View Full Version : Creative Assembly BI Demo Comments
SpencerH
08-06-2005, 15:24
The BI demo is available on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51712 (although it may take some while to download as the servers become busy). I thought it might be a good idea to start a seperate thread with comments on the demo since they seem to be cropping up on seperate threads.
I've only played Chalons so far and retired once my general got killed ~:eek: (course I havent played in months).
I had no problem starting the demo from King Ragnar nor have I had a CTD or any other glitches. Technically it worked as well as 1.2.
Part of the reason I lost was that I had problems controling the HA and light cav who tended to have 'minds of their own' i.e. giving new orders to units took a long time to have an effect or the ordered changes never happened at all. Of course, in the few seconds while you're trying to re-direct your 4 units of light cav who're chasing after 1 unit of enemy HA the battle is lost. So one thing for sure, the demo game speed is not slowed down. Battles are still way too quick even with pausing. I'm unsure whether the problems with my HA were caused by the 'parthian shot bug'.
Its possible though that my control problems were due to being out of practice.
The_Mark
08-06-2005, 15:57
Well, the AI seems now able to do coordinated charges against player's battleline (though the AI troops that were part of the frontal charge still routed on contact). AI should utilize their precursor javelins, as they currently don't.
On technical side, I'm getting the strobe effect in night battles described earlier.
nope
i saw that too
cav tend to keep going, or go after a different unit,
getting them back under control can take some doing,
(kinda historicaly accurate actually)
try clicking them onto the ground THEN get them to attack another unit
why should they go attack that unrouted unit when they have easy pickings right here, eh?
or maybe they just like "shiny things"??
B.
Crazed Rabbit
08-06-2005, 16:00
Perhaps you should mention that the link to the demo is on page 5 of that thread, 4/5's of the way down.
DLing right now, thanks for the link KR!
Crazed Rabbit
Its possible though that my control problems were due to being out of practice.
I don't think that's it. I played Chalons twice. The first time I tried targeting individual units based on tactics such as cav beats missles, etc.. Well, it didn't work. The battle became total chaos very quickly, and I observed some units doing things contrary to the orders I gave them. I lost the first time as I couldn't get orders out to all of my cavalry units fast enough to keep them away from the AI's spear infantry which chased my cav relentlessly irregardless of what it did to the organization of their own battleline. That's the AI trying to choose advantageous matchups which is how it's designed to work. I wish I had time to do the same thing.
The second time I played Chalons I put my infantry into guard mode and made two large groups of cavalry placed far out on each flank. I waited until the AI engaged my infantry and then I swept both groups of cav in by double clicking on the ground. I didn't use any individual targeting. I just did mass cav sweeps, and I won a huge victory. I didn't write it down, but I think my kills were about 10:1.
The_Mark
08-06-2005, 16:19
Yes, cavalry blobs are still killers. And wedge works, too.
SpencerH
08-06-2005, 16:26
I won the second battle (heroic victory) but I had to keep much tighter reins on the cav (ie lots of pausing which takes away from the flow of the game) and still had units 'acting up'. If thats the way the game is designed -units close to the general will quickly and accurately do what they are told while units further away will tend to do 'their own thing' -thats fine by me, I agree its more realistic. I'd like to know (officially) though that that's the case and its not another 'feature'.
Two more points:
The bug where one must continually click on enemy routing units in order to pursue them is still in place. This was particularly annoying while being told by the voice-over that I should be chasing the enemy from the field (or words to that effect) while my units stood there as enemy units virtually ran through them.
The mobile ballistae totally demoralized one of my spear units in a very short time(which I hadnt seen before to the same extent) so ARTY anti-personnel effects may be more pronounced (which I agree with).
I'm pleased with the demo.
I tried BKB's battlepack and it seems that the AI is alittle better.
A few complaints tho.
1. The voices - There are no new voices, some of the romans heavy infantry(forgot their names) keeps saying legionary cohort, some don't have a voice at all. CA please tell me that you are gonna add new voices in the retail.
2. The skins- I guess that's what modders are for but please alittle more effort I mean the two romans heavy infantry units that I mentioned before look exactly the same.
Other then that no problem.
Watching a huge army like in the Frank ambush in BKB battlepack at night is really beautiful with the torches.
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-06-2005, 16:28
I noticed the voices too and imagine they will change. The priests don't even have one IIRC. The night battles are an amazing addition, should provide some great encounters.
I lost when I played Badon hill, and won decively at Chalons. How did I do well at Chalons you ask? Easy I fought it as if I was the Seleucids fighting the Parthians. I grouped the legionaries into a sorted single line. I grouped the Scholae palatinae and the fedeorati cavalry together (in hind sight I should have stuck in the Alan heavies too). I sent the Alan HA to keep their eyes and bows on the Huns, with the cart baliistae close behind. When the Huns settled on a place to form a battle line I ran all my army to the foot of the hill they chose. But as soon as my men got there the Hun cavalry start to flank, I was like no you don't either and sent my cavalry after them. Chased them off but they were just fighting lancers and heavies, the leites were holding back. Things really went my way when my Scholae palatinae killed Attila (hehe :evil:). The Hunnic lancers, HA, and heavies routed as soon as Attila's corpse hit the ground. Leaving the infantry and elite horsemen. My cavalry however had taken heavy losses (about 60% casualties) and the fedeorati had routed themselfs and the scholae were in the same shape. So the legionary's marched to battle. I ran them to the crest of the hills that the Huns had taken refuge on the downward slope. And let them loose their missiles. When they were gone I charged the Huns. Mean while I reformed my cavalry and moved the rest of my infantry into position (auxilia palatina, gold bands, and fedeorati infantry). As I expected the legionary's while good had some discipline problems. A unit of limitanei routed but the comitatense stood firm. The Hunnic elites were the only real pain. I needed to throw everythig close at hand at them to route them.
Mr Frost
08-06-2005, 16:31
The second time I played Chalons I put my infantry into guard mode and made two large groups of cavalry placed far out on each flank. I waited until the AI engaged my infantry and then I swept both groups of cav in by double clicking on the ground. I didn't use any individual targeting. I just did mass cav sweeps, and I won a huge victory. I didn't write it down, but I think my kills were about 10:1.
Sounds like classic horse army tactics to me .
The {later} Byzantines actually favored it if I remember my history correctly .
I just D.L.ed the demo myself and won a heroic victory™ at Chalons . I placed my infantry in line as was {best spears flanks , then swords and weak spears middle I think} , grouped and marched them to wait on the slope behind us . Then I grouped all my heavy cavalry with my general in line , grouped and placed them behind the infantry whilst my horse archers {which I again grouped} engaged the enemy line to draw them in whilst causing them casualities and my light cavalry I left in the woods on our left flank .
The enemy mauled and broke one of my horse archers with balista and their own horse archers {and somewhat reduced the other units} , but took quite a few casualities and more importantly , broke up their line chasing my lads whom they had no hope of catching . I simply left the horse archers to their own devices {C/A seemed to have fixed the old problem of horse archers skirmishing to the redline then getting cornered} which worked nicely .
The foe threw himself at my infantry {not all at once , but beggars can be choosers} and I sprung my ambush of light cav and my heavies at their right flank {my left} and basically rolled their line .
Silly romans :p
Edit : spelling , bet I missed some still .
Uggg I downloaded the Demo and Extracted it to a new folder i made. But when i start it up the background on the Menu is White and whenever i start a battle it CTDs. Does anyone know what the problem is?
Lysander
08-06-2005, 17:47
I really like the new general model for the barbarian, and I like the roman one too. However, I saw a few graphical glitches with the models I hope they fix.
(1) Look at the Paladin Bodyguards in this picture:
https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4859/invasion3dt.jpg
One side of their body is falling apart.
(2) Look at the Scholae Palatinae:
https://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1308/invasion23aq.jpg
When they turn their heads they become mutants, the chin stays put and the top goes where it wants.
I hope CA sees these and fixes them, I think it would not be too hard.
Havent played the original Rome for a while, only mods. Seems tome it is still hilariously fast, I think running speed and killing speed are even faster than original Rome. Units still do not listen to commands given. Cav trash through everything. Havent played the second battle. Waste of money, unless a good mod is being made for it.
Kenchi Mord
(1) Look at the Paladin Bodyguards in this picture:
https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4859/invasion3dt.jpg
One side of their body is falling apart.
(2) Look at the Scholae Palatinae:
https://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1308/invasion23aq.jpg
When they turn their heads they become mutants, the chin stays put and the top goes where it wants.
I hope CA sees these and fixes them, I think it would not be too hard.
I don't have any of those glitches.
Probably hardware related.
I just D.L.ed the demo myself and won a heroic victory™ at Chalons . I placed my infantry in line as was {best spears flanks , then swords and weak spears middle I think} , grouped and marched them to wait on the slope behind us . Then I grouped all my heavy cavalry with my general in line , grouped and placed them behind the infantry whilst my horse archers {which I again grouped} engaged the enemy line to draw them in whilst causing them casualities and my light cavalry I left in the woods on our left flank.
You don't have to do any of that. I took the units the way they were placed. I didn't need high ground. I didn't have to place the line units in any particular order. I didn't have to group the cav in any specific way; light cav and heavy cav mixed was fine. I didn't have to give a single unit specific order or target any specific enemy unit. I only gave a single order to each of the two cav groups, then I sat back and watched.
It works because the AI doesn't defend against it. Individually, it appears that spears work against cav, but I can't tell how well they work yet. They are going to have to be able to stop massed cav attacks to pull multiplayer out of the cav spam type of gameplay that exists in RTW.
Red Harvest
08-06-2005, 19:20
Sounds like more of the same. Is speed really untouched? (Both combat and movement.)
Is speed really untouched? (Both combat and movement.)
Combat is maybe little slower, but movement speed is unchanged.
Elmar Bijlsma
08-06-2005, 20:30
Played Chalons and on the whole the AI seemed a bit more robust even if I'm puzzled why it favopured a reverse slope defense, leaving me to chuck javalins down onto the Huns. Gave the AI a sound thrashing, ofcourse wiping out nearly every Hun, leaving under a hundred alive, losing 46 men myself. Yawn.
Still could've been worse. All my Chariot Ballistas healed themselves. How did they die, you ask? I'm not entirely sure. I was moving them in to engage heavy hun cavalry, they took aim through their front, fired... and instantenously dropped dead, all but two of them, who died on their next volley. That's right, THEY KILLED THEMSELVES!!!! :furious3: I couldn't quite catch what happened as my new place hasn't got curtains yet and the sun glare made it difficult to see what happened in detail but they all dropped dead on the very same moment, just as they fired. Still killed nine enemy men according to the AAR, surprisingly.
Anyone else seen this?
Crazed Rabbit
08-06-2005, 20:45
Seems like the same move and attack speed. And I get these weird flashing graphical glitches, and I had one blue screen of death and one CTD.
Crazed Rabbit
SpencerH
08-06-2005, 21:03
Sounds like more of the same. Is speed really untouched? (Both combat and movement.)
Very much so. I played Badon Hill and it was very reminiscent of a good RTS.
SpencerH
08-06-2005, 21:12
A couple more points.
A funny blue bar appears on the unit cards when they are swimming. It took me a few seconds to figure out what it was since I noticed it during a bit of a tense moment'.
Its a big mistake to try to swim missile units across a river with skirmish on. Not having played in a while, I forgot to turn off skirmish mode for foot missile units- thanks for leaving that as default CA- so they swam back and forth across the river and were totally useless.
PS swimming archers is totally bogus. Natural bowstrings become useless when wet.
Graphics wise everything went almost fine for me. Had one CTD at the start of a Bandon Hill battle.
Units as a whole seem to be less cohesive, spreading out over a large area... especially if you run them. Personally I think thats a good thing but it does mean you must be careful of running a unit (infantry or cav) to a point and then immediatly engaging. You need to give them some time to reform. That also makes running down routers more difficult as they're all over the place.
Did seem to have some problem with friendly fire. Lost Bandon Hill the first time as the king got killed by friendly fire. Wasn't terrible and not sure if it wasn't normal as that battle has allies in it and I think it was an ally that got me.
The red line is now the border. You come to it and its like hitting a wall. Only noticed it though while chasing routers.
Combat is still fairly quick. Basic RTW rules of whom should engage whom seem to still apply.
Infantry seemed very fast. Had an extremely difficult time maneurving my cavalry around/past enemy infantry as they'd turn and catch me very quickly. Trying to engage archers with a generals units of cav took almost have the battle map for him to catch them.
Overall seems very good. Looking forward BI whens its released. Unfortunately for me I'm more interested in the campaign map part of the game then the battles, but was still fun fighting with the new units. (Enjoyed the night battle with the glowing lights all around. ~:) )
Oh, and played the battles on Hard. Haven't tried very hard yet...
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-06-2005, 21:27
The speed seems faster - unless RTR6 actually did reduce speed. I was under the impression that it didn't, but I was shocked by the speed of the demo.
I'll have to give BKB's mod a shot, because I have no idea how to adjust scripts and the like.
Lysander
08-07-2005, 00:29
Sorry to go over this again, but I really think the models for the “Paladin Bodyguards” and the “Scholae Palatinae” have a little glitch in them. I suppose it could be a hardware problem of mine, but every single time I load up the game the glitch is present and it exists only in those units.
Just compare the right side of the “Paladin Bodyguards” with the “Paladins.” You should see the Bodyguards (the Frankish general unit) have a shard that sticks out and the right side of their body is exposed allowing you to see into the opposite side of their torso. See pic above. The normal Paladins look fine from the right side and they are virtually the same model.
On the “Scholae Palatinae,” do this test: just zoom the camera down and leave the Scholae Palatinae idle, un-pause the game. You should see that every once in a while a soldier in the unit turns his head to look around. When this happens the lower head remains welded to the body but the top part of the model turns around normally, this creates the distortion effect in the pic above. This happens with no other unit that I know of.
I apologize for being obstinate, but I want CA to know about it so they can fix it for the full game
Afro Thunder
08-07-2005, 00:34
I don't think the battles are shorter. In fact, most of the fights that I have experienced actually last longer than in RTW. I have noticed that enemy units rout after taking heavy casualties, and they stick around on the battlefield a lot longer.
Oh BTW, call me a n00b, but how do you win the Badon Hill battle? Is divine intervention a prerequisite?
Red Harvest
08-07-2005, 05:26
Very much so. I played Badon Hill and it was very reminiscent of a good RTS.
Well, crud. I've not even been able to get my interest level up enough to download the demo. CA warned us that there was not much they could do about the speeds without rebuilding the game. And with the short time between the expansion pack and the game it was clear that they wouldn't have time to do nearly what was needed.
Maybe CA will be back on track when the 4th TW generation comes out.
Maybe CA will be back on track when the 4th TW generation comes out.
Next game and expansion will be using same engine as RTW. But we can always hope...
I havent touched RTW in 5 months and the demo did remind me of why I uninstalled it back then. At least some of the new stuff gives mods even more options.
CBR
Red Harvest
08-07-2005, 05:58
Next game and expansion will be using same engine as RTW. But we can always hope...
I figured that. STW and MTW were the same basic engine as I understand it, so I figured they would use RTW for "nexTW."
However, it should definitely be possible to fix the speeds. It really depends on the time they have and whether or not they appreciate this as being a BIG issue. If I had the tools to fix the skeletons even I could do it (and add more skeletons to boot.) The combat kill rates, missile kill rates and things like that are also relatively straightforward, but only if you can change those base factors that are presently out of reach.
I am playing the RTR 6.0 mod and funny enough the moving around of your forces now looks normal graphic wise. No more ice skating of the the little fellas who are also running around like crazy in fast forward mode as in the original or barb invasion.
So it can't be all that difficult to change that. Me thinks that that it is a choice by CA to leave it as it is. It now resembles the standard RTS where little donkey kongs eat their way into enemies with lighting speed.
Given the fact that ALL mods reduced the killing and running speed proves that most players do not like it. RTR 6.0 had 80.000 downloads after the first day. It is about time somebody takes the developers by the ears and drag them behind a computer where 6.0 is installed to have a look how 'epic' the game could be.
Why all the trouble of the beautifull graphics if you do not have time to enjoy it during battle.
Kenchi Mord
Zatoichi
08-07-2005, 08:51
Is there currently any way to slow down the movement speeds in the demo? I can't unpack any of the files to get to the relevant text files. I forgot how fast unmodded RTW was - the first thing I did when I bought RTW was to apply the very early movement and combat speed mods that came out when it was first released. That was the one good thing about having to wait a week or two before being able to buy it in England - those nice Americans made a fix for us 'slower is better' brigade!
Duke John
08-07-2005, 09:16
This is an one time offer. If enough people wish to have slower running speeds for infantry and cavalry then please make a table of how fast the speed should be in % related to walking speed. There are normal and fast versions of most skeletons, so you can have different speeds for normal archers and fast archers. If you cannot get an agreement then stop complaining about fast movement. The solution that I will provide will work on all mods or original versions that do not have new animations (and those that do should be ashamed that they haven't touched running speeds).
Lysander
The graphical glitches that you see have nothing to do with hardware, some bits CA messed up other bits are just unavoidable when using low detail models. You should either set your unit detail (Graphical Settings) to high which will result in more detailed geometry in your models and thus better animation. Or if your computer is not able to handle higher detail then just do not zoom in :grin:
Edit:
CA warned us that there was not much they could do about the speeds without rebuilding the game.
That is BS.
Little Legioner
08-07-2005, 09:38
Too much fast. When i had played the battles and tutorials after i said that. Faster then vanilla RTW faster than a Tie fighter. Faster in historic 2X2 km maps... Just imagine this example in 1X1 km standart camp battle maps.
Duke John
The BI demo has actually made me to think about playing RTW again, at least the BI campaign as I think it would be an improvement over old RTW campaign. But the more I think of it the more I also remember how many things I have to mod to have a chance of liking it. One thing is the damn running animations and then I thought of you ~:)
But getting an agreement on how much to reduce it with might not be easy. I know how intense a battle can be with MTW speeds and with 25% more units to control I personally wouldnt want faster running speeds than what we had in MTW.
CBR
SpencerH
08-07-2005, 14:29
I'd like to see three crosscountry speeds:
line (heavy)-inf:
marching 3mph
dogtrot 5mph
sprint 7mph (max 1 min, only fresh troops)
Lightly armed and armoured inf:
marching 3mph
dogtrot 6mph
sprint 8mph (max 1 min, only fresh and near-fresh troops)
No armour:
marching 3mph
dogtrot 7mph
sprint 10 mph
Routing troops should not run at sprint speed except for the time limits suggested AND if they were near-fresh when rout began
SpencerH
08-07-2005, 14:35
Well, crud. I've not even been able to get my interest level up enough to download the demo. CA warned us that there was not much they could do about the speeds without rebuilding the game. And with the short time between the expansion pack and the game it was clear that they wouldn't have time to do nearly what was needed.
Maybe CA will be back on track when the 4th TW generation comes out.
You should try it. If we have any hope of getting bugs fixed, we have to have experienced eyes testing it. They fixed the bug that Oaty found.
I just checked the stats for upgraded units and it appears armour/weapon upgrades are still shown to only give +1 on one stat (defense for armour and attack for weapon) but they are actually increasing it by +2. Would be nice if that "bug" was fixed too.
Edit: Or maybe they actually did lower the effect from upgrades.
CBR
Coldfish
08-07-2005, 15:06
The roman units i don`t like them at all....i said that first faction i will play is Western Roman....now after I saw the units...i changed my mind....now i`m looking forward for the Sassanid Empire.....i bet this faction has the nicest units
In what way did you not like them?
CBR
King Ragnar
08-07-2005, 17:50
i was wondering should i make a new thread with the link to the download and a link to BKB's scripts then a mod can lock it. It will save people having to go through the other post.
Little Legioner
08-07-2005, 19:44
I didn't like from demo. I played again and again it but evertime i bored that ultraspeed movement and high kill rates. They were so fast even vanilla RTW. Mates keep it your mind also standart camp 1X1 battlemaps plus BI speed. Result shall bring us a good thing. I hope CA find a solution. But however speeds must be lowered for balancing and maps should be 2X2 for better and serious gameplay worth to a TW game... :bow:
Coldfish
08-07-2005, 21:42
In what way did you not like them?
CBR
lets just say the "design"...i really don`t care how historic accurate are...i care about good looking units....those RTW legionaires style are and will be the best looking....i just love that red rectangular shield...anyway...i hope modders will change it...if don`t...i try to change it myself....i don`t stand the BI roman units...and 2nd thing i hate....is that the units are too coloured...too many different colours
Coldfish
08-07-2005, 22:18
but the whole idea here: is possible to make them realistic and good looking too....but CA considered the realistic factor is important
Kagemusha
08-07-2005, 22:48
Itryed out the demo,and i liked it.The troops are moving still too fast,but the AI seems more co-ordinated.I tryed also Chalons playing the Goths and AI actually reacted when i first harassed the moving Hunnic Army by using its own horse archers against my one unit of them,instead chasing them with its infantry.When the Roman Army finally walked to the battle,i flanked The Hunnic army on the right with my whole force.When i got the flank AI throved Attila himself and two stacks of Hunnic elite warriors against my army of two heavy cavalry,one spearman stack and one horse archer unit.I had a hard work killing them but i succeeded.I won the battle but AI seemed better. :bow:
professorspatula
08-07-2005, 22:54
Judging by the demo, the first thing to do when getting the full add-on will be to mod the game so it's actually playable/fun. It's amusing to go from slow battles back to turbo paced blink-and-you'll-miss-it action. You look away for just a second and 3 units have routed and another skirmisher unit has decided to run towards the enemy instead of in the opposite direction. A minute later and the battle has ended. The AI is still hopeless I noticed, but hopefully it will have improved for siege battles a little when it's released.
Some of the new units look alright, others have been firmly beaten around the head with an ugly stick though. Interesting how many of the units are carrying missile weapons (throwing axes and javelins) but they aren't currently used. CA have used a surprising number of historical names this time around instead of virtually all generic titles previously, but it's still pretty much a dumbed down RTS game.
I'm not massively impressed by the demo, but I'll probably get the addon, but mostly because of the potential that can be unlocked with a bit of ye olde modding.
Kitty208
08-08-2005, 01:31
I haven't had a chance to dwnld the demo yet (my cable modem is broken & i'm waiting for them to bring over a new one, so i don't hav any internet right now - i'm on somebody elses cpu & it can't handle rtw), but I'm interested in the new Roman units. Specifically - what is the difference between the Eastern and Western romans' units? If I remember correctly, the eastern romans had started using more heavy cavalry while the western romans still relied mainly on infantry. Is this reflected in the available units or am I wrong?
BTW - what exactly is in the demo?
Afro Thunder
08-08-2005, 02:05
3 historical battles: 1 one is a battle tutorial, 1 is the Battle of Badon Hill, and the third is the Battle of Chalons.
Can a CA staff member tell us how old this demo is ??
Because so far it seem pretty old.
For example, some of the models are different like catholic priest who are carrying a knife instead of a club, the goth spearmen look different too.
Also no new voices and the schiltron seem to have a huge problem beating cavalry.
Also generals is just as suicidal as in RTW V.1.0 so you have taken a step backwards there.
antisocialmunky
08-08-2005, 03:05
I think a knife is better than a beatstick...
Red Harvest
08-08-2005, 05:48
That is BS.
No, they did say something to that effect. Or do you mean that what CA said was BS? I agree with the latter, it was more a reflection of what they were *willing* to rework than what they *could* rework in my opinion.
Enjoi_BlackHawk
08-08-2005, 05:57
first thing i noticed is that units seem faster, way faster, the actually battle only lasted me 1 minute tops, the AI seemingly have gotten better, in the hunnic battle i watched the friendly AI get horses in there rear that hid in the forest (where they hid another one....i found myself with a small unit of elite hunnic whatevers on my back) Horses still to powerfull and horses are also too dumb, in the description they say that some horses are afraid of spears, i wanted to see if they did it...they didnt....
Duke John
08-08-2005, 08:05
Red Harvest, I meant it was nonsense that they needed to rebuilding the game. All that need to be done is taking all the running/charging animations and edit them a bit so that they cover less distance in a single animation cycle. As a result units will run slower.
I believe that there is a mod who adds an overhand hoplite animation. I can't understand why someone would make that animation but avoids editing running speed since that has a much greater impact on the enjoyment of the game. Editing descr_battlemap_movement is a bad fix IMO since it also means that units walk slower and that means fixing by breaking things.
King Ragnar
08-08-2005, 09:03
Blackhawk i find it a very immpossible that a battle only lasted 1 minute. It would take one minute to get your army engaged with the other nevermind the fightinh taking place.
Squirrel_of_hatred
08-08-2005, 09:46
Ok so ive downloaded the file and unzipped it ive got a bunch of files. Now what do i do do i copy the files somewhere??
:help:
King Ragnar
08-08-2005, 10:27
Ther should be a symbol like the old Rome one just click on that and the game should run.
Red Harvest, I meant it was nonsense that they needed to rebuilding the game. All that need to be done is taking all the running/charging animations and edit them a bit so that they cover less distance in a single animation cycle. As a result units will run slower.
I believe that there is a mod who adds an overhand hoplite animation. I can't understand why someone would make that animation but avoids editing running speed since that has a much greater impact on the enjoyment of the game. Editing descr_battlemap_movement is a bad fix IMO since it also means that units walk slower and that means fixing by breaking things.
If they slow down the animations this means they will have to rebalance the game after them, since the units die to fast it would unbalance the game,and example if you hide your cavalry away in the woods far away from the main army when they would arrive it would be to late if the anims are to slow, so it's not fully BS,but they could have gave us a way to to slow them down, an animation tool or something. As for the anims mod, what would be the use if you slow down a skeleton if all others are to quick, if you wan't to do it right then you must do all animations and this would take enourmous time to do. Anyway you should check the bi anim pack you'll see that they did started something, to little but still(maybe more in BI?!), here are some slow new anims:
bi/data/animations/fs_semi_fast_dagger_run.CAS
bi/data/animations/fs_semi_fast_javelinman_run.CAS
bi/data/animations/fs_semi_fast_swordsman_run.CAS
bi/data/animations/fs_slow_2handed_run.CAS
bi/data/animations/fs_slow_spearman_run.CAS
bi/data/animations/fs_slow_swordsman_run.CAS
bi/data/animations/horse/fs_cataphract_horse_run.CAS
Those just my thoughts and i do blame CA for making the units move to fast in the first place.
Little Legioner
08-08-2005, 13:52
We cannot play the game if it shall be same like the demo. Infantry like marathon runners and cavalry like kawasaki bikes ~D in game. Kill rates are still same, movement speeds faster even RTW, cavalry like unstoppable panzers... Our hopes still bounded to the modding possibilities of BI. I really understand at the moment what was the mean of "tightening" and "polishing" of the tactical stage of BI. Don't miss the point we shall play this battles on 1X1 standart maps this means double the speed of game. Half a minute later our battles will be shut. :embarassed: At the Chalons war was ending in 2 minutes when the battle has started. Just imagine tiny ones ~:confused:
Intrepid Sidekick
08-08-2005, 14:48
Hello everyone
Just a few points:
Walking speeds are the same as RTW and actually very realistic. (They are motion captured from a real person walking and are to scale)
Infantry Unit running speeds have been slowed for armoured troops by about 10%. (BTW They are also from motion capture)
Skirmishers move only very slightly slower than before.
There are also different cavalry movement speeds between light, medium and heavy cavalry. :charge:
The AI has been improved.
The game unit movements and kill rates haven't sped up, at all, in any area of the game. :dizzy2:
Perhaps this perception to the contrary is either as a result of playing modded versions of the RTW game? i.e. where speeds and kill rates have been significantly reduced or a mistaken recollection of the original game speeds?
Intrepid Sidekick
SpencerH
08-08-2005, 15:52
Hello everyone
Just a few points:
Walking speeds are the same as RTW and actually very realistic. (They are motion captured from a real person walking and are to scale)
Infantry Unit running speeds have been slowed for armoured troops by about 10%. (BTW They are also from motion capture)
Skirmishers move only very slightly slower than before.
There are also different cavalry movement speeds between light, medium and heavy cavalry. :charge:
The AI has been improved.
The game unit movements and kill rates haven't sped up, at all, in any area of the game. :dizzy2:
Perhaps this perception to the contrary is either as a result of playing modded versions of the RTW game? i.e. where speeds and kill rates have been significantly reduced or a mistaken recollection of the original game speeds?
Intrepid Sidekick
Glad to see y'all responding. I hope some of the thread comments are helpful.
The walking speeds etc may have been taken from motion capture but the actual speeds are in no way realistic. All you need to do is ask an ex-grunt (such as myself) how fast modern inf units move cross-country while carrying weapons etc. Staying in massed unit formations (such as in TW) will slow things down yet further.
To some extent though, the walking speeds are a moot point. Its a game. If the battles were played with realistic movement speeds many players (especially those who've not had the pleasure of 'humpin their ass through the grass') would complain that they are too slow.
I think the real culprit is the infantry running speed. The last time it I saw a discussion, running inf were clocked at 10mph!!!!! To put it in perspective, thats the speed of an elite modern marathon runner (who is obviously not burdened by helmet, shield, spear etc). Most importantly though, the inf running speed is way too fast in comparison to the cav running speeds. One only has to watch routing inf units outrun pursuing cav to know something is wrong.
sunsmountain
08-08-2005, 15:54
No, Intrepid, its merely because of comparing RomeTW to MedievalTW. Medieval units behave like slow moving blocks... they can be easily manipulated and give the AI plenty of time to react, with fewer options to flunk.
I care about a good AI. I dont have doubts you can improve this. But the actual fighting is over pretty fast. Perhaps realistic, but i like a prolonged fight more than a fast one. It allows you to enjoy the fruits of your strategic labour.
I can always increase the hitpoints, so soldiers fight longer & i can enjoy that more, it does theoretically make units like gladiators, arcani, etc less useful.
ps.: Running infantry speeds are indeed quite fast. Consider jogging instead? How long can a soldier run anyway? Was their endurance better back then?
The infantry marching speed for MTW and RTW is the same: around 6 km/h. Yes it is actually too much for a line trying to keep its formation but it works fine for a game. For that matter running/jogging/trotting, or whatever we are gonna call it, doesn't have to be realistic either but its more a question of control.
For standard infantry in MTW "running" speed is 66% faster than marching speed while in RTW its nearly 3 times as fast as marching speed. Overall units in RTW run about 50-60% faster than MTW. Sometimes MTW battles could be a fast clickfest but in RTW its guaranteed.
It is certainly not realistic nor fun for me with so much chaos and clicking.
Funny thing is, at least from the numbers I have, is that in RTW infantry running speeds was increased more than cavalry run speed (60% increase for infantry and only 50% for cavalry)
CBR
well infantry can run mighty fast in RTW, making battles not very long.
The game unit movements and kill rates haven't sped up, at all, in any area of the game. :dizzy2:
Perhaps this perception to the contrary is either as a result of playing modded versions of the RTW game? i.e. where speeds and kill rates have been significantly reduced or a mistaken recollection of the original game speeds?
I play an RTW mod where the movement speed is slowed by 10%. My impression of the BI demo was that at least heavy cavalry was moving about the same speed as in the mod which would be slightly slower than vanilla RTW.
Remember, LongJohn made the argument in MTW that movement speed determines the effective size of the battlefield. Slower movement making the battlefield effectively larger. He refused a request to increase the running speed of cavalry in MTW, which was set at about 15 mph, by even 10%, and he even argued that 15 mph was historically accurate. I can dig out the post if you want it.
Relatively fast movement means you have to separate units by a greater distances, and it therefore takes more time to scroll the camera which makes it more difficult to control all of your units. The Battle of Chalons devolves into total chaos very quickly if you try to make individual unit matchups as the AI is doing. You were able to play by making individual matchups in the Total War games prior to RTW.
The way I got around this fast pace, and the way virtually everyone in multiplayer is coping with this is to use what CeltiMordred calls "snowball" tactics. For instance, as the Huns in the Chalons battle, I put my infantry line in guard mode and put my cavalry into two groups way out on the flanks. Once the Romans charged my line, I swept in with the two groups of cav on each flank. I didn't target any specific enemy units or give any unit specific commands. The battle is effectively reduced to 3 things to control, and that's how you keep up with the speed at which things are happening. In multiplayer, it's even more simplified as players are mostly using only two "snowballs"; one to engage frontally and the other to flank. In singleplayer, you have an AI that's trying to make individual matchups, and doesn't recognize the threat from massed groups sweeping in from the flanks.
At least with mods which slow fighting and movement, you can get back to a gameplay that allows giving orders to the individual units at the height of the battle. The mod I use only slows movement by 10%, but when coupled with a slowdown in fighting speed it allows a player to issue more movement orders to individual units which makes maneuver of individual units more important and increases the tactical complexity of the game. The AI copes well with this because it's trying to do the same thing.
Little Legioner
08-08-2005, 16:44
Remember, LongJohn made the argument in MTW that movement speed determines the effective size of the battlefield. Slower movement making the battlefield effectively larger. He refused a request to increase the running speed of cavalry in MTW, which was set at about 15 mph, by even 10%, and he even argued that 15 mph was historically accurate. I can dig out the post if you want it.
Relatively fast movement means you have to separate units by a greater distances, and it therefore takes more time to scroll the camera which makes it more difficult to control all of your units. The Battle of Chalons devolves into total chaos very quickly if you try to make individual unit matchups as the AI is doing. You were able to play by making individual matchups in the Total War games prior to RTW.
That's the point! Balancing the speeds crucially bound with battlemaps effectiveness. Ta da! :duel: Thank you PUZZ 3D! You expanded the critical subject.
An please mate dig it and post it the message. I guess we need some a succeed reference to get a clear stance. :book:
Squirrel_of_hatred
08-08-2005, 16:52
Ive unzipped the files/folders now they are sitting on my desktop where must they go or was it automated for you lads???
Just open the folder and launch the bi_demo.exe. Doesnt need to be installed.
CBR
Jochi Khan
08-08-2005, 17:08
With the Demo disc the instal created its own folder in
Program Files/Rome-Total war/Barbarian Invasion and also put a shortcut on my desktop.
You could create a folder in Program Files called Rome-Total War/Barbarian Invasion and put all the files in there. Then create a shortcut to your desktop.
Jochi
Enjoi_BlackHawk
08-08-2005, 18:01
Blackhawk i find it a very immpossible that a battle only lasted 1 minute. It would take one minute to get your army engaged with the other nevermind the fightinh taking place.
im talking about the actuall fighting, where my units engaged there units
The infantry marching speed for MTW and RTW is the same: around 6 km/h. Yes it is actually too much for a line trying to keep its formation but it works fine for a game. For that matter running/jogging/trotting, or whatever we are gonna call it, doesn't have to be realistic either but its more a question of control.
For standard infantry in MTW "running" speed is 66% faster than marching speed while in RTW its nearly 3 times as fast as marching speed. Overall units in RTW run about 50-60% faster than MTW. Sometimes MTW battles could be a fast clickfest but in RTW its guaranteed.
It is certainly not realistic nor fun for me with so much chaos and clicking.
I agree. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic, as long as it's controlable. One of the things I enjoyed about M:TW and S:TW was the slow pace of the battles, whereas in R:TW once combat is engaged it's over so fast that there is little you can do to influence it.
Melee killing rates may be the same as in M:TW, but that does not explain why I always manage to annihilate the enemy army. Once the battle lines are joined it is too easy to roll up the enemy line with cavalry charges from the flanks. And routing units, especially infantry, lose men very quickly.
I play an RTW mod where the movement speed is slowed by 10%. My impression of the BI demo was that at least heavy cavalry was moving about the same speed as in the mod which would be slightly slower than vanilla RTW.
You have mentioned this mod before. Where can it be found?
BobTheTerrible
08-08-2005, 20:42
Most mods lower the movement speed by 10%. It's not done by actually lowering the unit's movement, but by editing the terrain modifiers so that units move more slowly over different types of terrain. Somewhere in the data folder there should be a file for terrain modifiersm all you have to do is decrease the number for each terrain type. (for example, it will say grass- 1.0. Change that to .9 to make units move 10% slower over it) The animations will remain the same, so it will look a little funny.
Most mods lower the movement speed by 10%.
But simply lowering the movement speeds is not enough. This mod raises morale and defense slightly so that units fight longer, it reduces lethality of all non-spear units to 0.75, and increases the anti-cav bonus of spears. There are a few other minor changes like better javelins and longer range slingers. The result is better RPS gameplay, and the time to make use of it during the fighting. It typically takes 2 to 4 minutes for the fighting on the battleline to be resolved depending on the units involved. The AI benfits from the improved RPS as well. I've seen the AI counterflank my flanking units, it's flanking units now have time to seriously threaten your general, archers have more time to inflict damage and the AI is very smart about choosing good matchups. The suicide general is still a problem, as is the AI's tendency to use one unit at a time in certain situations.
I'll post the link to Mordred's mod here when I get home. He has a new version v0.11 which reduces the anti-cav bonus slightly because online experience with the mod was showing that infantry was beginning to dominate the battles.
Red Harvest
08-08-2005, 21:38
Remember, LongJohn made the argument in MTW that movement speed determines the effective size of the battlefield. Slower movement making the battlefield effectively larger.
Yes, and there is always going to be a scaling problem until the game can support tens of thousands of men on each side at a time. The scaling problem is "aspect ratio" and the difficulty of turning large formations. The typical RTW formation is about 1/5th to 1/10th as wide as it would need to be. Running laterally accross the field should be incredibly difficult to do mid battle. Rotating would have similar limitations, since the folks on the outside of the formation must walk much further, thereby limiting formation turning speed.
The scaling aspects present trouble for using a full motion video capture approach to the game.
Duke John
08-08-2005, 22:14
Played a few battles choosing sides depending on wether there were interesting units. I played casually and did use the pause button. I did not not use overly clever tactics and was able to win the battles. Perhaps I didn't pick the hardest sides, but as I got 2 CTDs already (never happened in normal R:TW) I got fed up with it already. Not impressed by it.
Melee killing rates may be the same as in M:TW, but that does not explain why I always manage to annihilate the enemy army. Once the battle lines are joined it is too easy to roll up the enemy line with cavalry charges from the flanks. And routing units, especially infantry, lose men very quickly.
Well the formula used for RTW combat has indeed increased killing speed but that is compensated by increased defense stat. Of course when using barbarian units that doesnt have enough defense the killing rate is higher.
I cant remember if a general's command rating increases both defense and attack stats or just attack stat...
But one thing for sure is that killing routers is now done a lot faster than STW/MTW and cavalry can get huge amounts of kills and IMO its too much.
CBR
gardibolt
08-08-2005, 23:17
Frankly, the units move far too slowly to suit me. It's duller than dishwater to wait for units to creep slooooooooowly across the battle field to engage. I always end up running things on triple game speed because otherwise I'm bored to tears during the movement phase.
It's a good thing that cavalry can get kills on routing units, because units on foot can never catch up with routing infantry units, which seems absurd.
And on another kind of movement, why does it take 4-5 years to sail from Spain to Egypt? It certainly seems like sailing ships should move at least as quickly as men can walk in formation, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Frankly, the units move far too slowly to suit me. It's duller than dishwater to wait for units to creep slooooooooowly across the battle field to engage. I always end up running things on triple game speed because otherwise I'm bored to tears during the movement phase.
This isn't a game where you are supposed to have constant non-stop action. The speed control is there so you can speed up the initial movement of the armies and the final stage of chasing routers.
It's a good thing that cavalry can get kills on routing units, because units on foot can never catch up with routing infantry units, which seems absurd.
I wouldn't expect infantry to catch infantry since they both run at the same speed. Routers do slow down once they tire, but the chasers are going to get tired as well.
And on another kind of movement, why does it take 4-5 years to sail from Spain to Egypt? It certainly seems like sailing ships should move at least as quickly as men can walk in formation, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think it's a game balancing thing because of the turn based nature of the strategic campaign. Even the land movement takes longer than it would have in real life. This gives the enemy a chance to interdict your movements since the game doesn't allow that in mid-turn. MikeB said they experimented with longer movement distances, but the gameplay became a blitzkrieg. There are traits which increase the distance a fleet moves per turn.
in the Demo i am finding things happen slower
if you give the guys an experience point or two and it makes them stand that little bit longer
movement speed seems to have been reduced for units,
get close to a routing infantry, it is moving across the ground slower than it's animation,
which, unless you get in real close, matters not one little bit because you cannot see it from a distance.
it still seems that all cav travel at same speed,??
i am seeing Heavy cav stay ahead of HA's.
and HA's getting caught by Heavy Cav
can anyone confirm? perhaps it was the unit matchups, or just me.
B.
well i havent noticed much cav speeds, but inf seem to run alot faster!
and cav are more powerful now, so they can actualyy breal formations!
CeltiberoMordred
08-09-2005, 14:00
You have mentioned this mod before. Where can it be found?
You can download it from here:
MCM-v0.11 English (http://files.filefront.com/MP_Community_Mod_Eng_v011_/;4024601;;/fileinfo.html)
Enjoy
SpencerH
08-09-2005, 14:23
it still seems that all cav travel at same speed,??
i am seeing Heavy cav stay ahead of HA's.
and HA's getting caught by Heavy Cav
can anyone confirm? perhaps it was the unit matchups, or just me.
B.
I did a quick and dirty test in Chalons. I simply lined up three units in extended lines then I double clicked an equidistant point for each unit to race to. Fresh Hunnic archers were definitely faster than Hunnic Heavy cav and Hunnic elite cav (the last two were the same speed)
SpencerH
08-09-2005, 14:37
More to that.
I'd estimate the distance raced to be about 1/3 the distance of the total battlefield length (assuming that the Hun line is set up at approx the centerpoint). What was noticable was that the difference in speed between the cav units was not visably noticable until about half the raced distance had passed. Therefore, over short distances (1/6 total battlefield) the differences in speed will be negligible and I would suggest that the speed differences at combat distances are moot (which agrees with your observation). If CA wants to have speed differences between cav types (and they should) the speed differences need to be more exaggerated (unless there is also a 'time to react' factor which could also be used to give light cav a speed advantage).
I did a quick and dirty test in Chalons. I simply lined up three units in extended lines then I double clicked an equidistant point for each unit to race to. Fresh Hunnic archers were definitely faster than Hunnic Heavy cav and Hunnic elite cav (the last two were the same speed)
TRUE,
but,
saxon heavy cav can catch goth horse archers, even if the HA's are on skirmish mode
goth HA's cannot catch saxon heavies
the hunnic cav are the fastest of the lot
put any HA on cantabrian circle and they are dog food if you dont watch em,
they seem to forget to skirmish in time to avoid charging cav, especially if you charge the cav past them.
it is currently impossible to put Goth HA's and Saxon heavies in the same army for a proper test
:(
B.
A.Saturnus
08-09-2005, 15:06
One thing I noticed is that unit coherence seems more flexible. I´ve seen a unit of Frankish spearmen spread out and building two bulks. In RTW 1.2 it could happen that a unit got "pulled back" because one or two men were engaged with an enemy unit. That seems to be less now.
Also, some unit animations seem more detailed now.
SpencerH
08-09-2005, 16:07
TRUE,
but,
saxon heavy cav can catch goth horse archers, even if the HA's are on skirmish mode
goth HA's cannot catch saxon heavies
the hunnic cav are the fastest of the lotB.
Perhaps Goth HA are considered heavy (as are the Hunnic elite despite being HA) and saxon 'heavy' is calc'd as medium speed.
From a realistic perspective one would expect that a charging heavy cav unit might occasionally catch HA that didnt react quickly enough. After all it takes a fair bit of time to turn a horse 180 degrees and ride away. OTOH, from a historical perspective, it should be a rare event.
put any HA on cantabrian circle and they are dog food if you dont watch em,
they seem to forget to skirmish in time to avoid charging cav, especially if you charge the cav past them.
B.
Why would anyone use cantabrian circle? IIRC it never worked correctly and any units using it were always 'easy pickings'.
You can download it from here:
MCM-v0.11 English (http://files.filefront.com/MP_Community_Mod_Eng_v011_/;4024601;;/fileinfo.html)
Enjoy
Thanks for the link.
I have installed it just now, but I couldn't get it to work. The game said there was an error loading the mount database. I did install it twice in different folders (I wanted to see which files where affected) but the problem remained after I uninstalled both, did a registry clean up and reinstalled the mod. Normal R:TW still works.
Do you know someone who can help me with this?
I did install it twice in different folders (I wanted to see which files where affected) but the problem remained after I uninstalled both, did a registry clean up and reinstalled the mod. Normal R:TW still works.
All the files go into a MPComMod folder under the main game folder, and the new shortcut points to that folder. I installed v0.11 andit works for me. Make sure you aren't installing it into a modded version of RTW.
Red Harvest
08-09-2005, 21:07
Why would anyone use cantabrian circle? IIRC it never worked correctly and any units using it were always 'easy pickings'.
It was very useful for dealing with the elite missile units. You could slowly attrit them while keeping them engaged without them cutting you to pieces in the process. They had to send another unit or two out to deal with the threat. Where it didn't work was versus fast charging units that could melee.
well the cantabrian circle was pretty usefull in RTW for Hores archer v other archers!
Why would anyone use cantabrian circle? IIRC it never worked correctly and any units using it were always 'easy pickings'.
eh?, because this is BI not Rome
bugs are supposed to have been fixed
we are doing what testing we can on the demo while the devs still have time to tweak the code
testing means trying to find the limits and testing as many features as you can,
BI Demo Bug Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52035)
BKB and Myself are making new battles for just that purpose,
well, that And to have a bit of fun too.
B.
SpencerH
08-10-2005, 00:32
It was very useful for dealing with the elite missile units. You could slowly attrit them while keeping them engaged without them cutting you to pieces in the process. They had to send another unit or two out to deal with the threat. Where it didn't work was versus fast charging units that could melee.
Hmmm? Perhaps I never tried that since I dont think I actually play a campaign where I had that many HA. I just recall the mounted javelin-based cantabrian circle as being a bit of a jerk (so to speak).
SpencerH
08-10-2005, 00:36
eh?, because this is BI not Rome
bugs are supposed to have been fixed
we are doing what testing we can on the demo while the devs still have time to tweak the code
testing means trying to find the limits and testing as many features as you can,
BI Demo Bug Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52035)
BKB and Myself are making new battles for just that purpose,
well, that And to have a bit of fun too.
B.
Thats why I started this thread too. Its just that I was never that impressed with the idea of the CC anyway.
EDIT: I tested the hun CC in Chalons and at least 2 of the 4 that I set 'a twirling' were caught by cav (including heavy cav). I saw one where the circle essentially stayed in place while light cav charged into them. Useless.
SpencerH
08-10-2005, 02:37
I just played the Frankish ambush and it was interesting as well as graphically brilliant. Since I didnt care about winning and losing I was able to zoom in and it seemed to me that the graphics were much more realistic looking than in RTW. There appeared to be much more fluid variation in how individuals were moving while in contact with the enemy. I was amazed at how appropriate some of the actions were.
I was somewhat disappointed with Badon Hill which seemed much less dark than this mod. If this is the way it goes in BI, night battles will be something of a challenge. With no terrain to view and less knowledge of what I was facing I had to completely change my tactics!
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-10-2005, 03:03
How powerful is your PC, Spencer? :book:
SpencerH
08-10-2005, 03:57
How powerful is your PC, Spencer? :book:
Nothing special, a 2.8 GHz P4, ATI 9700. Why?
Squirrel_of_hatred
08-10-2005, 04:19
Ive played the demo and my initial impression is that im not impressed the whole selling point for them is the glowing colours from the onanger's etc. Its not really that good or realistic but for me its something that is not mportant. but it appears to be their big selling point this worries me.
The most important part is the-
Mending of the multiplayer so as that everyone can actually play it online,
the AI not being retarded,
other units looking as well in detail as the roman counterparts,-not addressed
the correct balancing of the armies so that 1 urban cohort cannot hold out against ridiculous, unrealistic odds against barb infantry or vice versa.
more detailed realistic morale -seems they have done something. will it match MTW? ~:)
the voices on the non roman factions are absolutely awful, terrible, sounds like a squeeky kid that was paid 5 quid, people should know to which i refer.
Loinnreach
08-11-2005, 09:51
I see here quit few SP issues. We are aware that SP was even in RTW much better then MP for example 75%.
I know market philosophy, but all I'm asking is what I've already posted and mention. (related on CA)
Few of us who have all TW series at home is mainly becaus MP reason. We also posted few posts with few issues to be address.
Despite that history has repeated intself quit few times, I'm being optimistic once more - for BI.
SpencerH
08-11-2005, 15:15
I see here quit few SP issues. We are aware that SP was even in RTW much better then MP for example 75%.
I know market philosophy, but all I'm asking is what I've already posted and mention. (related on CA)
Few of us who have all TW series at home is mainly becaus MP reason. We also posted few posts with few issues to be address.
Despite that history has repeated intself quit few times, I'm being optimistic once more - for BI.
Have you played the demo? If so, what did you think? If not...............
All the files go into a MPComMod folder under the main game folder, and the new shortcut points to that folder. I installed v0.11 andit works for me. Make sure you aren't installing it into a modded version of RTW.
Thanks, I got it to work by installing in a 'clean' R:TW folder. Though I don't understand why he refused to work in the other folder: the only differences were a few edited text files and two new maps to store the original data.
CeltiberoMordred
08-12-2005, 14:48
Thanks, I got it to work by installing in a 'clean' R:TW folder. Though I don't understand why he refused to work in the other folder: the only differences were a few edited text files and two new maps to store the original data.
Because that would force players who want to continue playing vanilla to expend another 2 Gb to install a Mod. With MCM, people can play both, vanilla and modded version using the same rome installation.
IMO, all modders should make their mods in a separated folder, so everybody could play several mods installed over the same vanilla RTW. BI have been made so too.
*bows*
CeltiberoMordred
08-12-2005, 14:52
Thanks for the link.
I have installed it just now, but I couldn't get it to work. The game said there was an error loading the mount database. I did install it twice in different folders (I wanted to see which files where affected) but the problem remained after I uninstalled both, did a registry clean up and reinstalled the mod. Normal R:TW still works.
Do you know someone who can help me with this?
That's because your RTW is not "clean" : it contains the player1 bugfixer. If player1 would have made its bugfixer in a separated folder that would not happen ~D.
That's because your RTW is not "clean" : it contains the player1 bugfixer. If player1 would have made its bugfixer in a separated folder that would not happen ~D.
Ah, but then it wouldn't be a bug-fixer. It would be a mod ~D .
CeltiberoMordred
08-13-2005, 15:09
Ah, but then it wouldn't be a bug-fixer. It would be a mod ~D .
It's a mod called "bug-fixer" indeed ~:cheers:
Orda Khan
08-15-2005, 02:07
I don't know what to say about some of the points raised in this thread....
Maybe I'll just comment on the cantabrian circle issue. It seems obvious to me that this feature can leave that particular unit in a vulnerable state. This is not a command to be issued and forgotten about because light cav especially are going to get amongst them and do a lot of damage. I played the Chalons battle many times and in different ways. I used the Hun elite and HA with and without cantabrian circle. There is no way that those units are going to change formation and skirmish away out of trouble all by themselves so you must not 'forget' about them. Used wisely, I think cantabrian circle makes them more efficient
.....Orda
Excellent posts in this thread, one and all. Thanks very much for the analysis and insight. :bow:
It's a mod called "bug-fixer" indeed ~:cheers:
There is a reason why I added original data folder in install, as well as integration section in the readme.
Also seperate folder idea doesn't really work, since while with -mod parameter some files could be read from seperate folder is does not work for all essential files. Also, custom battles can't be started that way.
from readme:
Integration Guide
This guide is for users that want to mix and match different mods. It shows which bug-fixer files require other bug-fixer files to work properly.
descr_model_battle.txt requires:
-greek_archer_merc_sprite_new.spr
-greek_archer_merc_sprite_new_000.tga.dds
descr_mount.txt requires:
-descr_model_battle.txt
export_descr_unit.txt requires:
-descr_mount.txt
-descr_model_battle.txt
export_descr_ancillaries.txt requires:
-export_descr_character_traits.txt
So, if you use bug-fixer export_descr_unit.txt file, you also need to use bug-fixer descr_mount.txt and descr_model_battle.txt files to make things work properly.
On the other hand, if you plan to use export_descr_unit.txt file from some other mod, it won't have negative impact on other parts of bug-fixer, since no other part of bug-fixer requires export_descr_unit.txt file.
In some cases, when applying other mods, you need to use some of original files instead of those from bug-fixer. For example, if you want to use some mod that modifies export_descr_character_traits.txt file, you can't use it together with bug-fixer export_descr_ancillaries.txt file, since it requires bug-fixer version of export_descr_character_traits.txt file. In such case, you need to use original export_descr_ancillaries.txt file instead of one from bug-fixer (can be found in Original Data folder).
Lonely Soldier
08-15-2005, 09:37
I just DL'ed and played through the demo then...
All I can say is U G L Y units! OMG they were hideous.
The Franks particularly! Thank God for RTR!
All I can say is U G L Y units! OMG they were hideous.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I am almost certain that the colours are not historically accurate in some cases.
It is my understanding that purple colouring could only be gathered from a particular type of shellfish in those days, and that the process of making purple dye was both labour intensive and VERY expensive. In brief, there is no way that an entire Roman battlegroup could be outfitted in purple regalia. Hence, purple was known as a "royal colour" because only nobility, or the very rich, could afford a touch of purple on their garments.
Maybe Orda Khan or one of the other historians could confirm this, but I'm pretty sure that such was the case back then.
Zenicetus
08-15-2005, 20:06
The colors bother me too. There are too many primary "digital paintbox" colors. It's a Crayola version of the ancient world. I don't know enough about the history of dyes to be certain, but it seems to me that the range of colors for clothing, shield paint, etc. would have been at least somewhat limited, and probably further away from the pure primaries we take for granted today.
BI (and RTW too) has the look of the early Technicolor movie epics, where all the colors were bright, bright, bright. More modern historical movies tend to use a dulled-down palette, which (historical or not) I think looks better. There is also more (simulated) dirt and dust on everything in most modern historical movies. That's another thing lacking in the look of RTW/BI. All the soldiers are just way too clean... like they put on freshly laundered uniforms for drill inspection in a training barracks, instead of wearing the same thing after a months-long march through enemy territory. Dulling down the palette would help kill that "freshly laundered" look.
CeltiberoMordred
08-15-2005, 21:09
Also seperate folder idea doesn't really work, since while with -mod parameter some files could be read from seperate folder is does not work for all essential files. Also, custom battles can't be started that way.
That's not true. Check my mod and see: separate folder works and custom battles can be started that way. ~;)
Orda Khan
08-15-2005, 21:35
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I am almost certain that the colours are not historically accurate in some cases.
It is my understanding that purple colouring could only be gathered from a particular type of shellfish in those days, and that the process of making purple dye was both labour intensive and VERY expensive. In brief, there is no way that an entire Roman battlegroup could be outfitted in purple regalia. Hence, purple was known as a "royal colour" because only nobility, or the very rich, could afford a touch of purple on their garments.
Maybe Orda Khan or one of the other historians could confirm this, but I'm pretty sure that such was the case back then.
The colour Purple was indeed regarded as the colour of nobility and I must add that I am honoured to be mentioned by one of our very own 'royal' members ( as in April 1999 ) It is so good to see the original members such as yourself, Kurando, still posting at the Org :bow:
.......Orda
P.S. I doubt whether each soldier would look exactly alike either, there is only so much that can be achieved by a game and colour coordination in order to identify your army is ok by me
That's not true. Check my mod and see: separate folder works and custom battles can be started that way. ~;)
Correction: It does not work for all mods...
For example, when I tried to make all faction mod as seperate.
I hope CA will improve this function in the future.
The colour Purple was indeed regarded as the colour of nobility and I must add that I am honoured to be mentioned by one of our very own 'royal' members ( as in April 1999 ) It is so good to see the original members such as yourself, Kurando, still posting at the Org :bow:
You flatter me with your complements, Mongol + the fact that I am still around after this long is due to two reasons:
1) That Tosa and company have kept the site going, and that the quality of the org patrons and moderators is always top notch.
2) That the Total War series itself is such a superb group of games. I think that BI is just another progression in this series and it keeps getting better. S:TW delivered the goods and R:TW was unquestionably a masterpiece.
..
As per the colours I'd have to agree: the main thing is establishing identity on the battlefield + historical accuracy is a distant concern. I recall that the original Shogun totalwar movies featured units that were so colourful that we nic named them "smurf armies" so Richie and the dev team toned them down a bit. I think the trend back towards more colour in the battle groups is clearly evident in BI, and this is a mixed blessing.
As per Lonely Soldier's contention that the units are ugly, I'd have to agree and say that too is a mixed blessing; nonetheless I'd be more worried if the Barbarians were pretty... Heck, the are barbarians after all! ~;)
CeltiberoMordred
08-16-2005, 08:13
Correction: It does not work for all mods...
For example, when I tried to make all faction mod as seperate.
I hope CA will improve this function in the future.
That's very simple: you can make all factions available simply putting your modified file in mymod\world\maps\campaign\imperial campaign\descr_strat.txt and then adding -mod:mymod to the shortcut route ~:confused:
Please, take a look at my mod just to see the structure. The only problem I've found so far is with skeletons files.
CA added this feature in 1.2 patch, but it seems that modders are not using it. I don't know why, maybe they don't know how to do it works properly, but I did it and it's really easy.
Trust me, I experimented with -mod a lot.
In this case, you would also need to manualy move all pics from same folder to mod folder, since otherwise it would behaive like pics are not there.
Plus custom battles would not work (in this case).
But, what really killed this featue for me is that txt file for text folders are always read from original game, which really limits the use of this function.
CeltiberoMordred
08-17-2005, 08:04
Trust me, I experimented with -mod a lot.
In this case, you would also need to manualy move all pics from same folder to mod folder, since otherwise it would behaive like pics are not there.
Plus custom battles would not work (in this case).
But, what really killed this featue for me is that txt file for text folders are always read from original game, which really limits the use of this function.
I can't trust you because I already got it. You are just telling me that I cannot achieve what I already achieved. And the fact is that I didn't have to move any pic from data folder to mod folder. If you didn't get it, it doesn't mean that others cannot do it.
My mod uses the -mod feature and I have included new units and skins, as well as several stuff I considered good for it. And Custom battles work, even multiplayer games. Other mods can't say the same.
The only thing that is right is that .txt files for text folders are always read from original game, what annoys me too.
PD: maybe we should continue this discussion by pm's ;)
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-17-2005, 08:13
Correction: It does not work for all mods...
For example, when I tried to make all faction mod as seperate.
I hope CA will improve this function in the future.
I have tried and test a few mods. Most modders are not aware of the -mod function, or just too plain lazy to implement it well.
And that's too bad, because the function does work well... and if modders were really willing to do it, everyone would be able to run multiple mods + vanilla on one install.
That also reminds me that the link in your sig is not using that functionality. Consequence; you can't play MP with it, and it screw up other mods that are using properly the -mod function.
Louis,
Lord Adherbal
08-17-2005, 11:21
Please, take a look at my mod just to see the structure. The only problem I've found so far is with skeletons files.
isn't that exactly what most of the major mods change ? next to the estethic part of new animations, RTW has very few different speeds between lightly armoured and heavily armoured units.
Adherbal']isn't that exactly what most of the major mods change ? next to the estethic part of new animations, RTW has very few different speeds between lightly armoured and heavily armoured units.
Three speeds for infantry and three for cav would have been better, but you can make do with two for each to maintain compatibility. Mordred's mod is the only one I know of that tried to maintain compatibility, and that's critical in getting a mod used online. The gameplay certainly hasn't suffered because Mordred's mod provides battle gameplay which is better than any other RTW mod I've tried, and the campaign is improved as well.
SpencerH
08-17-2005, 13:00
Three speeds for infantry and three for cav would have been better, but you can make do with two for each to maintain compatibility. Mordred's mod is the only one I know of that tried to maintain compatibility, and that's critical in getting a mod used online. The gameplay certainly hasn't suffered because Mordred's mod provides battle gameplay which is better than any other RTW mod I've tried, and the campaign is improved as well.
Do you have a quick (i.e. one that wont take you too long to get) link to that mod?
Do you have a quick (i.e. one that wont take you too long to get) link to that mod?
You can download it from here:
MCM-v0.11 English (http://files.filefront.com/MP_Community_Mod_Eng_v011_/;4024601;;/fileinfo.html)
I have tried and test a few mods. Most modders are not aware of the -mod function, or just too plain lazy to implement it well.
And that's too bad, because the function does work well... and if modders were really willing to do it, everyone would be able to run multiple mods + vanilla on one install.
That also reminds me that the link in your sig is not using that functionality. Consequence; you can't play MP with it, and it screw up other mods that are using properly the -mod function.
Louis,
Ok, then put bugfixer in seperate folder, use -mod function, and please try to start imperial campaign or custom battle.
If you succeed, then please tell me how you did it, and what I missed.
My experience is that for this to work, is that I need to feed that folder with copies of buch of original unmofidied files too, to get it to work (especially imperial_campaign folder).
And even then, since text folder still need to be original, then what is really the point. It would still screw some mod then mods txt files...
P.S.
CA did said that -mod function is incomplete, and it doesn't work for all files, and that it will be improved in expansion.
I do expect moding revolution then, and extensive use of -mod too.
By the way, I think MCM users could easily make it bug-fixer "compatilbe", if they copy original files that MCM doesn't modify to MCM folder. That way they would use original values instead of bug-fixer ones.
EDIT:
My hunch says that by just puting original descr_mount.txt to your MCM folder, will make it work over MCM (while keeping bug-fixer for SP game).
CeltiberoMordred
08-17-2005, 15:26
By the way, I think MCM users could easily make it bug-fixer "compatilbe", if they copy original files that MCM doesn't modify to MCM folder. That way they would use original values instead of bug-fixer ones.
EDIT:
My hunch says that by just puting original descr_mount.txt to your MCM folder, will make it work over MCM (while keeping bug-fixer for SP game).
But that would make MCM non compatible with multiplayer. MCM needs a clean vanilla installation and not to manipulate its own files to work in multiplayer games.
Ok, then put bugfixer in seperate folder, use -mod function, and please try to start imperial campaign or custom battle.
If you succeed, then please tell me how you did it, and what I missed.
I've been watching your bugfixer and if you want how to make it using -mod, you have to put the original descr_strat file in your mymod folder. In addition, you will have to put text, UI and sprites folders in Data and not in mymod folder. As you didn't add new models nor textures, you don't have to redirectionate entries from descr_model_battle.txt.
As I said, just take a look at my mod to learn how to.
If you have any question about how to mod using this feature, please pm me because this is off topic, this thread is to talk about BI demo.
Yes, I just realised, after some experimentation, that descr_strat is requred to be able to start either campaign or custom battles.
Probably the reason why my earlier experiments failed.
Although, as I noticed earlier, I still need to manaully place TGAs from original imperial_campaign folder to mymod version, in order to show map on faction selection screen properly.
This still leaves question of text folder, probably why I won't use this structure (until BI).
Anyway, as far as I'm aware in order to use original MP with bugfixer installed, all it is necessary is to use original export_descr_units.txt file (supplied with bugfixer backup folder). It was enough to not show warning when loading original game replays.
SpencerH
08-18-2005, 01:27
You can download it from here:
MCM-v0.11 English (http://files.filefront.com/MP_Community_Mod_Eng_v011_/;4024601;;/fileinfo.html)
Thanks
Since this thread has shifted toward a mod discussion I have to wonder whether anyone is still playing the demo?
sorry...
BI demo has great looking barbarian captain skins.
You know the brown guy with brown shield.
Maybe it's because he does not suffer from faction color overuse?
SpencerH
08-18-2005, 16:59
I really dont mind about the mod discussion. As far as I'm concerned, with all the excellent work you've done for RTW you can discuss what you want where you want.
I honestly just wonder whether the lack of posts over the last few days indicates a real lack of enthusiasm for the demo. On the other hand, I only played the RTW demo once, so who knows.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.