RTW and M2: TW.. The same?

[x-dANGEr]

As I expressed in various topics, I really see no big difference between M2: TW and RTW 'graphics' - till now -. Basically, we only saw M: TW re-made in a 3D engine, that is RTW's. We can't really see anything more than the general 'graphics' level through screenies, yes we can know more about the game features through the articles; but, how many of the so-far announced features are actually new? Or have had you excited for the game more? And, will M2: TW be another RTW with other units along with content from the original M:TW, or it will be a whole new game to look forward to?

[doc_bean]

All depends on the AI.

If it has better AI than Rome, so that it can actually provide a decent challenge on the battlefield I will buy it, even if everything else is just updated RTW.

[x-dANGEr]

The AI will never provide a challenge in a total war kind of game, simply because their are many many many possibilities, tactics; and counters for each tactic. So, I don't think you should really dream about it, after all, you have a mind, and you can develope tactics the AI has no idea about. Yes, it can be made better, but to pose a threat, that is a far chance if you ask me.

[doc_bean]

Well, I at least want it back at MTW level.

there's just no challenge in armies that walk straight into your pikes...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

you've forgotton that shogun was turned into mtw with only a few changes which is what rtw into m2tw is a bit like... i think CA have a certain style of development although they have promised a decent few improvements in AI which i am looking forward to

[DukeofSerbia]

As I saw in screenshots M2 TW have RTW engine, but it is drasticly improved. There is even difference between BI and RTW 1.5 graphics and RTW 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.

The major improvement in M2 TW should be AI, who was pretty good in MTW and VI (especially after moding), but is pretty bad in RTW and BI. I like simlificity of MTW (diplomacy, agents and religion).

Graphics means nothing without good AI. I still play MTW+VI+XL as game in medium is harder for than RTW in very hard. I don't care for complex diplomacy which is implemented in RTW, but basicly don't work well. AI in RTW lose almost everything and they offer me to become their protectorate and gave them all provinces which I conquer from them. :laugh4: :wall:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I actually think MTW2 is likely to have better AI than RTW, because they've hired a TW gamer to help them with many scenarios that a TW fan will discover after playing vs the AI for long enough. Also they've got the graphics engine now so now AI is likely to constitute a larger portion of the coding work they put into the game. But after RTW I'm a bit sceptic so I won't buy it until good TW players have assured me MTW2 has EB or MTW1 style battle speed, fewer fantasy units, and good stats balancing that makes both strat map and battles a challenge, and the AI behaves in a way that makes for fewer, larger, crucial battles and very few brigand hunting style battles. If they have too many fantasy units I'll wait with buying until the first realism mod is out. If the other problems seem possible to solve with modding I'll wait until mods have fixed them before buying.

[A.Saturnus]

The graphics are definitely better. The landscape looks more realistic, individual men in an unit aren't clones, men get covered in blood and dirt during battle and what we've seen from the very short video, unit animations are also greatly improved. I don't think that the graphics are something to be concerned about.
About the gameplay aspects, there will be new features like new agents, a more important role for religion and different lines of development for settlements including a much more elaborate building tree. And don't forget about the character/turn-time-paradimensionality. Whether that's enough or an improvement to speak of a different/better game, that has to be seen.

But actually, I'll be happy if the trees have the right size.

[econ21]

The AI will never provide a challenge in a total war kind of game, simply because their are many many many possibilities, tactics; and counters for each tactic.

Have you played Shogun as Oda or MTW as HRE? I find them pretty challenging. I used to think RTW could never be challenging but then I tried the Roma mod and was appalled at how difficult it is.

TW can be pretty challenging if the AI has sufficient quantity and quality of men to over-run you. Maybe you can use gamey tactics to win a battle (you have to in the Roma mod, your units are so nerfed), but playing battles using historical tactics, there is a limit to the odds you can beat.

I know some people say the RTW battlefield AI got dumbed down compared to Shogun and Medieval, but I don't notice that so much. Personally, I think the reason the TW got unchallenging was the switch from the risk map to the open RTW. This greatly increases the possibilities, making good AI harder to achieve, but perhaps more importantly, it makes it easier for you to defeat AI armies piecemeal (in STW and MTW, they can just pour into a key province and overwhelm you in one turn).

[Martok]

I know some people say the RTW battlefield AI got dumbed down compared to Shogun and Medieval, but I don't notice that so much. Personally, I think the reason the TW got unchallenging was the switch from the risk map to the open RTW. This greatly increases the possibilities, making good AI possible, but perhaps more importantly, it makes it easier for you to defeat AI armies piecemeal (in STW and MTW, they can just pour into a key province and overwhelm you in one turn).


I agree the problems with Rome's campaign AI probably had more to do with it being woefully unable to cope with the new 3D map. I strongly disagree with your opinion of Rome's combat AI, however; I'm honestly shocked that you don't notice the disparity!

Not that I'm about to claim Shogun and MTW's battle AI was perfect--far from it--but Rome's was grossly incompetent, plain and simple. I'm not looking to offend anyone at CA, but it's true. Archers rush into melee instead of withdrawing to a safer distance; cavalry runs headlong into phalanxes; units advance just a few at a time (only to be destroyed piecemeal) instead of moving as a whole front; defenders abandon the high ground and/or heavily wooded areas. And then there's all the suicidal generals.... [sigh]

Now granted, I also win the majority of battles in Shogun and MTW. There's still a big difference, however, between those two games and Rome. Despite its flaws, the combat AI in Shoggy and MTW usually makes me sweat (worrying whether my men will pull off a win or not). In Rome, I don't think I ever--not once--felt the same sense of urgency and nervous tension. In RTW, I never felt like I was in danger of losing--save for the few battles where I'd sent men on suicide missions, knowing they were probably going to be slaughtered. I'm outnumbered 3 to 1? No problem; I'll still probably pull off a heroic victory with minimal losses. Now, I can also win in Shoggy/MTW with similar odds, yes--but not always, and even a victory is usually very costly in terms of men lost (unlike in Rome).

[econ21]

Not that I'm about to claim Shogun and MTW's battle AI was perfect--far from it--but Rome's was grossly incompetent, plain and simple. I'm not looking to offend anyone at CA, but it's true. Archers rush into melee instead of withdrawing to a safer distance; cavalry runs headlong into phalanxes; units advance just a few at a time (only to be destroyed piecemeal) instead of moving as a whole front; defenders abandon the high ground and/or heavily wooded areas. And then there's all the suicidal generals....

Well, I've just finished a reign in a WRE PBM campaign and did not notice any of those AI flaws. I'm not saying they are not there or that I have not noticed them before, it's just they were not aggravating enough for me to notice them during those 20+ turns. As the hordes, the Samartian/Hun AI seemed to do a reasonable job with its horse archers (flanking me, keeping out of melee range). The low quality of its spears and the shortage of anything else rather hamstrung it, but it did not do anything noticeably stupid (like suicide generals). The ERE battlefield AI also seemed fair - nothing plainly incompetent. I defeat the AI using exactly the same tactics as I used to defeat the STW and MTW AI.

I don't know whether any of the flaws got fixed after 1.3. I do notice suicide generals and charging archers in the 1.3 mods like EB and RTR. But the suicide generals seem less pronounced than in STW and the AI has never really done very well with its archers.

The only really big gripe I have with RTWs battlefield AI was the way it could not handle phalanxes (breaking up its line and allowing them to be destroyed piecemeal). I haven't played enough 1.5 to know if that has been fixed. But regardless, it won't be such a big deal for M2TW where phalanxes will be less central.

The siege AI could use a lot of work, though.

[x-dANGEr]

TW can be pretty challenging if the AI has sufficient quantity and quality of men to over-run you. Maybe you can use gamey tactics to win a battle (you have to in the Roma mod, your units are so nerfed), but playing battles using historical tactics, there is a limit to the odds you can beat.


This is the thing.. I don't want the AI to be able to beat me just because it has 1000 men and I only have 10, or because it has +8 attack +4 defence.. I want it to beat me because it has skill, and I think that is a thing that can never be achieved, at least in the near future that is.

[Trax]

I haven't played enough 1.5 to know if that has been fixed.

Playing as the Greeks the Macedonian pikemen constantly brake up their phalanx line to chase my militia cavalry around the map :no:

[doc_bean]

The only really big gripe I have with RTWs battlefield AI was the way it could not handle phalanxes (breaking up its line and allowing them to be destroyed piecemeal). I haven't played enough 1.5 to know if that has been fixed. But regardless, it won't be such a big deal for M2TW where phalanxes will be less central.


Too bad they're so common of course :no:

MTW2 will feature pikemen, so they'd better fix it !

[Servius]

Q1: "how many of the so-far announced features are actually new? Or have had you excited for the game more?"
A1: Aside from the graphical changes/improvements (which I see as wrapping paper) the city-or-castle idea is new, and could be cool. An improved AI would be absolutely wonderful. They say the diplomatic AI and interface is better, but I've never bought a military conquest game to quible with diplomats. There are possible additions of unit abilities, but RTW took many away and introduces several that didn't seem that impressive, so who knows. Other than that, I'm not really sure what else is really new TO THE SERIES. I don't count as "new" anything that used to be in STW or MTW.

Q2: "will M2: TW be another RTW with other units along with content from the original M:TW, or it will be a whole new game to look forward to?"
A2: Time will tell. The only thing that seems absolutely brought over from RTW is the graphical engine, which appears to have been upgraded. Everything else is up in the air. It seems to me that CA has the option to redesign/impliment practically everything else. I just don't know what they will and won't opt to change. If they improve the stuff I didn't like, I probably will buy it, but since I was so disappointed with RTW, unlike all previous TW games, I won't buy MTW2 sight-unseen. I'll wait to see what the consensus is here before making a decision. I used to think I could trust GameSpot, but they gave RTW a 9.2 I think, so we obviously disagree.

[ShadesWolf]

I hope that the AI is improved. But my only major worry is that the online aspect will be almost ignored again, as in most previous games.

The online part of the game is for me what will make the total war series actually become GREAT. Online is a massive frontier, once they can achieve this then the game will be great.

At the moment we are restricted to 4v4 matches, once we remove this limit, who knows what could be achieved. How about a battle where its 10 v 10 and the players can change during the battle. This would open up a whole new chapter.....

[x-dANGEr]

I used to think I could trust GameSpot, but they gave RTW a 9.2 I think, so we obviously disagree.
Basically, I think R: TW was an improvement to M: TW. Better graphics (What most people look at anyway), and seemingly new features (The Senate, the Civil War, and so on..). It may have removed some features from the previous games, but I think those were removed because they weren't appropiate with the Roman era.


At the moment we are restricted to 4v4 matches, once we remove this limit, who knows what could be achieved. How about a battle where its 10 v 10 and the players can change during the battle. This would open up a whole new chapter.....
Currently, people are having a pain in getting a 4 on 4 going. So, a 10 on 10, is a battle size, that maybe %0.0000001 of the hours spent in MP-ing, will be invested in getting such a battle going.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

All depends on the AI.

If it has better AI than Rome, so that it can actually provide a decent challenge on the battlefield I will buy it, even if everything else is just updated RTW.
wasn't the AI better in BI?

[Quietus]

The purported, pre-E3 improvements of M2TW (some easily confirmed):

-Better AI.
-Better Graphics.
-Better Diplomacy.
-Better Motion capture and Animation.
-New recruitment system.
-Town (economic) vs. Castle (military) tech tree.
-Semi-differentiated individual troops.
-Dynamic terrain (mud, stakes).
-the return of the assassination videos (STW).
-the return of 'dynamic weather' in the battlefield. (STW, very limited in MTW).
-the return of 'impassable terrains' (STW, limited in MTW).
-the return of capturing prisoners (MTW).
-the return of religious agents (STW and MTW). I never had BI.
-the return of princesses (useless in MTW).
-addition of merchants and resource-capturing.

Not all are confirmed. Nor it can be determined if they truly improve gameplay. Also, note that a lot are just old, returning features.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Of those, I hadn't seen:

-New recruitment system
-the return of capturing prisoners (MTW)

Anybody have some disreputable (or even upstanding) links?

---
And princesses weren't useless! :furious3:

[Martok]

And princesses weren't useless! :furious3:


No, but even I have to admit they were of only limited utility. This is particularly true, as they were only usable for what--18 turns or so?--before they became spinsters. They weren't like your other agents, which essentially lived forever (assuming they weren't killed, of course).

[Quietus]

Of those, I hadn't seen:

-New recruitment system
-the return of capturing prisoners (MTW)

Anybody have some disreputable (or even upstanding) links?

From IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/699/699515p1.html):


We've also introduced a new recruitment system, a new enhanced system for the treatment of religion, enhanced diplomacy, new trade options, improved missions, improved sabotage and espionage, improved AI, new tech tree buildings and new agent characters.

From Gamedaily (http://pc.gamedaily.com/game/features/?gameid=4928&id=296):


Training your new recruits has also been sped up. In Medieval 2 you can train up to four new recruits in a single term

Let me find the 'prisoners' source, I can't recall at the moment. :sweatdrop:


And princesses weren't useless! :furious3: If you attack all the time, princesses are just spies....

[doc_bean]

wasn't the AI better in BI?

I don't have BI, I have played RTW 1.5 though. The AI isn't really better but things like moral and kill speed are balanced a little better I believe.

[ShadesWolf]

Currently, people are having a pain in getting a 4 on 4 going. So, a 10 on 10, is a battle size, that maybe %0.0000001 of the hours spent in MP-ing, will be invested in getting such a battle going.

The reason why my clan went away onto other games, like battlefield was the lack of large multiplayer battles. We cut our teeth on Shogun and expected better with new game releases. But we are still in the same technology as 6 years ago.

If other games companies can get 40v40 then whats the problem. As I stated either if might mean u have a few less units for this type of large battle, maybe only 5 or 4. But overall the battle might still contain 40 units v 40 units.

So lets assume 4 units of 100men x 10players x 2 armies
So this only gives us 8000 men in total. Quite possible.

And I cant understand why players cant join and leave battle, the AI should be able to take over in both cases. Players join bringing reserves that thave been allocated prior to the battle by the main general etc.....

To my simple mind, this is quite possible.

EDIT for spelling and grammer mistakes

[Captain Fishpants]

Before I start, I must point out that I am not on the M2TW team and have had only a small involvement in the development process. As a result, this should be seen as an informed opinion, but not necessarily an insider opinion.

I think it's only fair to point out that Medieval 2 and Medieval are bound to have similarities - they are covering the same historical ground. However, from what I've seen of M2TW it is *not* the same game as RTW. The core engine has been reused, as you'd expect (starting afresh would have been a commercially stupid decision, after all). If you think of the quality of differences between, say, the original STW and MTWVI, you'll have an inkling of the development work that has gone on - you can see the ancestry, but there has been evolution as well. If you give it a chance, I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

And by the way, princesses were far from useless. Apart from anything else, they were *free* agents who could be used to spy, secure a general's loyalty and cement an alliance as well as being largely ignored by assassins and inquisitors.

[x-dANGEr]

My general question is: Would someone who isn't concerned by Graphics level not see M2: TW as an improvement to M: TW?

[ShadesWolf]

Thankyou for your reply Captain Fishpants

[Orda Khan]

If we are talking AI, sorry Captain but STW was better than MTW/VI, IMO and the AI of both was far better than RTW. RTW has been a case of Rome Total Misery for MP, with so many frustrating issues that many, myself included, gave up playing. We need some confirmation that either the AI has been vastly improved or MP has been vastly improved otherwise it will just be a case of pretty graphics. I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that things have not improved with each new release. I have been more than willing to give each game a chance but you must appreciate that there is quite an outlay for the game itself, plus possibly a PC upgrade. How would I feel after spending that cash and finding more of the same?
The Mediaeval time frame is an historical favourite of mine....I want this game to represent that era well, I want it to be the best so far

....Orda

[Geoffrey S]

Apart from anything else, [princesses] were *free* agents who could be used to spy, secure a general's loyalty and cement an alliance as well as being largely ignored by assassins and inquisitors.
Not by mine, they weren't... :mean:

[DukeofSerbia]

And by the way, princesses were far from useless. Apart from anything else, they were *free* agents who could be used to spy, secure a general's loyalty and cement an alliance as well as being largely ignored by assassins and inquisitors.

I agree. They had usage but they were expeled without any reason from RTW.

[Martok]

Thanks for the reply, Captain Fishpants; it's always appreciated to see input/feedback from you guys! I do second Orda Khan's concerns, however. While I respectfully disagree that Shogun is better than Medieval (and even that would be like comparing the difference between a Porsche and a Ferrari, IMO ~;)), I concur with him that Rome was a step back from either game in most respects.

I know that CA has mentioned several times now that Medieval 2 will have improved AI and multiplayer. I'm genuinely heartened by this, as it indicates the Australia team is indeed giving these issues the attention they deserve. Unfortunately, we of course can't see the improvements in those areas like we can with the graphics. And since I seem to recall that Rome was *also* supposed to have updated AI and robust mutliplayer, I feel I have no choice but to remain at least somewhat skeptical until Medieval 2 is released and throughly reviewed.


My general question is: Would someone who isn't concerned by Graphics level not see M2: TW as an improvement to M: TW?
I believe that is probably the most relavent question here. (Well put, x-Danger.)


Oh, and for the record, I don't think princesses are useless. I agree they're quite nice for securing alliances and improving a general's loyalty--not to mention that yes, they're free. I'm just saying they're limited, in that unlike other agents, they have a finite shelf life. ~:)

[Quietus]

And by the way, princesses were far from useless. Apart from anything else, they were *free* agents who could be used to spy, secure a general's loyalty and cement an alliance as well as being largely ignored by assassins and inquisitors. I assume this is MTW not M2TW. I do not agree at all. Princesses are redundant. They just create unneccessary civil war scenario. One only need a leader, several heirs, any general, a balanced army (production), diplomats and religious agents, complete sea control, continuous building and the game is finished (2/3 conquest) in 100 years ( without even blitzing with multiple armies).

As for the Capturing Prisoners, it's confirmed, AlexanderTPG. There's a thread at the .com from someone who attended E3.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=1905.topic


So I just got home from e3 and I got a good look at M2.

It looks really good. I think its going to be the best game in the series.

So some higlights.

Visuals:
The knights look incredible. Both in the saddle and on foot they look great. There are tons more animations with folow through moves, multipe fatality moves. etc. It just looks incredible. The world map looks better then Rome with richer colors. The UI als has been "medievalized" and looks nice.

Cool battlemap stuff:

Archers can implace stakes to protect themselves.

Many units can fight dismounted.

Lots of faction specific and crusade units.

Spearmen formations are much easier to handle and utilize.

You take prisoners which you can then ransom let go or slaughter. Letting them go adds to your leaders chivalry rating while slaughter ing them adds to his dread. These two are opposite poles with chiv giving you bonuses to your units while dread mostly effeects the other side.

Castles are huge with all sorts of defensive equipment that must be manned.


Cool world map stuff:

Lots of new agents. Merchants in particular are interesting, a merchant targets a resource in any country and gains you income. Only one merchant can corner that market so merchants actually "combat" very cool. Princesses are back. Priests are use to hunt down witches and heretics. If you dont keep down the heresy the church sends in inquisitors.

The new World is representred as a strip along the far side of the map. Essentially you go there to scarf up resources unavailable or rare elsewhere like tobacco, silver and gold. You can to whale on the Azecs as well although apparently you may not get as lucky as the Spanish did.

Another cool thing is that every place on the map can be either a great castle or a setllement. Once a settlement gets to a certain size it can nolonger be converted. The great castles have multiple walls that have to be sieged or assualted seperatly. You can convert back and fourth but some enhancements might be lost.

Guilds and chapter houses show up as you do stuff. If you go on a lot of crusades then youll get chapter houses and eventually the headquarters of a fighting order. Other guilds will offer to set p shop in your cities depending on the govenor and your actions. For instance if you build a lot the masons guild may offer to set up. Each city can have one guild so you may want to hold out for specific ones.

So thats all I can remember rtight now. If you have any specific questions I'll try to get them answered whgen I go back tomorrow.

[Voigtkampf]

I think it's only fair to point out that Medieval 2 and Medieval are bound to have similarities - they are covering the same historical ground. However, from what I've seen of M2TW it is *not* the same game as RTW. The core engine has been reused, as you'd expect (starting afresh would have been a commercially stupid decision, after all). If you think of the quality of differences between, say, the original STW and MTWVI, you'll have an inkling of the development work that has gone on - you can see the ancestry, but there has been evolution as well. If you give it a chance, I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

I sincerely hope we will be, Captain Fishpants, thank you for your addition. :bow:

[Servius]

The demo's very important CF. If the AI in the demo is tight, even though it's only one of several AIs, I think that will go a long way towards allaying many concerns.

[Puzz3D]

The demo's very important CF. If the AI in the demo is tight, even though it's only one of several AIs, I think that will go a long way towards allaying many concerns.
There is no strategic AI in the demo, and the battle AI is scripted. Remember when people made mods for skirmish battles for the RTW demo, and CA said the battle AI wasn't complete? What you will be able to determine from the demo is how much time you have to issue orders to your units. It was very apparent in the RTW demo that you didn't have enough time to individually control 20 units, and this didn't change in the RTW v1.0 release version.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Quietus - that is very good news (if true, of course).

Taking prisoners AND dismounting. :2thumbsup:

[x-dANGEr]

There is no strategic AI in the demo, and the battle AI is scripted. Remember when people made mods for skirmish battles for the RTW demo, and CA said the battle AI wasn't complete? What you will be able to determine from the demo is how much time you have to issue orders to your units. It was very apparent in the RTW demo that you didn't have enough time to individually control 20 units, and this didn't change in the RTW v1.0 release version.
But, doesn't that make battles harder, making them more exciting? (And also making counter-attacks harder to perform)

[Duke John]

You know that game where sticks fall down and you need to catch them? Normally only 1 stick falls. How exciting and fun would it be if 3 sticks would fall? Or playing testris at high speed on level 1?

When I see the enemy rushing at me on unrealistic high speeds I don't get excited. I just think how silly it is.

[x-dANGEr]

Well, don't get rushed then, go and rush yourself.

[Orda Khan]

But, doesn't that make battles harder, making them more exciting? (And also making counter-attacks harder to perform)
No, it makes players who have been with this series for years pack the game in. With a name like Total War it is fair to say that people would expect a battle to resemble battle. I can think of no battle where the enemy was sighted and then on top of you so quickly. There has to be an element of control and there has to be enough time to issue commands otherwise the player becomes more of a spectator.
The game speed of MTW was slower but this does not mean that surprise attacks etc were not possible. Likewise, units fought for longer and lesser units were able to hold long enough for reserve units to be employed. All in all the battles were far more satisfying when the player had this time. Too often in RTW, by the time a reserve unit is selected, the holding unit is starting to rout, BI improved the stuation but not well enough

.....Orda

[x-dANGEr]

Orda Khan, the enemy was spotted as soon as the battle started. It is just 'you' who hadn't spotted the cav unit approaching to charge your archer unit (Or anything else).

[Rodion Romanovich]

In MTW, the battles were slower, but still more difficult to win. Well prepared ambushes made it possible to take an opponent by surprise and rout a unit on a flank or so, but ambushes were only extremely powerful when combined with a supporting attack from the main battle line. Ambushes were powerful enough by adding the morale penalties for "sudden emergence of enemy", "charge to flank" and "taking losses". A unit on the flank being ambushed could rout quickly and run towards the other units of it's army, but then realistically rally and try to join the army again. In MTW to shock a flank you needed to pin carefully and have clever traps for forcing the enemy to be pinned, while in RTW you could simply make a quick manouver with all units and shock an enemy unit. The quick battle speed, more than the low morale, meant that in RTW you could manouver around your lighting quick cavalry to strike one enemy unit at the time. I played plenty of RTW battles where I had 4 cavalry units vs a full stack of enemies, as long as the enemy had less than 2 units of cavalry it was easy to win by using that method. In a real battle you wouldn't break through that quickly. MTW and EB got it right - a swift charge against an isolated enemy doesn't ALWAYS mean successful rout, but you have to make a careful judgement before charging - will I really manage to rout the enemy quickly enough before more enemy units reinforce it? Or do I have to have other units ready to pin any enemy units trying to reinforce the unit I isolate? Can I manage to make such a pinning action with the units I have?

[Divinus Arma]

I see some developments here that are stirring my imagination... which is very good. Among the items that I am now most intrigued by:


Castles are huge with all sorts of defensive equipment that must be manned.

Woah. Anyone care to comment on this? What do we know about this?



If you go on a lot of crusades then youll get chapter houses and eventually the headquarters of a fighting order. Other guilds will offer to set p shop in your cities depending on the govenor and your actions

That sounds pretty interesting. I like the idea of building cities that end up being unique and strategically important for individual reasons rather than just being a cookie-cutter duplication settlement. I am intriguied by the possibility of strategic value other than geography and location. Very cool. :2thumbsup:

[x-dANGEr]

In MTW, the battles were slower, but still more difficult to win. Well prepared ambushes made it possible to take an opponent by surprise and rout a unit on a flank or so, but ambushes were only extremely powerful when combined with a supporting attack from the main battle line. Ambushes were powerful enough by adding the morale penalties for "sudden emergence of enemy", "charge to flank" and "taking losses". A unit on the flank being ambushed could rout quickly and run towards the other units of it's army, but then realistically rally and try to join the army again. In MTW to shock a flank you needed to pin carefully and have clever traps for forcing the enemy to be pinned, while in RTW you could simply make a quick manouver with all units and shock an enemy unit. The quick battle speed, more than the low morale, meant that in RTW you could manouver around your lighting quick cavalry to strike one enemy unit at the time. I played plenty of RTW battles where I had 4 cavalry units vs a full stack of enemies, as long as the enemy had less than 2 units of cavalry it was easy to win by using that method. In a real battle you wouldn't break through that quickly. MTW and EB got it right - a swift charge against an isolated enemy doesn't ALWAYS mean successful rout, but you have to make a careful judgement before charging - will I really manage to rout the enemy quickly enough before more enemy units reinforce it? Or do I have to have other units ready to pin any enemy units trying to reinforce the unit I isolate? Can I manage to make such a pinning action with the units I have?
Still, their is a portion of that in BI. Today, in a 1 on 1, I had all my forces clashing with the enemy's, except 1 Clib unit with 9 men behind his lines. Now, I waited for one of my enemy's low morale units to go to 5 men, then I charged it, that caused for a nice chain rout. Now, if I had charged the unit beside it, nothing critical would have happened, and I would've probably lost.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I agree, BI is a lot better than RTW. But not as good as EB or MTW1 in my opinion ~:) BI is fun in multiplayer if both players play a roman faction or sassanids, but most other factions are underpowered or just strange with berserkers and shieldwalls and schiltrom and warcry. None of those things are well balanced and make for some very strange strategies. So there's a need for plenty of rules for a decent game.

[x-dANGEr]

Yes, they may be new, but they also give new content for us (Players) to explore. A berserker unit is like a unit that attacks enemy's morale. Once, I was playing as Burgandii and my enemy as Goths, I charged my Golden Bands into his troops, and he counter-charged. Now, I got my zerker unit behind his lines, and hit 'Warcry'. A mass rout just carried away..

[Orda Khan]

Orda Khan, the enemy was spotted as soon as the battle started. It is just 'you' who hadn't spotted the cav unit approaching to charge your archer unit (Or anything else).
You missed the point. I was not talking about a single cav targetting my archers, that would be simple to counter. The whole army could be upon you in seconds because speeds, especially infantry, are too fast. Should this be the case, you will find units routing before you have time to issue orders and I am not talking about being outclassed by a better player either. Things happen so fast that control is is being lost and the battle becomes a frantic click fest

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

But, doesn't that make battles harder, making them more exciting? (And also making counter-attacks harder to perform)
No. It makes too easy to attack.

[Puzz3D]

Well, don't get rushed then, go and rush yourself.
That's your idea of good gameplay? No wonder you like RTW/BI.

[Puzz3D]

Orda Khan, the enemy was spotted as soon as the battle started. It is just 'you' who hadn't spotted the cav unit approaching to charge your archer unit (Or anything else).
It has to do with being able to react when you see an enemy unit charge, and also having time to bring a supporting unit up to assist an engaged unit from a resonable distance. Besides, we objectively measured the running speeds of the units, and they are too fast. LongJohn said the movements speeds in MTW/VI were correct. So, that means thay are wrong in RTW/BI. Sticking a delay on top of too fast movement makes it worse for the player trying to react to something. Aren't players supposed to be able to react to what the other player does?

[barocca]

trying to explain with words wont do much good methinks,
it sounds like x-dANGEr has never played any of MTW/VI/STW or WE,

it is too hard to explain a concept without an example,

i would suggest x-dANGEr go to our files downloads area, download the shogun demo, and the medieval demo,
play the battle therein,
i would also recommend some of the Medieval Demo battle pack mods too.

then i think you will understand what the veterans are trying to explain.

in Shogun and Medieval you had time to check a unit's status and send it help,
in Rome you dont, you only have time to click and charge.

(i have BI - finally - but i am behind on my progress on the Samurai mod so I have not installed it yet)

B.

[x-dANGEr]

I 'did' play M: TW, just I can't remember anything of it except my Ghulam Cavalry (I was 9 years old then).

@Puzz3D: If you think it's so easy to attack, then go attack and never lose a game, that simple. You're trying to convince me that R: TW and BI are 'click faster' games, and I think they are 'way' over that, their are many tactics and strategies, but then you simply refer to it as a clicking game. I really think that you're not giving the game what it deserves that way.

And really, whoever told you attacking is easier is wrong. Why do you think people try so hard to win the archer battle in a 3v3/2v2/4v4? Because coordinating more than army to have a successful charge is hard. Maybe in 1 on 1's, the importance of archers go a little less, but they are still deadly in a right person's hand, and sometimes, more deadly than hordes of infantry/cav. (Usually, if someone is planning to attack, he'd have either low quality archers or none)

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well what i will realy like is the fighting,graphics,and better AI.(mostly fighting) sometimes i get bored just waiting to see who will get my behind line stop them flank the enemy. if the battle is going on alot watching them fight was kinda boring. so i am definetly getting M2TW after seeing the clip at the .com.

[x-dANGEr]

So basically, you're talking about the killing speed or the running speed?

[Sir Robin]

What set my mental alarm bells off was this.

http://www.gamespot.com/e3/e3story.html?sid=6150544&pid=931592

If you watch the two "gameplay" movies what do you notice?

I noticed the "lack" of a battleline. Hopefully this was just the end of the battle, after the AI's line was broken, and their units were being chased down and slaughtered. However, those two videos did little to alleviate my concerns.

Of course the game is not in release yet so it is also possible that the tactical AI was not fully "implemented" yet.

[Dunhill]

I think I'd accept Puzz3D's perception of the game, due to his sheer amount of play alone.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some players have been playing the TW series for a rather long time and experience counts when making comparisons about how things have changed over time.

Suggesting that Puzz3D go out and win all his games is a bit funny considering that he has proven he can do just that.

Now if only he didn't have a bloody number in his name, but hewy, what are you gonna do....

[screwtype]

What set my mental alarm bells off was this.

http://www.gamespot.com/e3/e3story.html?sid=6150544&pid=931592

If you watch the two "gameplay" movies what do you notice?

I noticed the "lack" of a battleline. Hopefully this was just the end of the battle, after the AI's line was broken, and their units were being chased down and slaughtered. However, those two videos did little to alleviate my concerns.

Of course the game is not in release yet so it is also possible that the tactical AI was not fully "implemented" yet.

Yes, those movies look like the end of a battle. But the two things I noticed - no more day-glo soldiers. Hooray! I couldn't stand that feature of RTW. And also, I thought I saw 3D piles of corpses, acting like obstacles, which would be a new (and somewhat macabre) feature.

Movement looked very smooth too.

[Peasant Phill]

Corpses as obstacles would be great. This would make it very realistic. I can imagine that keeping your balance when surrounded by bodies wasn't easy. The same thing goes for cavalry, the shouldn't be able to charge at full speed when traveling across such an 'uneven' terrain.

[Puzz3D]

@Puzz3D: If you think it's so easy to attack, then go attack and never lose a game, that simple. You're trying to convince me that R: TW and BI are 'click faster' games, and I think they are 'way' over that, their are many tactics and strategies, but then you simply refer to it as a clicking game. I really think that you're not giving the game what it deserves that way.
RTW is a click faster game because units move 50% faster than in the earlier games. You do have to click faster, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the difference in making a move and reacting to a move. A 2 second delay before your unit moves affects the player who is trying to react. The previous games didn't have this delay. So, it's easier to make attacking moves in RTW than it was in the previous games. When you couple that with the fast combat resolution and low fatigue, it shifts the attack/defend balance towards attack. Now you can go too far in the other direction as well with too much fatigue, too slow movement and too long combat resolution which makes defending easier. In my opinion, the game that got this attack/defend balance most correct was STW while MTW was shifted more to the defense and RTW more to the attack. I saw the result of this in action in an RTW 3v3 when all 3 players on one side rushed a single army of the other side. The battle was over before the other two armies could react to that attack. All the players in the game were good. It wasn't a case of good players vs poor players.



And really, whoever told you attacking is easier is wrong. Why do you think people try so hard to win the archer battle in a 3v3/2v2/4v4? Because coordinating more than army to have a successful charge is hard. Maybe in 1 on 1's, the importance of archers go a little less, but they are still deadly in a right person's hand, and sometimes, more deadly than hordes of infantry/cav. (Usually, if someone is planning to attack, he'd have either low quality archers or none)
Then you haven't seen a team who really knows how to coordinate an attack. I saw what one of the top attacking teams in MTW could do in RTW.

[econ21]

A 2 second delay before your unit moves affects the player who is trying to react.

Just out of interest, do you know if the AI is affected by a 2 second delay too? I suspect not, as it seems to respond pretty quickly to my actions - e.g. when I order or cancel a charge - but I have not specifically looked out for this.

I understand your point about MP, but for SP, the delay seems realistic and if it only affects the player, may be good for gameplay.

[Puzz3D]

Just out of interest, do you know if the AI is affected by a 2 second delay too? I suspect not, as it seems to respond pretty quickly to my actions - e.g. when I order or cancel a charge - but I have not specifically looked out for this.
An AI unit responds when an enemy unit gets within a certain radial distance. If there is a delay for the AI, and I suspect there is, it's just going to appear that the response is occuring at a closer distance.


I understand your point about MP, but for SP, the delay seems realistic and if it only affects the player, may be good for gameplay.
The delay would be ok if the running speeds hadn't been increased, and 2 seconds is what I have typically measured, but it varies. I think the length of the delay depends upon another factor such as quality of the unit or possibly the general. In MP, the general is always zero command stars, so you won't get any help from that.

You can see from the speed of the fighting animation that the flow of things was intended to be slower. You can also see this from the speed at which the AI sets up flanking moves. These things are in slow motion compared to how fast units run. The delay is another factor that indicates the movement was supposed to be slower, and the low fatigue when running is another indication as is the increase from 16 units to 20 units. It's illogical that the player be given more units to control, but less time to control them when it was already difficult to control all of the units in the previous games. AFAIK, all the major SP mods slowdown the movement speed. They wouldn't be doing this unless there was a problem with the official movement rate.

Movement rate isn't an arbitrary parameter that can be set irrespective of other parameters, but there are lots of indications that it was arbitrarily increased in RTW/BI, and CA is on record saying they won't reduce it.

[SpencerH]

............... CA is on record saying they won't reduce it.

I hope that's not the final answer though.

[x-dANGEr]

I saw the result of this in action in an RTW 3v3 when all 3 players on one side rushed a single army of the other side. The battle was over before the other two armies could react to that attack. All the players in the game were good. It wasn't a case of good players vs poor players.


You don't generalize counting on one incident. Yes, it can be done, and also can be countered.

Though, I have to agree to you about the delay issue. You really see it's effect when an enemy cav unit is trying to take out one of your archers units.

I really think one of the main problems in the whole RTW/BI battle, is the battle interface, controls and hotkeys. It is kinda challenging to keep your units in formation while moving them to quite difference coordinates and be able to re-act in time. So I think that a grouping system in which grouped units do 'follow' orders, would make the battle a simpler thing to go through.

[Puzz3D]

You don't generalize counting on one incident.
The single army can't hold long enough, and that will be true no matter how many times you try it. That means you can forget about hammer anvil or weak center tactics. I saw battles being won with hammer and anvil and weak center tactics with RTW on The History Channel's Decisive Battles Series. Then I got the game and found out those tactics don't really work in the game.


Yes, it can be done, and also can be countered.
The counter is gamey, simplistic, unrealistic and uninteresting.

[Orda Khan]

I hope that's not the final answer though.
I second that. Hopefully someone at CA will inform us that this major issue is being looked into and addressed.
I think Puzz3D is correct when he mentions RTW Mods, speeds were reduced in all of them

......Orda

[Rodion Romanovich]

One more argument for low speed: it's nearly impossible to order attack against a unit without pausing as it is now! The unit moves so quickly and the battle speed so high that where you positioned your mouse to doubleclick, there isn't any enemy soldier from that unit next moment. In MTW battle and movement speed were sufficiently low for you to be able to give attack orders more easily IMO. It's not only a realism and gameplay, but also user interface issue.

[A.Saturnus]

One more argument for low speed: it's nearly impossible to order attack against a unit without pausing as it is now! The unit moves so quickly and the battle speed so high that where you positioned your mouse to doubleclick, there isn't any enemy soldier from that unit next moment. In MTW battle and movement speed were sufficiently low for you to be able to give attack orders more easily IMO. It's not only a realism and gameplay, but also user interface issue.

Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Because I never had that problem.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, a bit exaggerating, but I do have that problem sometimes, especially when the enemy unit is losing many men. That mean it's luckily usually only in non-emergency cases that the problem appears, but still...

[_Maximus_]

The same problem!

[screwtype]

I always use the pause button extensively anyhow. I like to savour the battlefield experience and set up my moves very carefully...I have no interest in frantic, messy clickfests.


Movement rate...CA is on record saying they won't reduce it.

That may be the case, but my impression on viewing the latest movies is that the movement rate of footsoldiers has been slowed down a bit. They're still running too fast for guys wearing armour, but apart from that it looks like a fairly realistic speed to me. In RTW, foot units practically fly across the battlefield.

[PROMETHEUS]

I thought I saw 3D piles of corpses, acting like obstacles, which would be a new (and somewhat macabre) feature.


I read this in their interviews and feature lists , but then now I do not read them anymore .... means a feature that they added befoure and stripped it out at the end? Why announcing it then? I say this becouse I have noticed that units just walk into each other and do not climb over the others ....

[Faenaris]

I read this in their interviews and feature lists , but then now I do not read them anymore .... means a feature that they added befoure and stripped it out at the end? Why announcing it then? I say this becouse I have noticed that units just walk into each other and do not climb over the others ....

I think they cut the feature because it ate too much system resources. Imagine having 7000 corpses and the computer has to take those in account while making a route. The collision detection would be a sheer madness to calculate and I bet a lot of members would have to pass up on the game.

It is an abstraction I can live with. Roll on Friday!