Years to turns....

[Mooks]

Can someone explain to me why CA is changing years to turns. Iv never got this concept...why change it if its not broken. Im sure im not alone when this is going to confuse the hell out of me.

[Peasant Phill]

I'm not 100% sure that I'm right, but this is what I think is behind the whole turn idea.

Well CA says that it's to eliminate those 'boring years' when nothing happens. So if your armies aren't engaged in any kind of battle and your agents are idle the game will continue automatically until you need to do something. This could be instructing your army to fight, an agent that arrived at its destination or a building slot that's empty.

I'm not really convinced that this is a good move by CA as I find the preparations before a a military or agent action as enjoyable as the action it self. It's just another new feature to make the game attractive for kids.

[econ21]

Have CA ever given a reason? I don't recall one.

I suspect that what lies behind it is a desire to have a campaign that covers the whole of a long period of history, running right through from the MTW "early-" to the "late+" period. CA want people to see their armies develop from basic spears etc to gunpowder units; and to see their operations expand from Europe to America. Basically, I think they want to get a little closer to the kind of rapid coverage of history you see in Civilization games for example. I think they are calculating that the greater variety introduced by this will appeal to the mass market.

Given the above, they want to accelerate the strategic gameplay. The mass market gamer won't want to commit months to a campaign. But if it proceeded at MTWs pace, then that is what would be required. I don't know about anyone else, but my MTW campaigns started in early and tended to peter out by the early high period, just about the time when I got feudal knights and high period units. I either became too dominant for it to be challenging or I got too bored (usually both). That pacing is contrary to idea I've suggested of trying to get a panoramic historical campaign. The implication is that CA are going to need fewer turns per year.

The problem then arises that with the RTW engine, they actually have more turns per year than in MTW. Raising the number of turns per year to more than MTW will make it apparent that armies are moving across the map far too slowly to be plausible. By any reasonable standards, they will crawl, as early armies do in Civ, for example.

So to fudge that problem, CA decided to end the fixed relation between years and turns.

That's my interpretation of why CA switched from years to turns.

[Temujin]

econ21 is right.

The underlying problem is the same as in the Civilization games: warfare is tactical while the rest of the game is strategic. Those aspects function on different timescales, but the games can only handle one scale: turns.

That's why completing Magellan's Journey in Civ takes centuries, and moving an army from Rome to Constantinople in RTW takes years, when the real timescale for these actions were weeks or months.

The developers have approached this issue in different ways, but the results are always less than stellar from a realism standpoint; simplicity always win out.

The real solution to the issue is to divorce the two disparate aspects into their own scales. Let gameturns be years, but allow for "sub-turns" where warfare or other tactical movements are carried out.

The implications of this solution are complex, however, and in a game such as Civ with strategic MP it's downright unworkable. It would suck to be a peaceful builder if every other player needed 30 sub-turns every year to resolve their warfare, while you rack up three more buildings in your queues and twiddle your thumbs. I think it might work for *TW though, if the designers put in some realistic limitations to prevent warfare every single game-year (like real costs, need for casus belli etc. as in other strategy games). This would give the game a more realistic feel with short, dramatic campaigns interspersed with longer periods of peace, rather than the all-out WW2 style europe-in-flames kind of game we're used to.

[Mooks]

Sooo basically its another move by CA to dumb down the game?? Preparation for a battle is one of the funnest and key factors of the game.

MTW2 might very well be the last TW game I ever play :shame:

Or am I reading that last post wrong...

[sunsmountain]

I know for a fact that very few Rome:TW campaigns make it past 200 BC, let alone 100 BC. I've never seen anyone play it till August (the emperor, not the month - i've seen plenty who do that :))

So if you could just start in the Early, High or Late age as before, and still have the rapid turn transition (ie, not too many turns, i find myself hardly ever needing more than 100 in both MTW and RTW).

And whats wrong with finishing MTW within the Early period (ie before 1205)? Or in the Late period? The only crappy thing i can think of is that you won't be able to complete the tech tree in all of your cities, so some will be stuck at level 3 or 4 and the game is over. Is that better or worse than having everything at level 5, which gives a strange sensation of perfection and power though it is illusional.

MTW was good: 100 turns per period, more or less.
Rome lasted too long: 500 turns for 1 period, which nobody ever completed. I find myself clicking the end turn button just to progress the game and get some more content/events/retinue members from history.

The winter battles are nice though.

[econ21]

The real solution to the issue is to divorce the two disparate aspects into their own scales. Let gameturns be years, but allow for "sub-turns" where warfare or other tactical movements are carried out.


I agree with that. At the moment, TW has two time scales - the campaign turns and then the real time battles. What we are suggesting is a third time scale - you could call it "operational".

So the strategic level would be for peacetime - for building/economic stuff etc, you would have turns that last a year or whatever.

The operational level would be for wartime manouvring your army around a RTW style map. I don't know what the appropriate time scale would be - it could be just a month equals a turn (given the rate the Romans or other decent armies could march).

The battlefield time scale would be unaltered.

I don't see a problem with the above, except it is shifting TW into a being a historical wargame, when in fact it is more of a hybrid (I think the battles stand up to those in most historical wargames, but the strategic layer has more in common with Civ type games).

[magnum]

Sooo basically its another move by CA to dumb down the game?? Preparation for a battle is one of the funnest and key factors of the game.

MTW2 might very well be the last TW game I ever play :shame:

Actually, I believe that if you enjoy/enjoyed RTW/BI you'll most likely enjoy MTW2. That game pacing and style of play seems to be what they are shooting for.

That's not a shot at CA though. Since CA never planned on re-writting the engine but only improve the existing one, what they are doing might be the best solution. Basically they had no way of logically spreading new units and new events (i.e. Golden Horde) over 900 turns when most if not all players would complete the game in under 250 turns. Thus abstracting years into turns ends up being perhaps the best solution... at least for now.

[sunsmountain]

I don't expect to ever get to the Aztecs, given the way i play with Rome:TW. I like to keep close tabs on my governors, sometimes reloading when they're turning corrupt for some random reason. I hope they add a summary of gained/lost traits, so I can check that part faster. For 20 or 30 family members that list would be at most 60 entries long, but everything is better than having to check them each individually.

A similar table for settlements, listing choice (ie, not all of them) buildings would also prove useful i think.

Kind of goes against my idea not to ask any new ideas from CA before they finish polishing the old ones, but oh well.

[Mooks]

Why dont they go to the old system and do low age, high age, and late age??

[Lord Ovaat]

Well, this debate has been going on for some time, so I guess I should throw my two-cents in. I do NOT want to play a strict, historical game, and I believe most who purchase the series would agree. It wouldn't be a game. Turns are really the only way to go. I would like to see the option of starting in a more advanced era, as Holybandit just mentioned, but that's about all. One of the few things that peeved me with MTW was the EXPECTED and always PUNCTUAL arrival of the Horde at half-past noon. Even the AI didn't want to occupy the emergence provinces.

I do not want to be restricted with hard-set historical dates. The objective of the game is to re-write history, isn't it? I mean, I've won MTW on the hardest settings playing with all the factions (some took more than one try:laugh4: ). What that means, in essence, is that Denmark has conquered the entire Western World. Really? Seems to me, no faction has ever accomplished that feat. Here we are in the year (turn) 2006, and England is still England, France is still France. Go figure.

A truely historical game would be exquisetly boring, and probably playable only once without the need of medication. I relish the increases in tech, weaponry, etc. It enhances the game. But I do NOT want to know that I will be forced to fight Hastings in 1066. What would be the point in the game? Historically accurate weapons and such are great, and one of the reasons I play the games, but does anyone honestly think there was that diversity of "organized", "uniformed" units in the Dark Ages? That concept wasn't re-introduced until after the common use of firearms--for obvious reasons.

Gee, I even applaud CA for expanding into the Americas. Why? Because Europe, Africa, Asia Minor, etc. has remained physically unchanged for millions of years. One of the great adventures and lures of any new game is the discovery of all the new features like techs, units, etc. But the map is the map. Months before MTW2 is even released, I know exactly what Europe is going to be like, where the "provinces" will be, etc. So, without the additon of the Americas, what will we have to experience? Oh, gee, look at that. Those little trees are much more life-like.

I truely prefer "historical" strategy, but while waiting for MTW2, I've found myself playing a space opera for the first time. Galactic Civ II. Simply because the strategy is pretty good, but more importantly, there is a huge amount of gameplay available. EVERY map is different and presents new challenges, experiences, etc. Yeah, OK, so you're playing against intelligent alien species, though they are all humanoid and have human reactions and such. So, is that really much different than Western European Christians "playing" against Middle-Eastern Muslims? Could aliens be culturaly more different from each other?

One last point, and this has been mentioned many times in our forums. There are several thousands of folks who have joined and participated in the forums at the Org, Com, and TWC. Pretty impressive. But how many belong to all three? Lots. And of the vast numbers who purchase the game--which, of course, keeps CA in business--how many are ever even aware of the rest of us? There are very few multiplayers in these games when compared to the overall community, but they are probably the most frequent visitors. Maybe because they need other folks to play with, but maybe because they're more computer literate, lol. The vast majority of purchasers, myself included, never have any intention of playing online. We play strictly for our own enjoyment--when we have the time. Well, the point to all of this is that I believe we mislead ourselves into thinking the entire community sees things the way we do. Not true. After all, most of those folks actually have a life, lol. None of this is meant to offend anyone, for I am as guilty at nit-picking as the rest. If CA listened to everything we say, they would have gone belly-up shortly after Shogun. But we have also given them a horde of valuable first-hand experience and ideas, many of which they have incorporated. I personally can't think of many franchises who can say that.

So, it's just a game. The single player strategy will be the deciding factor in just how good the game is; not the graphics, not the battles, not the MP. And, I honestly feel we should give the game a playing chance before we tear it apart. One of the first threads concerning the new game dealt with modding. Mod what? We haven't even seen the game. Come on, guys, lighten-up a little. Remember, if we help put CA out of business, we will be left with only AOEIII or such. Anyone really want to go back to click-fests?:laugh4:

[doc_bean]

On a side note to all this: I hope they don't actually display the turns somewhere, that would totally kill the immersion, they can store the amount of turns somewhere for after campaign evaluation, but i don't want to see turn 5, turn 50 etc on the screen. It wouldn't mean a thing anyway since the game has no set number of turns (or so we are lead to believe).

[BDC]

Seems sensible to me. In MTW you could conquer France in a few turns, something England failed to do properly in hundreds of years. Equally it would never take a crusade 20+ years to transverse Europe. Everyone would have died before they ever got there.

[GFX707]

It's probably just an easy fix for all those RTW campaigns that you could complete FAR too early compared to history.

[A.Saturnus]

Turns instead of years may be a very useful concept. It solves -or seems to solve - several design issues such as the movement time across land and see, sieges, the opportunity to include seasonal changes without having too much turns in a campaign and it may even add to immersion. Though it may very well become a broken feature adding nothing but absurdity to the game.
We will see when the game comes out whether this was a good turn (no pun intended) or a bad one. But my fear is that programmers may be blinded by the opportunity and not see its dangers. Only a beta-test can reveal whether this is well received by the average player. If that is the case, will it be possible to turn back (again no pun intended) to the old system?

[econ21]

Only a beta-test can reveal whether this is well received by the average player. If that is the case, will it be possible to turn back (again no pun intended) to the old system?

Alexander: Total War may be in part a beta. I noticed a sign "100 turns" on a screenshot. In this case, I assume CA switched from half-years to turns because Alexander did so much so quickly, it would not be possible under RTWs time scaling. I guess players probably won't object too much in this case though as you won't have individual generals living through implausibly large changes in technology etc.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Call me conservative, call me a stickler, call me a jerk, but I think eliminating years won't be very good. I'll wait and see what CA comes up with, but I'm not optimistic.

First of all, it will hurt immersion. How couldn't it? What sounds more medieval:

"Your lordship, we have vanquished the Saracens in the year of our Lord, 1105"

-or-

"Your lordship, we have vanquished the Saracens in the turn number 116"

~:rolleyes:

Plus, it removes one more tie of history from the game. I don't know why they bother to give the game starting and end dates; why not just give staring "eras." "OK, MTW2 will start, you know, around the first crusade and stuff. It'll end about, like, the discovery and conquest of the New World."

Lord Ovat - you were never restricted to historical dates in MTW. "Historical" events like gunpowder happened around a certain year, but never at an exact time. You don't even have to be restricted to certain historical dates if you left years in versus turns!

There is no conflict between having a fun, playable game and having "turns" marked as clearly defined periods of time!

Yes, there are issues with distances, but CA could actually, you know, fix them. Instead, I think they're taking the lazy way out. They certainly have to do less thinking by removing years.

~:rolleyes:

[Servius]

The other solution to long boring games is to improve the AI so that the long games are not boring. Reintroducting different starting periods would also fix the problem of people with short attention spans.

But of course it's easier to go the Rise of Nations route and just burn through time, constantly in a race to upgrade buildings and units, just hoping that when your army finally meets another, you've upgraded faster than the other guy...

That's also why I don't play Rise of Nations...

[Sensei Warrior]

First of all, it will hurt immersion. How couldn't it? What sounds more medieval:

"Your lordship, we have vanquished the Saracens in the year of our Lord, 1105"

-or-

"Your lordship, we have vanquished the Saracens in the turn number 116"

Plus, it removes one more tie of history from the game. I don't know why they bother to give the game starting and end dates; why not just give staring "eras." "OK, MTW2 will start, you know, around the first crusade and stuff. It'll end about, like, the discovery and conquest of the New World."

There is no conflict between having a fun, playable game and having "turns" marked as clearly defined periods of time!


I agree wholeheartedly about the immersion thing. I like to know I vanquished the Saracens in 1105 as well. It's more aesthetically pleasing then TURN 116.

It seems to me that TURN 116 could be just as easily Spring 1202, or whatever ceative solution CA could come up with.

[A.Saturnus]

First of all, it will hurt immersion. How couldn't it? What sounds more medieval:

"Your lordship, we have vanquished the Saracens in the year of our Lord, 1105"

I believe that is a minor issue.

It's enough to say "Your lordship we have just vanquished the Saracens." I find it certainly more detriemental to immersion when moving from France to German takes you several years. Also, sieges that streched over years were rare. But if a turn was, say 3 months no campaign could cover even 100 years.
I agree that there probably are better solutions, but I also aknowledge the problem.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I think it's a problem, too. But to me, CA is taking the easy route. Something they seem to do with other things, like the AI.

Temujin posted a bang-up idea - essentially, more realistic gameplay that would cure some of the time problems CA has while offering a deeper, and possibly more satisfying game. CA won't do it, because such a thing won't appeal to the twitch crowd, and will take, you know, effort.

[Encaitar]

If characters still age at a rate of 1 year per x turns (most likely x=2), then any claimed benefits from using turns instead of years (e.g. 'it no longer looks like it's taking 3 years to move a tiny distance in Europe') are void.

[doc_bean]

You're really nitpicking then...

[Afro Thunder]

No, I would describe that as thinking, something that CA does not want us to do apparently. :dizzy2:

[Wandarah]

CA have engaged thier cognitive disruptor! Flee for the hills, the Great Zorg commands us!

[Ignoramus]

I do not want to be restricted with hard-set historical dates. The objective of the game is to re-write history, isn't it?

Exactly. But how can you rewrite history without years? With years, instead of: The Battle of Agincourt was fought in 1415 between the English and the French, the English won, and as a result conquered much of northern France. It could be: The Battle of Milan was fought in 1365 between the Germans and the Turks, the Turks won, and as a result subdued the whole of North Italy.

That isn't being historical, but it is still a history. It's just not actual history, but your history.

Now replace it with turns: instead of: The Battle of Agincourt was fought in turn 134 between the English and the French, the English won, and as a result conquered much of northern France. It could be: The Battle of Milan was fought in turn 120 between the Germans and the Turks, the Turks won, and as a result subdued the whole of North Italy.

Which of the two sounds and looks better?

[A.Saturnus]

It seems that years are at least somehow in the game.

[doc_bean]

It seems that years are at least somehow in the game.

Based on screenshots from an alpha version ?

[maxpriest]

Even with better AI, total historical accuracy there will still be a majority of people that won't finish the campaign completely due to sheer human boredom. CA's main concern is probably that everyone will be able to finish the campaign, especially the newer players that haven't played shogun/mtw/rtw like the rest of us.

[A.Saturnus]

Based on screenshots from an alpha version ?


Well, it's not a reliable source of course, but at least it has been in the game at some point. Maybe they changed it later, maybe they didn't.

[Peasant Phill]

I thought I saw the year on some information parchment in the low res map screenshots.

It went something like (numbers not accurate): turn 3 year 1105

[A.Saturnus]

That's what we're talking about.

[caravel]

I remember the turns debate at .com... it was quite exhausting and several people argued until they were blue in the face, that turns was a bad move by CA... then the apologists, that love everything CA do, endeavoured to explain to us lesser beings as to why turns would be great and we'd all have such great fun now that the burden of remembering all those dates was gone! Who needs history anyway? Not the 10 years and above target consumerbase!

The main reason that ditching years is a "bad move" is due to the fact that many players find them immersive, and can sit there thinking to themselves: "well I conquered Constantinople in 1251...", and those same people could post something to that effect up on a messageboard like this one. Moving away from years is a move towards more simplistic action based gameplay, to capture the RTS clickfest market. In all of the marketing blurb there has never been a word about historical realism, accuracy, strategy, AI or anything of that sort. Every bit of spin has been based around graphics, the number of men and the visual realism and effects. Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game.

[A.Saturnus]

The main reason that ditching years is a "bad move" is due to the fact that many players find them immersive, and can sit there thinking to themselves: "well I conquered Constantinople in 1251...", and those same people could post something to that effect up on a messageboard like this one. Moving away from years is a move towards more simplistic action based gameplay, to capture the RTS clickfest market. In all of the marketing blurb there has never been a word about historical realism, accuracy, strategy, AI or anything of that sort. Every bit of spin has been based around graphics, the number of men and the visual realism and effects. Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game.

A bit one sided don't you think? It's true that CA did say little about historical realism, they never did, but they have mentioned improvements to both tactical AI and AI behavior in, for example, diplomacy. And of course various tidbits about gameplay in general. To say that they only talk about visual aspects is untrue and can be refuted with ease.
I don't know about the .com but here no CA "apologists" (I didn't know there's something to apologise) have defended turns as clear improvements. While some dismiss any possible benefit of the idea many months before they saw it in action, others try at least to find a good side in it.

[Puzz3D]

While some dismiss any possible benefit of the idea many months before they saw it in action, others try at least to find a good side in it.
Apologist means to find the good side and dismiss the bad side. It's not a good thing to do except for the seller.

[TigerVX]

Years are still in, proof.

http://www.mitglied.lycos.de/eagleeyesix/screenshots/mtw04.jpg

[magnum]

It does appears that at least in the alpha that the turns were still be displayed. Also noticed that it seems the year is 1080, which would mean thats a sceen shot of what was the current starting position of the factions in the game.

Really sick how we can pick at so much stuff gleamed for really poor quality alpha screen shots. Thinking maybe I ought to get a life.... naw, just kidding. :2thumbsup:

[Mooks]

How can you read that sc? Its blurry to me.

[caravel]

A bit one sided don't you think?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm merely stating this how I see it.


It's true that CA did say little about historical realism, they never did, but they have mentioned improvements to both tactical AI and AI behavior in, for example, diplomacy. And of course various tidbits about gameplay in general. To say that they only talk about visual aspects is untrue and can be refuted with ease.

Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else. The AI was hardly mentioned. Then the wikiman let the whole turns thing slip in the forums. The fans became so enraged that a multiple paged thread ensued. The wikiman (CA staff) was never seen again! (maybe he was on holiday or busy, who knows?)


I don't know about the .com but here no CA "apologists" (I didn't know there's something to apologise) have defended turns as clear improvements. While some dismiss any possible benefit of the idea many months before they saw it in action, others try at least to find a good side in it.

An apologist is how Puzz3D described it. I find it to be a much politer term than "fanboy".

The screenshot definitely shows years, but this could be an older screenshot where the years have not yet been removed?

[econ21]

Then the wikiman let the whole turns thing slip in the forums. The fans became so enraged that a multiple paged thread ensued. The wikiman (CA staff) was never seen again! (maybe he was on holiday or busy, who knows?)

Can you blame him? Game designers have probably got better things to than get dragged into an online flame war. Never wrestle a chimney sweep and all that. I don't know if you live in the UK, but it reminds me of those British adverts where Michael Winner says "Calm down, dear, it's only a commercial".

[caravel]

Can you blame him? Game designers have probably got better things to than get dragged into an online flame war. Never wrestle a chimney sweep and all that. I don't know if you live in the UK, but it reminds me of those British adverts where Michael Winner says "Calm down, dear, it's only a commercial".

I couldn't agree more. Some of those involved felt he was there solely to serve them with the latest tidbits of info. I feel that he was caught in the squeeze between CA and some of the more overzealous forum patrons. Nothing he could say would be the right thing, so in the end he bowed out. :dizzy2:

[A.Saturnus]

Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else. The AI was hardly mentioned. Then the wikiman let the whole turns thing slip in the forums. The fans became so enraged that a multiple paged thread ensued. The wikiman (CA staff) was never seen again! (maybe he was on holiday or busy, who knows?)


Ok, I'll attribute our disagreement on your sloppy use of adjectives instead of ill-will.
Anyway, the focus on turns rather than years may be an immersion killer or it may work as CA imagined it. It may also be that we systematically misunderstand what CA means with that. We will see when the game is finished. No one will have to buy the game before knowing the truth of it.

[caravel]

Ok, I'll attribute our disagreement on your sloppy use of adjectives instead of ill-will.

There was no ill will, I think you may have misunderstood me, though now, due to your mildly insulting and patronising manner, there is no good will either.

[A.Saturnus]

There was no ill will, I think you may have misunderstood me, though now, due to your mildly insulting and patronising manner, there is no good will either.

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for coming over that way. But in your first post you said
"...there has never been a word..."
In the second post you said
"The AI was hardly mentioned."
Now, hardly is infinitely more often than never. You also said:
" Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else."
Which is strictly taken a contradiction since not a lot else is usually understood as "slightly more than nothing" while every single bit implies that it would have to be absolutely nothing.

In your first post, your claim was very strong rhethorically ("never"). When I challenged that claim, instead of defending or dropping it, you changed the claim into something weaker and vaguer ("hardly mentioned"), to defend it from further attacks. I found this bad argumentative style.
The truth is that the marketing emphasis did not lie on what you would have preferred (which is understandable) though we both know that you couldn't quantify it. You made your opinion seem more objective than it was.

My reaction was mediated by your statement "Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game." I find that offensive because I don't consider myself a CA apologist nor do I think the target audience of the game is as clear as you make it out.

[ChewieTobbacca]

What if they simply made it so that turns weren't equivalent to a year, but they still meant that time passed by? Yeah I can see where it is less immersive, but turn 116 might correspond to the year 1251 and 117 to 1253 or what not. In that way, you can say that you still conquered blah blah blah in the year etc. but are playing on a turn scale, where it takes 100 turns to reach the high age, and not have to play through 150 turns.

[caravel]

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for coming over that way.

Well telling someone their use of adverbs is sloppy is almost guaranteed to come across as an insult. Sorry to break it to you.


But in your first post you said
"...there has never been a word..."
In the second post you said
"The AI was hardly mentioned."
Now, hardly is infinitely more often than never. You also said:
" Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else."
Which is strictly taken a contradiction since not a lot else is usually understood as "slightly more than nothing" while every single bit implies that it would have to be absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately while hurriedly typing out posts in my dinner breaks I often make glaring grammatical errors such as those that you have quoted above, and I often make quite a few errors anyway. I didn't come here claiming to be an literary expert, nor a an exemplary grammatist. Anyone that wasn't deliberately being pedantic could have easily worked out what I was trying to say.


In your first post, your claim was very strong rhethorically ("never"). When I challenged that claim, instead of defending or dropping it, you changed the claim into something weaker and vaguer ("hardly mentioned"), to defend it from further attacks. I found this bad argumentative style.
The truth is that the marketing emphasis did not lie on what you would have preferred (which is understandable) though we both know that you couldn't quantify it. You made your opinion seem more objective than it was.

Yes what I was trying to say was that other aspects of the game have gone largely unmentioned by CA. It is the nature of my culture to use definite language to signify the indefinite. You can think of it as a kind of exaggerative slang. It doesn't come across well when using this medium however and maybe I should refrain from such definite statments in the future? Though in your case it seems that every statement needs to be exacting.


My reaction was mediated by your statement "Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game." I find that offensive because I don't consider myself a CA apologist nor do I think the target audience of the game is as clear as you make it out.

I'm at a loss as to how you can find that statement offensive. If you can recognise the target audience of the game, then you are not a CA apologist. And only the pedantic choose to deliberately rip apart the grammar of a post they don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

Now was that worded ok? Or shall I run all my future posts through my solicitors? :2thumbsup:

[iraklaras]

hi guys i konw that this tha i will tell has no sence with the topic ~years to turn~ but when i try to make a new topic in the forum look what i see






iraklaras, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.


why is this happening?i havent do something bad and i can post a reply.plz someone tells me

[econ21]

why is this happening?i havent do something bad and i can post a reply.plz someone tells me

Off-topc: Hi, I think the problem is that junior members can't start threads in this forum but can reply to them. The Guild FAQ in the Entrance Hall explains it all. I realise it may be frustrating but we operate a kind of "probation" policy at the Org to stop spammers and nutters (e.g. KKK or AQ supporters) messing up the forums.

[Mooks]

I love making good and constructive threads...

[A.Saturnus]

Well telling someone their use of adverbs is sloppy is almost guaranteed to come across as an insult. Sorry to break it to you.

Really? If someone would point out problems with the meaning of my wording I wouldn't find it insulting. I'm of the opinion that having errors pointed out is something one should be thankful for.


Unfortunately while hurriedly typing out posts in my dinner breaks I often make glaring grammatical errors such as those that you have quoted above, and I often make quite a few errors anyway. I didn't come here claiming to be an literary expert, nor a an exemplary grammatist. Anyone that wasn't deliberately being pedantic could have easily worked out what I was trying to say.

I'm notoriously pedantic.


I'm at a loss as to how you can find that statement offensive. If you can recognise the target audience of the game, then you are not a CA apologist. And only the pedantic choose to deliberately rip apart the grammar of a post they don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

My point is that if I can't recognise the target audience it would be arrogant and offensive to infere from that that I must be a CA apologist. In fact, what you said is a subform of the old "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid"-argument that has never enriched a conversation. And that's not pedantery.


To summerize and come to an on-topic conclusion: our problems stem from a different use of language and the difficulty to transfere meaning online and we both aren't quite happy with CA's decision to drop years in favour of turns, we only differ in the amount we're prepared to look at the bright sight of it (if there's any). Agreed?

[caravel]

Really? If someone would point out problems with the meaning of my wording I wouldn't find it insulting. I'm of the opinion that having errors pointed out is something one should be thankful for.

That depends on how the person "points it out". Let me give you some advice on your wording. Describing someone as "Sloppy" is not too diplomatic.


I'm notoriously pedantic.

"Notoriiously", as in, you go out of your way trying to be pedantic, to the point that many other patrons are well aware of it? That is often what we call "trolling".


My point is that if I can't recognise the target audience it would be arrogant and offensive to infere from that that I must be a CA apologist. In fact, what you said is a subform of the old "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid"-argument that has never enriched a conversation. And that's not pedantery.

Sounds like it to me:

I'm notoriously pedantic.

You're reading far too much into that statement, so much in fact it's hardly worth me trying to explain it to you again, but I will... The apologists I was referring to are those that fail to see the dumbing down of the game (check the interviews and press releases) for what it is, and go to great lengths to explain to the contrary, when it's glaringly obvious that it is plain and simple dumbing down in it's purest form. No matter how much CA change something for the worst, the apologists believe it's just a round about way of making the game even more challenging and strategic.


To summerize and come to an on-topic conclusion: our problems stem from a different use of language and the difficulty to transfere meaning online and we both aren't quite happy with CA's decision to drop years in favour of turns, we only differ in the amount we're prepared to look at the bright sight of it (if there's any). Agreed?

And now you're basically trying to force your own smug solution on me, to try and save face. In fact I'm not at all happy with the loss of years from M2TW, and their replacement with turns, but I actually got over it months ago. And our problems do not stem from any different use of language, but from your nitpicking overly pedantic style.

I'm now bowing out of this topic to avoid taking it any more offtopic that it is, due to your determination to save face and have the last word on the matter, this could go on forever. Basically you were insulting and your specific targetting of my post was unwarranted.

The statement I made about the "target audience" was perfectly true. CA themselves have made statements to the effect that M2TW will try to target a younger audience. They themselves named the age groups they will be aiming for. So this is why only the apologists I mentioned in that post are the only people refuting this. If you can see that CA have lowered the age barrier with the release of Rome Total War, and, from all of the news so far, intend to do so even more with M2TW, then you are not a CA apologist and shouldn't really feel offended, unless you're just being "pedantic"...

[econ21]

EDIT: I locked this thread temporarily as it seemed to have run its course, but I have been asked to re-open it in case anyone has anything new to contribute on the subject.

[Puzz3D]

What if they simply made it so that turns weren't equivalent to a year, but they still meant that time passed by? Yeah I can see where it is less immersive, but turn 116 might correspond to the year 1251 and 117 to 1253 or what not. In that way, you can say that you still conquered blah blah blah in the year etc. but are playing on a turn scale, where it takes 100 turns to reach the high age, and not have to play through 150 turns.
A turn does represent time, but it's a different length of time depending on which aspect of the game you are considering. They might as well display the year because it's going to be obvious by the technology that becomes available that the people are living longer than they should and that armies aren't moving as far as they could.

[Sabuti]

Couldn't CA make everyone happy and have the turn scale adjustable. That way those how want 1 year turn incriments could have them and those who want the new turn system could use that. I don't see how that would be hard to do.

[Lusted]

Well Ca have said the number of turns is completely adjustable:


The game is currently paced to be a 225 turn game, and is optimally played at that length.All this information is still being kept in .txt files.



http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=1145.topic

[Kralizec]

I really don't understand CA's line of arguing on this one. Characters still age 1 year every 2 turns, and that's a reason not to have years because "We wanted to cover a large period of history and streamline the gameplay whilst still allowing players to get some kind of attachment to their characters."
:inquisitive:
It's not that the developers are lazy by doing this...it just doesn't make sense.
I'd much rather post a message on the forum that says "yay, I conquered Jerusalem as soon as 1102, a new record!" instead of "wow I conquered Jerusalem on turn 44!"


4) Each era is effectively a completely new campaign that needs to be individually setup, tested and balanced. Having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game.

I think that this would mean that you can't play an early campaign and then advance to the high era, instead it will end (that also corresponds with their statement that one campaing equals 225 turns). That's a shame :no:

[A.Saturnus]

I think that this would mean that you can't play an early campaign and then advance to the high era, instead it will end (that also corresponds with their statement that one campaing equals 225 turns). That's a shame :no:

The game doesn't end unless you want it to or are defeated. The comment you quoted means that there won't be eras. I wonder whether there will be any time-related changes during the course of a campaign.

Though, my immediate reaction to "having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game" would be: "Why don't you delay the release then?"

[Kralizec]

This is disturbing.

1080-1530 = 450 years
225 turns, so each turn would equal 2 years
Yet generals age 1 year per 2 turns- meaning they age 1 year in 4 game years, and I guess CA hopes that not to many people will notice it.

By the looks of it CA is abandoning realism in favour of gameplay abstractions that make no sense whatsoever.

I don't like this. I agree with A.Saturnus, I'd much rather wait an extra 2-3 months for a game that keeps the good traditions from MTW such as eras.
EDIT: removed some overemotional parts.

[caravel]

It's important not to forget this statement:


The game is currently paced to be a 225 turn game, and is optimally played at that length.All this information is still being kept in .txt files.

From this we can assume quite a few things, though it's dangerous to assume of course. Firstly the word "currently" implies that this aspect was far from finalised at the time of writing. Secondly "paced" leads us to believe that the game would be best played, that is to say optimally played, over 225 turns. The third point is the reference to .txt files which hints at some or all aspects of the turns being moddable. The issue of generals, aging 1 year every two turns however is another confusing point. If CA are trying to move away from any kind of timeline, then why do generals, age at all? 225 turns give 112.5 years of agents/generals lifetime. This is less than two generations of generals and royalty, over a period ranging from the early 11th century through to the discovery of the americas... :dizzy2:

[R'as al Ghul]

Characters still age 1 year every 2 turns, so you will be a ble to roleplay them as you did in Rome. This issue is actually one of the reasons for dissociating years and turns.

Why not make seasons? Sumer and Winter. Two turns= 1 year. :inquisitive:

[Puzz3D]

Why not make seasons? Sumer and Winter. Two turns= 1 year. :inquisitive:
That's what I would do, but the campaign would only span from 1080 to 1192. You could then have multiple campaigns which covered different time periods. This is in fact what was done in STW/MI.

[Sabuti]

Reguardless of how many turns the game has, or what their scale is, is the AI going to be challenging enough so when I play on the hardest settings I will have to use almost all the turns? Or will MTW2 be beatable in 100 turns or less on the hardest settings like RTW?

[Dimeola]

well then if each turn represents a variable number of years...or differing measures of time then how do you know as you set orders for that turn how much you can do? If you know that each turn is a certain amount of time....then you know how much each unit or armoy or character can accomplish or move......but without knowing what the coming turn or two may represent then how are you to plan?
dimeolas

[Kralizec]

I don't think it will be quite that complex. As said 1 turn effectively represents 2 years.

Unless character aging can be modded, the only way to turn CA's time warp around is to increase the number of turns in the text file to 900 so that characters do age 1 year in 1 year.

Am I the only one who's bothered by this?

[Vladimir]

It seems like people worry too much. I don’t own RTW but I think many agree that the 1.0 version was a major disappointment. As a result 5 (or maybe 6) patches were developed by CA as well as at least two famous mods which have become legendary. Personally I want to wait until the initial price drop to allow the chips to fall where they may even though I want to do some modding myself; mostly army formations with which I had some success in MTW.

[Puzz3D]

Effectively, M2TW won't be ready until fall 2007 or later.

[sunsmountain]

Effectively, M2TW won't be ready until fall 2007 or later.

Good. That should give them plenty of them refining the game. I'm considering the possibility that we may be surprised by the end result. MTW2 could well become the must-buy that Rome wasn't. But seeing as all of us have already bought RTW the point is moot... still...

[VAE VICTUS]

i dont know if this has already been addressed, but will it be possible to mod the turns, like E.B. gave each year 4 turns as oppossed to RTW:V with 2 per year? if we dont like it can we chnage it?
i LOVEEEE the painstaking plans to building a nation.

[Princeps]

Are the events linked to years or turns?

[Ludivico Sforza]

Years. The events are set to occur after a certain amount of years (or range of years) from the start date.

I have modded the game to the 0.50 timescale (ie 1 turn = 6 months) and to show years instead of turns. It is working out well except for the fact that most buildings are done by 1200-1250. I will be able to fix this when the patch comes out with the unpacker, giving me a nice 900 turn campaign. (NOTE: I rarely play TW games to actually win).