (on each!!) wich looks even better
King of Atlantis
08-04-2005, 01:09
As for the "barb" factions, fleshing them out more is a goal for the next major release.
good to hear
Simetrical
08-04-2005, 03:48
https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6454/whatswrong8tt.png
is this an RTR fabrication, or has RTW always doen that. looks very, very gamy. can this be modded?That's a holdover from vanilla. There's a trait that the elephant and chariot melee attacks have called "launching" which probably causes it, but I don't know exactly what turning it off would do. It might cause undesirable side-effects of some sort.
-Simetrical
I'm eagerly looking forward to EB, but I'm enjoyning RTR6.0 alot, it's a very well done mod and I'd really like to thank everyone involved in the process of creating that mod, from modders to people who donated to keep their site alive.
EB can take advantage from this release and learn from the RTR6.0 experience, what works, what don't work too well, what should be tweaked, etc..
The more mods the better, it is amazing what a bunch of volunteers can do to a game, RTR6.0 is already far, far better than vanilla, Creative Assembly would profit and sell tons more of a possible future TW title if they fired their entire crew and hired instead the RTR or EB team, or even just hired you guys as consultants, seriously.
EB can take advantage from this release and learn from the RTR6.0 experience, what works, what don't work too well, what should be tweaked, etc..It's nice in theory, but we don't have enough people with knowledge of the files to do all the coding we need to do, much less break down the code of other mods, even those similar enough to what we're doing to be of use to us.
Divinus Arma
08-04-2005, 07:16
I am installing rtr6 as I write this. I could not help but notice a few EB team members in the team acknowledgements including.... khelvan?
well, acknowledgement....
if you mean me, i've been around here quite a while. but that doesn't mean i wont play rtr until EB is there. Khelvan only stated EB's imcapability to go threw the codes of RTR. But i agree with Wardo, EB members shoudl play RTR, see if anything/what's wrong with it. mostly balancing issues
O_Stratigos
08-04-2005, 10:57
EB members shoudl play RTR
Are you crazy?! :furious3: They should work harder to finish EB ffs, and you ask them to "play??!! :director: :whip: :evilgrin: ~:joker:
@ Infierno, for starters, your not supposed to charge your cavalry into a prepared infantry unit, regardless of whether they have spears or not, cavalry allways needed to be supported by infantry or it was doomed. as to the amount of phalanx units, the phalanx was still the dominant tactical formation in this time period even a couple of centuries later Ceasar remarked on Germanians fighting in a "phalanx formation"
well i really like RTR, and dont see why anyone who likes EB wont like RTR as they are both Historical acurracey mods!
When EB comes out a sect of people will piss all over that mod as well. There will probably be a few bugs here and there and things will get tweaked a bit in future patches.
I think RTR launch for 6.0 was more of a success than a failure. Some new formations, sound mod, and fixing of minor bugs will make that game great.
It saddens me that people give it so much hell. MAXIMUS I has gone out of his way, in just about every post of his, to tell people that he is upset with 6.0 and that he is NOW playing SPQR, because he enjoys SPQR.
Reporting bugs and glitches is one thing, comparing mods and proclaiming that you're going to ignore one of them is a bit childish.
Copperhaired Berserker!
08-04-2005, 13:04
RTR will not be played by me, especially having bouis attacking EB and defending RTR.
Im playing RTR 6 right now its brillaint- DIE REBEL SCUM for the glory of ROme! Sorry got carried away.
Cant wait for ROMA 6.0 Bouis if it goes like 5.5 it going to be sweet.
I for onwe will be playing both
Greek_fire19
08-04-2005, 15:53
First of all I love RTR, I think it's a great mod given what was possible in RTW.
I think the main reason it was greeted with disappointment in some quarters was the unrealistic expectations of many fans.
After months of tireless work a lot of people were expecting something totally new and unfamiliar, whereas when they started it up...new map, new units, new stats, new recruitment system...but same old RTW under the bonnet, same as it ever was.
The problem for EB is that actually, even though your map is even better, your units even prettier and your recruitment system even more refined (probably) along with a host of unique buildings, new campaign map graphics etcetcetc.....it's still gonna be RTW, and a lot of it is going to be very very familiar, so i think EB (which is probably even more highly anticipated) is doomed to a mixed reception, NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT IS, just because some people have built it up in their minds to something it can never be within the confines of RTW.
I'm not a modder though, so you're welcome to prove me wrong ~;)
Are you crazy?! :furious3: They should work harder to finish EB ffs, and you ask them to "play??!! :director: :whip: :evilgrin: ~:joker:
yeah indeed. I take it back: keep modding lazy scum! teh emre fact you'r reading teh forums here meanbs you should be modding!!!
na, just kidding...
as for *berserker. c'mon it's about teh mod, not the people...and bouis is not a monster. Face it, even Bouis is gonna try EB when it comes out ( i guess, since he dwells these forums)
Copperhaired Berserker!
08-04-2005, 16:39
Well, Jerby, I wouldn't buy a game that 5 year olds enjoy, because it's gonna be cheesy. And I wouldn't play a mod from people who acted like 5 year olds towards EB, the mod I actually wanna be playing, and simply I don't like the mod. I tryed it and I thought,"This is as rubbish as Vanilla!"and uninstalled it. I think Eb will beat RTR a hundred times over. I think Bouis was terrible in the way he treated EB. And me.also, bouis, try and insult me for this post, and Barocca is gonna hear from it, as I already PMed him a few times.
I'm not insulting the modders from RTR that behaved and didn't be vicious towards EB and SPQR. It's just I hate seeing a mod dissing another mod in a terrible way. Bouis was terribly behaved as well.
I am installing rtr6 as I write this. I could not help but notice a few EB team members in the team acknowledgements including.... khelvan?Well, way back when Gaius Julius and I decided to form a team together to create an historical accuracy mod. This only lasted a few weeks, but it is worth noting that I was a member of RTR before ZaPPpa, you could say a founding member.
I didn't realize I had made it to the credits, though. That is nice of them.
I tryed it and I thought,"This is as rubbish as Vanilla!"and uninstalled it.
that is the part i didnt know. I want you to know i completly agree with you concerning Bouis' behavior. But it would be very jugdemnetal to condem a Mod by the action of 1 person.
khelvan, that's nice of them. when was it you were an RTR member? what went wrong?
Fabolous
08-04-2005, 23:34
Well, way back when Gaius Julius and I decided to form a team together to create an historical accuracy mod. This only lasted a few weeks, but it is worth noting that I was a member of RTR before ZaPPpa, you could say a founding member.
I didn't realize I had made it to the credits, though. That is nice of them.
It was my idea. You were a founder of RTR and I have a thing for history, which people might have noticed...
King of Atlantis
08-05-2005, 00:10
wow khelvan i never knew you were a founding member. Thats kinda wierd
Simetrical
08-05-2005, 09:55
It was my idea. You were a founder of RTR and I have a thing for history, which people might have noticed...I'm pretty sure I saw Tyr say he wanted khelvan in the credits for 6.0 before you ever joined RTR.
-Simetrical
Birka Viking
08-05-2005, 11:29
~:cheers: I think that RTR is pretty good. But when EBs beta come out I will play that insted..
Hopefully CA will release a patch that comes prior to BI, one that fixes the lame AI, that way EB will benefit from it.
wouldn't get high hopes if i were you."release a patch with variable unit speeds, ebtter AI, fixed bugs, new functions." little chance. CA will want you to buy their products. so all 'new stuff' will be for teh XP. i guess...
my hopes are for you, my guess is against.
Fabolous
08-05-2005, 16:59
I'm pretty sure I saw Tyr say he wanted khelvan in the credits for 6.0 before you ever joined RTR.
-Simetrical
Really? He was not put in until the second to last run through when I suggested him. Then again they had also forgotten Gaius Julius...
caesar44
08-05-2005, 17:32
Rtr is better than the original game by any standard - that is the bottom line for me !!!
I think the truth in the matter is that people dismissed 6.0 way to early. I'm well enough into my game now that I've enjoyed great battles, suprises, set backs, and above all a vastly new experience with AOR. IT gives new motivation for conquering foreign lands.
I just recently installed darth formation 6.6 ontop of RTR 6.0 (was able to continue my saved game too) and battles have gotten a lot better because of it.
caesar44
08-05-2005, 20:43
I think the truth in the matter is that people dismissed 6.0 way to early. I'm well enough into my game now that I've enjoyed great battles, suprises, set backs, and above all a vastly new experience with AOR. IT gives new motivation for conquering foreign lands.
I just recently installed darth formation 6.6 ontop of RTR 6.0 (was able to continue my saved game too) and battles have gotten a lot better because of it.
Please explain about darth 6.6
The AI :
-no longer sends in single units to attack your front but attacks as one big army
-missle troops are guarded by heavy infantry or cavalry, so you must breach the infantry prior to hitting missles, also AI is much smarter using slingers and archers when YOU'RE defending one end of a bridge
-Calvary trys to out flank you
-Since armies attack as one, morale lasts longer so AI is much more challenging.
THE BAD NEWS-
Formation buttons are a bit screwed, so you now have to manuelly make straight lines and all that. WHich is a bit of a bastard.
THey still work for me except that the sound for phalanxes formation still says Cavalry First Three Lines which is weird
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-06-2005, 21:42
Because he can't change the formation name - that should be in the documentation some where.
Steppe Merc
08-06-2005, 22:24
The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.
Hah, no.
We focus on everything that was there in history equally, because every group of people was important. And there is no such thing as barbarians, it's an imaginary concept made up by Romans and Greeks.
Hah, no.
We focus on everything that was there in history equally, because every group of people was important. And there is no such thing as barbarians, it's an imaginary concept made up by Romans and Greeks and CA.
~;)
Steppe Merc
08-06-2005, 22:28
Well no, since CA didn't make it up, as it was around for a while. They just used what already existed. ~;)
Mongoose
08-06-2005, 22:30
I think you guys should just be happy the CA didn't name the gauls "central barbs" and the casse "north barbs" ~D
hoplites could have been named: greek spearmen in formation.
seleucids: western greeks
parthians: never mind, they already fucked those up
egypt: dotn get me started..
Mongoose
08-06-2005, 22:41
jerby, might want to edit part of your post ~;)
hoplites should be "guys with spears" ~D
yeah, Guys, Dude, Blokes. soemthing liek that.
see the new unit profile?
http://www.totalwar.com/community/spearman.htm
weirdly, the description talks baout spear+shield..
absolutly nothing historicall in teh desciption
Dux Corvanus
08-06-2005, 23:34
CA's Egyptians are wrong. They don't walk like Egyptians, you know: ~;p
http://www.fuerteventura.com/carnival/assets/egyptians.jpg
Mongoose
08-07-2005, 00:50
~:thumb: Now CA just needs the priest to be more like the one's from monty python(sp?!) ~D
caesar44
08-07-2005, 08:06
[QUOTE=Chester]The AI :
-no longer sends in single units to attack your front but attacks as one big army
Sounds great !!!
CA's Egyptians are wrong. They don't walk like Egyptians, you know: ~;p
http://www.fuerteventura.com/carnival/assets/egyptians.jpg
i already see an entire army of those blokes marching ~:)
i already see an entire army of those blokes marching ~:)
I'd sure flee...
I'd sure flee...
would scare elephants to death
Dux Corvanus
08-07-2005, 15:44
would scare elephants to death
...or make them laugh to death, which is all the same... :laugh4:
...or make them laugh to death, which is all the same... :laugh4:
even chariots would biet teh dust. the horses woudln't mind, but the riders would fall of and roll on teh flour and laugh their asses off
Revelation
08-09-2005, 03:32
Hey, at least RTR is available. EB is still in the "wow, looks great" stage and has been since the dinosaurs.
I'm beginning to thing the "countdown" thread is the game!
Teleklos Archelaou
08-09-2005, 04:03
Hey, at least RTR is available. EB is still in the "wow, looks great" stage and has been since the dinosaurs.
I'm beginning to thing the "countdown" thread is the game!Was somebody talking here? Looks like it's been almost three days since RTR was being discussed (and in a civil manner I might add, till...).
Revelation
08-09-2005, 04:20
Nothing un civil about my post mate. Just stating facts. Yes EB looks great. It's just not out yet. RTR is and it's a huge step up from vanilla.
No RTR vs EB here.
It is no secret EB has been in development for bloody ages.
So get off your high horse Tel.
Touchy touchy!
Teleklos Archelaou
08-09-2005, 04:26
So get off your high horse Tel.
Touchy touchy!Hey, at least it's much easier to spot trolling posts from up here. :charge:
Mongoose
08-09-2005, 04:28
And then run down the troll as he flees! :charge:
No offence, but saying stuff like "the countdown is just one giant conspiracy!" is, well, kinda pointless? Honestly, do you think mod is finished but they are with holding it because they are evil? Which is more likely:
A:The mod is finished and has only not been released yet because the EB team members are evil B******* and are probably in league with aliens.
B:the mod is incomplete and they don't want to release something that is unfinished.
I repeat, which is more likely? ~;)
Revelation
08-09-2005, 09:14
I did not say anything of the sort, nor did my post imply it.
But hey, interpret it anyway you like.
Meanwhile, i'll just go about my business of upsetting insecure individuals here at EB forums.
Someone needs to act the forum whore and it may as well be me. :duel:
Ninefingers
08-09-2005, 09:52
Howdy...long-time lurker here.
I just thought I'd chime in and give my thoughts on the RTR vs EB matter. RTR 6.0's a good mod, but in my opinion sacrifices too much gameplay for abstracted realism. There are a variety of issues in the mod which I feel detract from enjoying a campaign for its own sake, and seem to be included almost solely to cater to the "realism or death!" crowd. Which is a bit disappointing.
That said there are some brilliant concepts in the game (AoR, for instance) and it's certainly proving rather entertaining for the time being, but I can't help feeling a little disappointed in the general feel of it. I do hope that the EB team understand the importance of balancing realism with gameplay in order to have a mod that is fun before accurate.
Though I have to say this, even though EB hasn't been released yet it already has a leg up on RTR by using the mundus magnus map. The one in RTR is so horribly cluttered in some places, and so desolate in others that the flow of the game is really disrupted at times.
Anyway, so far the previews have looked fantastic! Good luck to the team and thank you for taking the time to take on such an enormous project.
very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing. and with balancing it woudl mean: all factions are equally strong.
tthey do this because 'facions' werent equal! all factions will be playable, but some easier than other. the seleucids had an armor-quality-advantage. so they will get it.
still, a competent player can win the game with any faction...balancing by history.
This way, when teh compuetr simulates the other factions (when you are, say: Rome) the factiosn that were, historically, better. will 8/10 times be better.
instead of CA's eggies destroyign everything in their path..
But this is all faction-balancing. but unit balancing will be the same.
Ninefingers
08-09-2005, 10:53
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
well. EB is not into "getting as much DL's as possibe" it's not part of 'the gaming industry' they're just a couple of lads who like history.
and history over balancing. means history o ver balancing. and not: all history and to hell with balancing. Units need stats, and stats aren't obtained by history..the only refernes they have for 'stats' are sources of weapon quality, armor quality and training skill...
and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit. and if they include soem stuff from Darth's (like the units continuely fighting, no pausing, wichhe claims to have accieved) it will still be a great mod..
history-balancing. the one doenst exclude the other...it's the gamers job to alternate history, or to relive it. EB just want to make sure the starting is accurate, and teh units are.
even with EB, RTW will still be RTW..even if a mod focused completly on 'perfect balancing' it will still be RTW...
and if you dont like it..there's always RTR..
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
I think the fun comes when you try to achieve something with a faction, historically that culture won't be able to do.
Makes more fun, as to have balanced unit stat.
One problem might be multi player battles.
nah, no problem..just balance the unit costs( in export_descr_unit, you there have 3 costs: capmaign recruit, campaign upkeep, custom battle cost) so the faction that has 'weaker' units, and was historically 'a bump in the road' would have lowered costs.
but again, i should nota that there's no real weak faction..it all comes down to the terrain, and the player..
so, except the 'weird maerketing strat' what do you fear that is going to happen?
Krusader
08-09-2005, 12:38
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.
However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was snuffed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.
So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.
Pontus a superpower? oke, something new..
and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit.
Pardon me, a bit if you call 5 new important skeleton, like 2 handed swordsman, 2 handed pike(foot and mounte) and so on a little enhanchement
this means you would prefer that a 6 meters long pike to be held with one hand(CA style baby) or 1.5 meter long sword to be held with one hand, or that an unit would stab with and axe, etc. :dizzy2:
~:) i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word~;) )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..
Greek_fire19
08-09-2005, 14:13
Yeah, you'll be playing some game as the Ptolemaics when suddenly the monsterous legions of the Thracian empire descend upon you...boy won't you be confused.
Hell, even the gauls might have a chance
Hell, even the gauls might have a chance
sarcasm alert
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
Jolly good EB is not involved in the gaming industry then...
Also, I think that probably EB's policy, or, perhaps bettr, "philosophy", is not "history before gameplay" or "history before balance". Rather, our motto could well be something like "History IS gameplay". Or "History IS balance".
History is chock full of trade-offs, constraints, limitations. All factions had weaknesses and strengths historically. How well they did depended on how astutely they exploited the latter and minimized the former. Our belief is that, if you're willing to go the extra mile, that system of checks and constraints can be brought into this game.
So, we are convinced that by bringing history in, we also bring "balance". Of course, this "balance" is not of the "Let's give the Sarmatians the onagers they never had so they won't be disadvantaged at sieges compared to the Romans" kind. Instead, we turn sieges into one of the challenges that the Sarmatian player will have to overcome. A, totally historical, hard time at city-taking is one of the elements that will balance out the equally historical advantages the Sarmatians do have (good, varied cavalry at prices they could afford very well, for example).
That is just one example of many, but I hope it will demonstrate how, if you look for it, history is a true mine of gameplay and "balance" at all levels of the game. Even within all the limitations of the RTW system. Also, I would hope that example will show that EB's search for historical accuracy encompasses many things besides the depiction of troop types. And the beneficial effects of it in the "fun" department (such a fuzzy and subjective concept, in any case).
~:) i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word~;) )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..
~:)Ah yes i forgot those, i don't think i'm the only one just that others are to lazy and prefer modeling but since i don't skin i had to do this. Not only sweboz, dacians(falx) and britons(sword) i also know of,maybe other factions also but i don't know of others than mentioned.
If just saw an new animation, there are tens more to see.
yeah, those random 'the unit is bored' animations...
were those 2 handed swords used for slashing and stabbing? or just slashing? if so, whats wrong with teh 2 handed axe? or will it be swung over the head?
yeah, those random 'the unit is bored' animations...
were those 2 handed swords used for slashing and stabbing? or just slashing? if so, whats wrong with teh 2 handed axe? or will it be swung over the head?
Just slashing, the 2 handed axe had some stabbing anims so i use the slash ones to replace them and create new ones.
wtf, 2 handed axes stabbing? that's something new..
wtf, 2 handed axes stabbing? that's something new..
You haven't notice this in vanila?! You should go and see...
Mongoose
08-09-2005, 15:12
And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.
However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was ed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.
So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.
Good ~:cool: very nice to hear the EB will be abit less unbalanced then vanilla RTW.......
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
What most people fail to see is that vanilla RTW is not "game play > realism"
Instead, sadly, it is "lack of realism>balance" Have you noticed that the only powerful factions are "egypt", the romans and what ever faction you are playing as? why? the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.
EB will be both better balanced then vanilla RTW and much more realistic. history was far more balanced then RTW, more balance plus realism can only be a good thing, right? OK, you will lose some of the "fun" units like "flaming war dogs", but look at what will take their place*!
https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/149/korinthioihoplitaiscreen18dd.th.jpg
https://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6501/calawrescreen18ia.jpg
besides, "flaming war dogs" Both unbalance the game and make it less realistic
*yes, the do take their place. The unitmodel limit is very low so war dogs had to be deleted.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
08-09-2005, 15:33
the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.
Both unbalance the game and make it less realisticNo truer words have been spoken lately... :yes:
Teleklos Archelaou
08-09-2005, 16:25
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.Though I'm sure we all appreciate you stating that our "policy" is the "most blatantly idiotic policy" (in your second post no less! ~D ), the really great thing is that we are not *in* the gaming industry. We are basically making this mod for free, voluntarily, ourselves. You might find it interesting to know that a few mod members are quite adamant (not myself though) that we really should only make it for ourselves, but I'm sure lots of other people will enjoy it too when it is released.
Ninefingers
08-09-2005, 16:38
Well, my hat's off to you folks then. I've never before seen a mod that quite honestly doesn't even pretend to pander to the masses of casual gamers (who will arguably constitute its largest user base). If you really had a discussion about whether or not to even release the mod to the public...well, all I can say is you've got some seriously dedicated staff members and I wish you nothing but the best with this admittedly gargantuan project.
Apologies for the hasty conclusion about your policy, it just strikes me as...odd. As a veteran of strategy games, I've always found balance - be it between factions/sides or units or whatever - to be the penultimate criteria of a game's potential success. If it isn't properly balanced, it's going to be crap: that's more or less the ethos I've viewed strategy games with.
So I'm sure you can imagine why someone like myself would be relatively disappointed in what is an otherwise brilliant title like R:TW. It provides all the necessary tools to create the single greatest piece of strategy gaming in gaming history, and falls short because of some really, really elementary mistakes.
Hence I hound the mod community in search of the proverbial One. The mod that would finally deliver what the R:TW campaign and battle engines are capable of producing - a refined, intelligent and balanced strategy game. Perhaps I'll just have to wait a while longer - I'd just hoped that EB would be it, since the rest of it looks so gosh darn pretty!
Anyway. Good luck with the project, I'll look forward to trying it out upon release and posting an inordinate amount of balance suggestions on your forums.
Mongoose
08-09-2005, 16:43
I think you might want to check this mod:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355
Probably not as big or realistic as EB. But as it is an MP mod, it should be balanced fairly well........
At least we can agree on one thing; vanilla RTW is c**p ~D
Teleklos Archelaou
08-09-2005, 16:44
Anyway. Good luck with the project, I'll look forward to trying it out upon release and posting an inordinate amount of balance suggestions on your forums.You might be surprised when you finally get it though 9. If you get the open beta, you will certainly find things that still need balancing, and I'm sure that we would seriously love to hear back on suggestions and problem areas. You're right on the money I think with what I think would be the best course of action - just hang on till we get it out and give it a try. ~D We could all be wrong of course, but we really do think that folks will enjoy it when they finally get it (though we all know that there is no way in the world it will please everyone--some just won't like certain aspects and some probably just won't like us no matter what we do).
Teleklos Archelaou
08-09-2005, 16:45
I think you might want to check this mod:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355
Probably not as big or realistic as EB. But as it is an MP mod, it should be balanced fairly well........And created by an EB member too of course! ~D ~D
Simetrical
08-09-2005, 17:42
As a veteran of strategy games, I've always found balance - be it between factions/sides or units or whatever - to be the penultimate criteria of a game's potential success.Then what're the ultimate criteria? ~:confused: ~;)
-Simetrical
BobTheTerrible
08-09-2005, 18:24
besides, "flaming war dogs"...
Flaming War Dogs? I'm sorry but there's no need to exaggerate. It just peeves me off when the realism crowd starts going on about "fantasy" units. Fantasy units would be trolls and ogres. The units in vanilla RTW are not fantasy units, if anything, most of the units have been used in history, just not as regular units as the game seems to portray. I never saw any complaining back in the M:TW days about those arab units that could hide any place, name began with an H... can't remember the name.
Look, my point is, you guys exaggerate way too much. Even with the unit names, when you say CA might as well have called them "spear guys" etc. Well in M:TW there were units called "spearmen" or "swordsmen." (if memory serves right) Yet there were not complaints then about unit's names?
I'm looking forward to EB very much, as much as anyone in this forum. It's just very annoying to go through the threads and have people refer to CA with a particular distaste and then hyperbolizing the the units in vanilla. Why did you say flaming war dogs? There is no such unit in vanilla.
well...wiht fanatsy units: chosen swordsmen might be a good example...
and the ENTIRE egyptian army is a:fanatsy or b: used 1000 (jndeed:thousand)before the time period...
it's not all fantasy...but most of their unit descprictions are very vague , like: well trained men, raised from villages to hack away at teh enemy.
the Desert axemen, form vanilla. are complete fiction...
the archers used by rome before the marian reforms..fantasy
Urban cohorts: no military unit
armoured hoplites: very, very vague...
schreeching women?
druids?
Mongoose
08-09-2005, 18:38
Look, my point is, you guys exaggerate way too much. Even with the unit names, when you say CA might as well have called them "spear guys" etc. Well in M:TW there were units called "spearmen" or "swordsmen." (if memory serves right) Yet there were not complaints then about unit's names?
ROFL
This is the best part of your post. :laugh4:
And you don't?! i've heard people say "If RTW was what you wanted it to be, you would just watch stuff happen and not be able to interact at all"
~:rolleyes:
The best fantasy units are flaming pigs and wardogs, so i combined them. It was just an example for the love of god.............
ja screeching warhounds, or screeching druids, screeching axemen..those are pretty sweet two
Ninefingers
08-09-2005, 18:55
Then what're the ultimate criteria? ~:confused: ~;)
-Simetrical
I'm ashamed to admit: graphics. I just can't stand all those games with "great gameplay!" that look like garbage. When home PCs have enough power to run small cities, games should utilize their potential to the fullest.
Which, sadly, is why I haven't been able to so much as reinstall M:TW since playing R:TW, despite its infinitely superior balance.
Edit: And I just realized I'd completely borked my usage of the word "penultimate". I'd been under the impression it meant "next to first", when it actually means "next to last". English is however my fourth language so I hope I'm forgiven for this linguistic transgression.
We in EB have never said "history over gameplay," or any other such contrary position. We have always felt that this is not a zero sum game, that accuracy and gameplay go hand in hand.
Look at how successful and fun M:TW proved to be. The factions were not balanced, and part of the fun (for me, at least) was playing one of the factions who were described as "Hard" or "Challenging" in the faction description, rather than one of the "Easy" ones.
As a long-time strategy and wargamer, I would simply shake my head if someone made a game about WWII and made the production capabilities, unit capabilities, economy, and so on, of America, Russia, Germany, and the rest all the same, for the sake of "balance." Balance of capabilities has no place in any game that purports to depict a period of history. Balance comes, in successful versions of these games, through differing victory conditions for the various players. If the victory conditions were the same, certain sides would most certainly win.
No one complains when even a beer & pretzels game like Axis & Allies has imbalanced units and faction capabilities. The Total War series can only lose (and has lost) in terms of gameplay by moving in this direction.
well. by balancing could one mean two things:
- different factions: same strength. all factions differ. but are equally strong. so someone might state the seleucids are overpowered at teh start: they get 2x as many provinces as sweboz
-all units are equally strong. in a head to head battle. the outcome of winning is 50% chance. (in this game without phalanxes) in this case seleucids are overpowered, since they have better armor (i believe i read that somewhere)
-or: nothing is extremely overpowered. units that were historically better, are better..wich is EB's take on balancing, afaik
am i wrong?
Ninefingers
08-09-2005, 20:30
Actually by balance I don't mean any sort of homogenous armies or factions - not at all. Strengths and weaknesses are the bread and butter of strategy games, and I whole-heartedly welcome variety in both factions and "army lists". True purists will of course claim that a real strategist will defeat an identical army with superior tactics, but I'm not quite that hardcore and prefer a little variety. I hear it's the spice of life.
What I mean by balance is a general sanity in game design. Take for instance, the Roman legions in R:TW. Sure they may have been historically superior to their contemporaries, but to make them so absurdly good that a trained monkey could become Imperator by 255 B.C. is a bit much. In R:TR, mercenaries are so good and plentiful (and cheap!) that whatever pacification of campaign pace they may have accomplished with their admittedly ingenious AoR system is made redundant as it's no problem at all to recruit full stacks of experienced mercs on the fly.
Then there are little things: is one unit so good that it can dominate the battlefield alone, making the rest of that faction's units obsolete? Does any faction begin with so much territory and/or money (a la Egypt in R:TW) that it will inevitably dominate without player intervention?
These types of issues are sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, but the disturbing thing is that very few designers actually take the time to consider their implications. It's one of the reasons why I swear by Blizzard's excellent RTS-games - they do balance right, and they certainly don't do it by making every faction/side identical.
Those are my concerns. One of your team already addressed the issue of faction dominance by citing the -ai results, and I'm relieved to hear you're conducting such tests. With such a dedicated staff and community anticipating your mod, I'm sure such issues will be hammered out in due time.
The only "balancing" we do is to ensure that given an overall look at two factions' unit lists, no one faction will consistently win due to the 20-unit limit in battles. That is, unit costs may give a faction a great advantage on the campaign map, allowing them to field hordes of cheap units, but since there are artificial limitations on army sizes in battle we need to be aware of then imposing an all but insurmountable obstacle for factions that have lesser, cheaper units as their main forces.
Units will have historical strengths and weaknesses, as best we can determine them, as will army compositions, faction capabilities and economies, and so on.
We will be playing with custom battle costs to make multiplayer fun and challenging.
Edit: Ninefingers, everything we do is geared with an eye toward the game system limitations. Our goal is not to make anything absurdly powerful at all, but to have the capabilities of the faction/unit in context. We have a system for unit stats, for instance - we give ratings based on capabilities of armor and weapons, and set values to add for things like morale based on unit composition, and set bonuses for things like chemicals or noted fanatacism. The unit stats system will be impartial in this respect. Romans were not supermen, and will not be depicted this way.
Having one uber-unit in battle, or one faction that has certain capabilities that allow it to run rampant over the whole map each and every game would not be, in our opinion, historically accurate. It is our opinion that the factions that dominated the world had advantages, yes, but did so through exploiting their advantages. Good leaders, the outcomes of certain battles, weather, and many things contributed to history; in our mod you can change history. Some factions will be powerful, but not so powerful that they always win, and a good leader will change the world.
I don't consider that balance, so perhaps this is simply a semantic misunderstanding.
It's one of the reasons why I swear by Blizzard's excellent RTS-games - they do balance right, and they certainly don't do it by making every faction/side identical.
What about Warcraft II?
blizzard's diabloII is well balanced..at teh start.
blizzard's diabloII is well balanced..at teh start.
Ah, but the Diablo series aren't RTS games.
Simetrical
08-10-2005, 18:17
What about Warcraft II?Well, the spells were different. And so were the missions. And I could've sworn that there was a five-point difference between the attack ratings of Elven Destroyers and Troll Destroyers. But pretty much, yeah . . .
-Simetrical
Well, the spells were different. And so were the missions. And I could've sworn that there was a five-point difference between the attack ratings of Elven Destroyers and Troll Destroyers. But pretty much, yeah . . .
-Simetrical
You mean the Human Destroyers? Nah, they were identical too. The Elven Rangers did have an upgrade for +3 damage, though, and the Berserker had a regeneration upgrade. The spells were different..but very similar.
QwertyMIDX
08-10-2005, 20:28
Warcraft II was a joke, most of the units had the exact same stats just different models. Ogres and Knights anyone? The way the Ogres ran to be the same speed as mounted Knights was hilarious.
Big_John
08-10-2005, 20:53
actually, wc2 wasn't balanced at all because of bloodlust. online, anyone playing human v orc was only doing so to see if they were skilled enough to break the orc player before they got ogre magi. it was a way to challenge yourself, but you had no illusions.
paladins v ogre magi was the only imbalance, iirc (there might have been a smaller one with the other casters), but it was a huge one that essentially broke the balance of the whole game.
i had to get that off my chest. ~:)
I had no complaints with WC2 back in the day. I loved that game. I didn't have internet connection yet so all I did was play against the cpu.
caesar44
08-14-2005, 12:13
How can historical accuracy could harm the gameplay ? EB moders wants a game based on history , you don't like it - don't play it ! I prefer as much accuracy as they can achieve , why ? I love history and strategy games .
Ah yes , give the greeks some aircrafts to balance the game... ~;)
If the romans had the best army in those days , let it be ! it is more challenging to beat them . :duel:
actually, wc2 wasn't balanced at all because of bloodlust. online, anyone playing human v orc was only doing so to see if they were skilled enough to break the orc player before they got ogre magi. it was a way to challenge yourself, but you had no illusions.
paladins v ogre magi was the only imbalance, iirc (there might have been a smaller one with the other casters), but it was a huge one that essentially broke the balance of the whole game.
i had to get that off my chest. ~:)
By the time you have ogre magi, Bloodlust didn't matter. Numbers did. I played a game with a friend of mine the other day - any ogre who was given bloodlust was almost immediately slain, sometimes having landed a single blow first, sometimes without an electric punch. The Runes were far more effective.
WC3 has good balance. The Bliz team is always hard at work to ensure balance between races.
The only aspect of WC3 I hate is the mirco managment of all the damn units. My fingers are not quick enough to make multiple commands, even with hot keys. The strategy in WC3 is also a bit retarded. No hitting from the side, having 10 units attack 1 etc... always bugged me.
Nice thing about WC2 was it took little managment.
Simetrical
08-15-2005, 06:06
Although the group management was a nuisance. Only nine units per grouping = teh suxxorz.
You mean the Human Destroyers?No, Elven Destroyers, which fight on the human side. The elves joined up with Azeroth, Lordaeron, and the rest to repel the Horde, after all, just as the orcs brought allies with them from Draenor and picked up more in Azeroth. Not everyone in the Alliance was human, you racist.
-Simetrical
Although the group management was a nuisance. Only nine units per grouping = teh suxxorz.
No, Elven Destroyers, which fight on the human side. The elves joined up with Azeroth, Lordaeron, and the rest to repel the Horde, after all, just as the orcs brought allies with them from Draenor and picked up more in Azeroth. Not everyone in the Alliance was human, you racist.
-Simetrical
The same Elven Destroyer that has the English guy who is the same as the footman tell you not to rock the boat before he ralphs over the side?
Okay, fine. I hate elves. You've exposed me.
The grouping wasn't so bad once you assign numbers to the groups. Even better, tell groups 2 through 0 each to follow a different member of group 1. Your whole army is on the move and guaranteed to jam up hopelessly within seconds.
Just a few points.
1. To all you people who say "RTR ignores barbarians", that is partially. True. Up to now, Barbs have been left out(the Illyrians are half-barbs). However, in 7.0 they are planning to focus more on barbs.
2. I hope either RTR or EB adds the Mauryans. They easily encompased the Indus plain, as well as were one of the most powerful empires of their times, and controlled alot of land.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/MauryanMap.jpg/373px-MauryanMap.jpg
Even if their ENTIRE faction isn't in the mod, I still think they need to be represented. I personally would have added them instead of Bactria/Baktria, seeing how they were much more influential.
Steppe Merc
08-16-2005, 17:15
It is unfair and ahistorical to add just half a faction. When you think of how much more powerful the Turks could have been in MTW, or Parthians in vanilla...
cunctator
08-16-2005, 17:28
Bavor, Prometheus will have the Mauryans in his RES GESTAE mod.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.