Creative Assembly Would you be satisfied? [Archive]

sunsmountain

07-24-2006, 10:44

Both AI's will have to be significantly better.

But comparing them to Shogun or Medieval is unfair, especially those campaign map AI's aren't even shadows of the current campaign map AI because of the simplified map you're playing on. As for the battlefield AI, in my poll about that, MTW/STW AI can actually be imported into the current RTW AI, on the army level. The question is whether you would want to do that though, since it may not be adequate any more.

In Medieval TW for example, there is only 1 single unit AI for all units, cav, inf, spears, swords, doesn't matter. Each unit follows the same considerations for attacking, charging or retreating/moving. Army level AI is strictly imposed and little freedom is allowed for individual units moving. Not so the RTW AI, allowing for a much larger degree of freedom. Sadly, that still too often means RTW units not behaving as they should. Unit level AI will have to be perfected first, if any STW/MTW level AI is attempted!

That doesn't have to be hard, spears, swords and cav work pretty well, its mostly phalanx and archers - and other infantry even having the possibility of getting stuck in a loop that goes: Attack, march, reform, attack, march, reform, etc..

Once this is sorted out, battle line cohesion can be attempted and imposed. Already, before engagement, static army formations are attempted as of patch version 1.5/1.6. Any player tests of RTW would have to be done now to be of some merit to the programmers, and use the latest version. You can help! ~:) I'm a little busy... :juggle2:

Puzz3D

07-24-2006, 17:07

Of course I'm sure they will improve the A.I. at its worst such as the A.I. missile troops running around as soon as they get hit by 1 missile as many others.
I'm sure CA is hoping that lots of people think this way. Not giving out any details has its advantages.

Seems like we may still be able to influence the AI's development as, apparently, its done last.
Maybe, but you are dealing with a company that thinks the running speeds are ok, stacking units is ok, suicide general is ok, sieging with an army that's substantially weaker than the garrision is ok, ranged units that can't shoot because the last man isn't in position yet is ok, all men shooting because 1 man is within range of the target is ok, a unit walking halfway across no man's land under fire and then turning around and walking back to it's own lines is ok, chasing fast skirmishers with infantry is ok, units that don't know enough to shift their shields to the right if they are being shot from the right is ok, units with very weak flanks exposing those flanks is ok, units frontally charging a stronger unit that they have no chance of beating is ok, units attacking piecemeal is ok, units stopping to throw their pila while engaged in melee is ok, leaving slow moving artillery unguarded while the army moves to a new location is ok, rapid fire artillery is ok, fire projectiles working in heavy rain is ok, siege artillery used as anti-personel weapons is ok, foot skirmishers that are nearly as fast as cavalry is ok, ranged units that decide charging in with their dagger is better than using their ranged weapon is ok, infantry trying to break away so that it can charge again as though it's cavalry is ok, etc. I haven't even touched on the diplomacy.

A game that got rated 92% on average shouldn't need substantial improvement. It got substantial improvement in the patches. It must be a 97% game now, but how can that be when it still needs significant improvement? Something isn't right here.

For example, take the problem of cav beating phalanx frontally which was pointed out in the forums shortly after the release of RTW. It took a year after release to get the reversed charge on phalanx fixed, and that only happened because Oaty found the cause and was able to demonstrate conclusively that men in the frontline of the phalanx were dying when the cav hit the pikes. It was fortunate that this was discovered during a window of opportunity just before the release of the v1.3 patch. Now this was fixed, but it introduced the butt-spike problem where cav charge (and I believe infantry charge) is reversed no matter from what angle they hit the phalanx. This is similar to the pila fix where the units went from not throwing the pila at all to throwing it even when engaged in melee. In both cases the gameplay is better due to the fix, but you can't say it's fully fixed in either case.

sunsmountain

07-24-2006, 17:58

Maybe, but you are dealing with a company that thinks the running speeds are ok, stacking units is ok, suicide general is ok, sieging with an army that's substantially weaker than the garrision is ok, ranged units that can't shoot because the last man isn't in position yet is ok, all men shooting because 1 man is within range of the target is ok, a unit walking halfway across no man's land under fire and then turning around and walking back to it's own lines is ok, chasing fast skirmishers with infantry is ok, units that don't know enough to shift their shields to the right if they are being shot from the right is ok, units with very weak flanks exposing those flanks is ok, units frontally charging a stronger unit that they have no chance of beating is ok, units attacking piecemeal is ok, units stopping to throw their pila while engaged in melee is ok, leaving slow moving artillery unguarded while the army moves to a new location is ok, rapid fire artillery is ok, fire projectiles working in heavy rain is ok, siege artillery used as anti-personel weapons is ok, foot skirmishers that are nearly as fast as cavalry is ok, ranged units that decide charging in with their dagger is better than using their ranged weapon is ok, infantry trying to break away so that it can charge again as though it's cavalry is ok, etc. I haven't even touched on the diplomacy.

This is why we love Puzz3D, he's our archive on "What can I find to throw at CA today?"

I'm seriously positive by now they will have a poster of his username and avatar enlarged so they can throw dart bolts at it. Next to mine, of course ~:)

Time to get some ingame proof using custom battles, Puzz, you know you want to! I'll try to help but i'm really busy trying to graduate and stuff...
... other takers?

danfda

07-24-2006, 18:29

Puzz3D is my new hero. All hail Puzz3D!

Seriously though, I'd be happy with MTW's graphics if the AI (campaign and battle) were better. Heck, if just the campaign AI was better I'd be tickled pink. I understand that is likely quite difficult to accomplish, but what Puzz said underscores what I feel, and sunsmountain feels (obviously :P ), and many others feel. Fix what can be fixed, and the AI will already be substantially better. Give us small improvements, and let modders work on other issues. Take what was learned, and by the time the NEXT Total War is released, the AI should be able to level cities and raze nations. Right? Or am I daft?

I think I'm daft, let's be honest...

Puzz3D

07-24-2006, 20:52

Time to get some ingame proof using custom battles, Puzz, you know you want to!
What good will that do if they aren't considered to be problems? Getting the game to play without it crashing is the big thing for the developer. Gameplay issues are secondary. Unfortunately, playing the game for many hours only to find that it wasn't worth the effort is, in a way, worse than the game being unplayable because it crashes. At least you don't waste a lot of time on a game that won't run as you do on a game that turns out, in the long run, to be not worth the time and effort required to play it.

I'm not sure that Creative Assembly appreciates the ethincal implications of producing a game that runs without crashing, but has unsatisfying gameplay. I know that a lot of companies are unethical in their business practices, but Total War is supposed to be one of the top computer games available today, and I would say that carries with it a responsibility to produce not only a game that looks good graphically but that also plays well. After all, they established their reputation with the gameplay in the earlier games in the series. They had an established customer base that expected that same high level of gameplay in their big RTW project which was "the game they always wanted to make" if I remember the quote correctly. The game they always wanted to make didn't even save the whole state of the campaign in the savegame file.

Another issue is CA's acknowledged predisposition to making the game elements conform to what they say are popular misconceptions of ancient warfare. This is why the game has incorrect Egyptians and incorrect hoplite spears and probably why it has incorrect artillery and other things. This game would have been a great opportunity to replace those misconceptions with more accurate visualizations. Instead, we got a response about this from CA that the game wasn't a history lesson. How sad especially when many people bought the game because they were interested in history. RTW was used in the History Channel's program Decisive Battles to reenact historical battles which set up a certain expectation in potential customers. How foolish of people not to realize that Total war is just a silly game. How embarrasing for any adult to admit that they play this game.

Hepcat

07-24-2006, 21:05

I would like the campaign ai to be a bit better and not break alliances the turn after making them. The Battle ai could be improved vastly but it will be difficuilt to do simply because of the fexibility of a human player.

I enjoy playing RTW on LAN with friends so if the ai is really bad I will still buy the game.

Puzz3D

07-24-2006, 21:40

Fix what can be fixed, and the AI will already be substantially better. Give us small improvements, and let modders work on other issues. Take what was learned, and by the time the NEXT Total War is released, the AI should be able to level cities and raze nations. Right? Or am I daft?
I think you're right as concerns single player campaign. The things that CA should fix are those things which modders do not have access to such as strategic and tactical AI behavior and battle mechanics. For instance, if relative movement speeds are not adjustable then CA should pay extra attention to getting the relative speeds relatively correct in terms of gameplay, and that is probably just a matter of keeping them somewhat close to realistic values which would actually enhance the impression of realism in a way that's consistent with the realistic graphics. They can have their bias in the auto-resolve and the AI decision level of when to siege or attack, but pick those values up from a text file so that they can be changed. These parameters could be put in the preferences.txt file. I'd like to see ammo, fatigue and morale be variables as well, but this might not be possible. There was a significant improvement in the way the strategic AI consolodates its army stacks between RTW v1.3 and RTW v1.5, naval invasions and Roman diplomacy wer fixed in RTW v1.5, so things like this can be fixed if the effort is directed to them and some testing can be done to be sure the fix works.

I think multiplayer probably can't be changed enough in M2TW to recapture the complexity of the gameplay in the previous games because it's just too much work. I have no expectations of playing M2TW multiplayer.

Puzz3D

07-24-2006, 22:13

I enjoy playing RTW on LAN with friends so if the ai is really bad I will still buy the game.
You and your friends might enjoy playing STWmod for MTW/VI on LAN. The intensity of these battles is very high. I believe this comes about because you have 8 distinct, well defined catagories of units (14 unit types total) which creates a complex task within a rapidly changing situation, but at a gamespeed which allows a player time to respond with his units on an individual basis. You can have many instances of strike and counterstrike with the tide of battle flowing back and forth. Another wrinkle is that, if it starts raining, guns stop shooting which changes the tactical situation temporarily. It usually only rains periodically during a battle.

sunsmountain

07-25-2006, 08:57

What good will that do if they aren't considered to be problems?

They will become problems for CA if you make them fact: Solid replays that can be downloaded, replayed and viewed with criticism of the Rome:TW engine. Videos are even better since people are lazy.

What good will that do if they aren't considered to be problems? Getting the game to play without it crashing is the big thing for the developer. Gameplay issues are secondary.
Yes, the game is pretty crash free. That means the ground work is done right. Gameplay issues to you are not necessarily gameplay issues to them, unless you make your point convincing.

One of the ways to make your point convincing is simply creating a custom battle, with specific units you would like to test, and show in the replay that the AI is making a stupid decision and where. All this takes is playing the battle, noting the AI mistakes (they will be plentiful if we take your word), and making a post with the attached replay. Use pause and note down the times during replay.

Unfortunately, playing the game for many hours only to find that it wasn't worth the effort is, in a way, worse than the game being unplayable because it crashes. At least you don't waste a lot of time on a game that won't run as you do on a game that turns out, in the long run, to be not worth the time and effort required to play it.

Well if you want to prevent other gamers of suffering your fate, the least you could do is play a few more hours and point out exactly what made you quit this game. I assume you are no longer playing Rome, or are you?
If you want these series to go back to the superior days of Shogun, you have to make your case convincing. Listing your grievances is a first step, and my god you seem a library for it. Perhaps me and others can help you complete this endeavour, and make Puzz3D a nail in CA's coffin.

Until that time though, all comments are moot. MTW2 isn't finished yet, and here we are, dreading in anticipation... only battle replays might make a dent... note that videos that were made showing AI dumbness in the past did result in improvements in the patch!

How sad especially when many people bought the game because they were interested in history.

Look, i like Head Hurlers. And I especially like the Egyptians. If I want a history lesson, i'll go and study history. CA is not Microsoft, they can't cater to both historians and gamers while maintaining creativity. History just isn't that creative, and that is a fact. If Egyptians looked like Greeks, that wouldn't have helped the historical debate on any level, it would simply present another opinion on what things looked like back then...

econ21

07-25-2006, 10:36

Perhaps me and others can help you complete this endeavour, and make Puzz3D a nail in CA's coffin.

"nail in CA's coffin" is not the most fortunate turn of phrase - it's a colloquialism for something that helps kill someone. :inquisitive:

sunsmountain

07-25-2006, 13:28

"nail in CA's coffin" is not the most fortunate turn of phrase - it's a colloquialism for something that helps kill someone.

Yeah, I had a feeling you might jump on that one, econ21. :book:

But that's my poetical license :2thumbsup: . Besides, can't imagine them really being pleased reading Puzz3D's summation there:

Maybe, but you are dealing with a company that thinks...<cut!!>

Puzz3D

07-25-2006, 18:36

Besides, can't imagine them really being pleased reading Puzz3D's summation there:
I'm not pleased with the game I got for $80 usd (RTW + BI), but mostly it's the time I lost that bothers me. The music is good and the graphics are impressive. The gameplay leaves a lot to be desired, and the fighting animations are comical. For whatever reason, RTW shipped with a huge number of problems which killed any chance of fine tuning the gameplay over the course of the patches. Even without that complication, it's hard to see how the new battle engine could be made to play as well as the older battle engine due to the missing features.

Also, faster routing, slower combat cycle and smaller unit size all contribute to more uncertainty in the combat which the game didn't need. There was already criticism that the older engine had too much uncertainty in the combat although I didn't think so. The smaller unit size is not due to graphical performance considerations because the game is cpu or possibly i/o bound. If the code is less efficient because each man has more parameters associated with him, you could construct an argument that the modelling is less good than the previous engine which had fewer parameters per man but a better statistical combat model simply due to the larger units size and faster combat cycle. Using larger units helps in RTW/BI if your machine can handle it, and phalanx really needs to be a large to work properly. Actual phalanxes were 11 ranks deep.

The Spartan (Returns)

07-25-2006, 18:38

i choose this: I want an AI better and more challenging than STW/MTW. why would i want an AI worse than MTW/STW?

IceTorque

07-25-2006, 20:10

I just bought Total War: Eras today, and installed Alexander.

For the first time in a long time I began to play vanilla Total War. I stopped after the third battle, I just could'nt take anymore of the silly movement and kill/rout speeds, not to mention the wide thin line that is supposed to represent a battle line. It's all like one giant skirmish, with units running/routing/rallying all over the place. No sense of order, no tactics, just thousands of men running around like chooks with their heads cut off.

Before I installed Alexander I watched the bonus CD of the making of TW games, in it the guy said how easy it was to apply Sun Tzus rules of war to STW and how the only thing that does'nt change from game to game is the AI. I wonder what happened, and how the TW games could end up like this.
Perhaps the fast battle speeds are to try and mask the un-polished engine or perhaps some one thinks this is what the mass market wants ??? I'm more inclined to think this type of gameplay would scare off many would be second time customers.

TW games imo are still the best pc games available, but only when the gameplay settings are tweaked. The question is how many customers mod or use mods ? I would think only a small minority. As for the AI question, when the game is tweaked I think it's pretty good and I don't mind when the AI occasionally exposes their backsides to my archers, cheap yes but I need all the help I can get sometimes, yes the AI can be that good, or perhaps I'm just not such a good player.

The CA guy on the CD seemed like a reasonable sort of a bloke and I'm sure he/they will be taking onboard all the complaints, and MTW II will no doubt be a more fun game out of the box than RTW/BI/ALXNDR is. Although those gameplay vids of MTW II showing the fast running speeds and the wide and thin unit formations are a bit of a worry, but at the end of the day there is no real alternative to TW games and the best we can do is give feedback/whine/complain/bitch etc, and hope things improve.

Now I'm off to revisit fuedal Japan and become the Shogun, for one last time. Then I'll probably play MTW for a bit before I begin to tweak Alexander.

-IceTorque

Fwapper

07-27-2006, 10:03

Seems like we may still be able to influence the AI's development as, apparently, its done last.

I doubt a poll of this type can influence them. It basically says "We want great AI!!" They already know that, so just telling them to make it better doesn't mean they will or even can within their budget.

SpencerH

07-28-2006, 12:56

I pretty much only play two series of games, TW and CIV (I just dabble in RoN etc). As far as I can tell, the developers of those series appear diametrically opposed with respect to player input. The CIV developers go out of their way to have player feedback from their experienced fans at all stages of development. That choice is certainly a reason why CIV4 is probably the best version of the game since the novelty of the original. OTOH, I have yet to see much evidence that the folks at CA listen and act on anything said here.

I voted for 4 without reading the correction. I would like to see an AI that is substantially better than any of the previous games. Without AI the graphics (and the game) is worthless.

Duke John

07-28-2006, 14:15

I don't really need a challenging AI. If I want a challenge I play a MP. All I care for is an AI that doesn't destroy the immersion. I would much rather see a very basic AI than the R:TW AI that tries to do complex things but fails so miserably that the game becomes an even larger walkover.

But in the end it depends on the movement speeds. If the enemy can reach your lines in 20 seconds than AI or tactics on your halve doesn't matter. It would be like starting a game of chess and you have all kinds of opening moves in your head and your opponent just shoves all his pieces towards you. It leaves you with a "What the heck happened?" One minute you were deploying, then you manuevre just a bit before the whole enemy army charges, quickly becoming a big mess with little fights and routs. But perhaps that is just how TW will remain as long as CA keeps the units working independent of each other.

Captain Fishpants

07-28-2006, 14:46

...OTOH, I have yet to see much evidence that the folks at CA listen and act on anything said here...

Just FYI, CA staff members do monitor the forums here and elsewhere - and this has been said so many times, it's a wonder it needs saying again. But there's a limit to how active we can be, or appear to be.

There are many reasons why we might not necessarily respond to a thread.

We are actually quite busy, most of the time.

We have to consider commercial confidentiality (we can't tell you everything that is going on for all kind of reasons).

We might have already considered and rejected an idea being discussed. You have to remember that anything that's mentioned in public may already have been work in progress for months.

A game might be in a fluid state so that if we do confirm or deny a feature, it may have changed on the next build.

The posters may have built a case on supposition, rumour and conjecture - this happens more than you might imagine. And indeed, there are so many people who assume they really, really know what we're thinking that we are sometimes convinced that they are listening to pixie voices. :laugh4: Usually we're found very wanting by such posters.

And sometimes we simply don't post because we have try to have good manners and try not to rise to the hostility and contempt thrown in our direction by the unpleasant few.

Any and all of those reasons would be why no one from CA has responded to the overall thrust of this thread. In my case, I'm not on the M2TW team, and so I'm not in a position to comment on specifics of that title.

R'as al Ghul

07-28-2006, 14:49

But in the end it depends on the movement speeds. If the enemy can reach your lines in 20 seconds than AI or tactics on your halve doesn't matter. It would be like starting a game of chess and you have all kinds of opening moves in your head and your opponent just shoves all his pieces towards you. It leaves you with a "What the heck happened?" One minute you were deploying, then you manuevre just a bit before the whole enemy army charges, quickly becoming a big mess with little fights and routs. But perhaps that is just how TW will remain as long as CA keeps the units working independent of each other.

Ah, the Chess analogy. I liked to use that to explain to people what Total War battle mode is all about. Since R:TW it doesn't work for me anymore.
In my opinion the manoeuvre phase is really important and fun. And the distinction of Total War against other RTS games like AoE should be that you're able to react to manouvres and that your units fight in formation, not as single units. In chess the individual pieces heavily depend on each other for protection. That's not so different from TW, Archers rely on protection from Spears to be save from Cav, etc. I don't get why this concept was abandoned and I really hope that it's gonna be changed back to its original idea of a tactics game.

R'as

Puzz3D

07-28-2006, 15:25

Ah, the Chess analogy. I liked to use that to explain to people what Total War battle mode is all about. Since R:TW it doesn't work for me anymore.

Coordination of different kinds of pieces is the essence of chess with the goal of capturing the enemy king while at the same time protecting your own king. To achieve this goal you have to coordinate all of your pieces better than your opponent coordinates his pieces. STW presents a similar task with well differentiated units operating in a strong rock, paper, scissors system at a gamespeed that allows coordination of all the units. It's different in that all the pieces can move similtaneously and time is a factor, so the gameplay is dynamic and more fluid. However, if while you're playing, you mentally envision the whole position as an image and project that into the future as a series of images, the mental process is very similar to analyzing a position in chess. In fact, you are mentally imaging the same number of pieces (32) in both games with special attention to the position of the king. This method of playing is predicated upon being able to control the units individually at any given moment with a minimal amount of time spend accesssing any unit and having it respond to a command.

With RTW, the game lost whatever similarity it had to chess in its gameplay because, in addition to the units being less differentiated and operating in a weaker rock, paper, scissiors system, the coordination of those units is impossible on an individual basis due to the increased gamespeed. The increased gamespeed also upsets the balance between attacking and defending styles of play as does the delayed response to commands.

Back in August, 2004 based on playing the RTW demo, 83% of the players who voted here thought the battle speed should be reduced. Well, it wasn't and to this day hasn't been reduced. Today, you wouldn't get as high a percentage because many of those players left the community, and were replaced by players less interested in controlling individual units on the battlefield. At the time, players who voted against reducing the battle speed made statements such as this one:
"I like the speed in this game, it's more like a standard RTS now."

AussieGiant

07-28-2006, 17:02

I can't believe to this day CA thinks the unrealistically fast speeds are a good thing.

We will know in a few months I guess.

As I keep asking;

"Are the moment speed realistic? If Captain Fishpants could comment that would be great...

...and if the speeds are to remain accelerated, then why?

..why can't a speed bar solve the problem, or the accelerated version be in the arcade battle settings, while the real movement speeds be set as default".

danfda

07-28-2006, 18:07

Back in August, 2004 based on playing the RTW demo, 83% of the players who voted here thought the battle speed should be reduced. Well, it wasn't and to this day hasn't been reduced. Today, you wouldn't get as high a percentage because many of those players left the community, and were replaced by players less interested in controlling individual units on the battlefield. At the time, players who voted against reducing the battle speed made statements such as this one:
"I like the speed in this game, it's more like a standard RTS now."

Maybe THAT is what CA is aiming for, the larger group of RTS gamers who want a standard, point and click, Age of Empires-type game. They're targeting that much larger audience to maximize profit (what company doesn't try to maximize profit?) instead of concentrating on battle simulation type feel that will appeal to a smaller target audience. In RTW, they implemented an arcade version, but the only difference (IIRC was mentioned elsewhere) was the lack of fatigue and ammo limits. Battle speeds were unchanged, and so the default RTW battles were basically AOE types. Which is okay if that is what you're looking for (personally, I want MTW style speeds back). In the end, it is probably much easier to have one battle mode, but as Puzz3D said, the majority of TW fans want slower speeds, and I don't understand how not addressing the battle speed issue wins over more paying customers. It hasn't won me over. Irregardless, I think I'll stick to MTW, and leave my copies of RTW and BI to collect dust.

DisruptorX

07-28-2006, 18:17

"Age of Empires style"? Thats making me cringe. Age of Empires is a direct clone of Command and Conquer, Dune II, etc. Its the exact same game. :wall:

And for the record, I want strategy games to be as far from Command and Conquer as possible. Starcraft was fun, but it isn't 1998 anymore, I don't want to see the same game repackaged over and over again.

danfda

07-28-2006, 18:36

I agree. But maybe that is what CA wants, as a way to sell more copies of the game. I just can't think of another reason to NOT implement (at the very least) an arcade w/ fast speeds vs. a default w/ slower speeds mode. And AOE is very point and click...eerily reminiscent of RTW, dontcha think?

BTW, I loved Starcraft. I'd like to see a Starcraft-universe Total War game (preferrably with slower battle speeds :P )...

SpencerH

07-28-2006, 18:53

Just FYI, CA staff members do monitor the forums here and elsewhere - and this has been said so many times, it's a wonder it needs saying again. But there's a limit to how active we can be, or appear to be.

There are many reasons why we might not necessarily respond to a thread.

We are actually quite busy, most of the time.

We have to consider commercial confidentiality (we can't tell you everything that is going on for all kind of reasons).

We might have already considered and rejected an idea being discussed. You have to remember that anything that's mentioned in public may already have been work in progress for months.

A game might be in a fluid state so that if we do confirm or deny a feature, it may have changed on the next build.

The posters may have built a case on supposition, rumour and conjecture - this happens more than you might imagine. And indeed, there are so many people who assume they really, really know what we're thinking that we are sometimes convinced that they are listening to pixie voices. :laugh4: Usually we're found very wanting by such posters.

And sometimes we simply don't post because we have try to have good manners and try not to rise to the hostility and contempt thrown in our direction by the unpleasant few.

Any and all of those reasons would be why no one from CA has responded to the overall thrust of this thread. In my case, I'm not on the M2TW team, and so I'm not in a position to comment on specifics of that title.

It seems to me that I've seen all of these points as to why CA seems (to me) to remain relatively aloof from their hardcore supporters raised here before RTW was published; busy, confidentiality, ideas considered and rejected (or possibly accepted), supposition, ignorance, arrogance of posters, etc, etc. All of those points apply to every game design team though (I'd imagine) and it seems to me that the game series that are improving (RoN, Galciv) or that have pulled themselves back into brilliance (CIV4) after a (relatively) poor game (CIV3) have done so because the design teams include their hardcore players as "sounding boards" to some extent. IIRC you previously stated that you once argued a similar position within CA. From what I've seen, its a pity you appear to have lost.

I agree that the proof will be 'in the pudding' though as to whether CA listens to the 'hardcore players'. When MTW2 is released we will either be 'singing the praises' of the complexity of the AI and challenge on the tactical map (no one will be louder than I if that occurs) or the threads in the MTW2 forum will be as dull as those now in the RTW forum. I dont find it surprising that such a large proportion of the posts in the MTW2 threads are from the senior members/admins etc. Aside from bitching, there is little to say about RTW and lots to hope for with MTW2.

Lord Adherbal

07-28-2006, 22:35

I don't want to see the same game repackaged over and over again.

uh, actualy we do. We want STW/MTW to be repackaged over and over again, not some uncomprehendable change of design that lead to RTW.

Tahanaman

07-29-2006, 02:13

Sadly, many of the old players left the TW series because of RTW. Hopefully, CA will redeem itself through MIITW. However, what is really bothersome about the creators of our beloved game series is the way that each of them get online and respond with bland commercial jargon and a general lack of any hard response to any questions asked here. Fact of the matter is they cant say anything about the games features before its release is acceptable. We can understand that some features may change before release. However, dont get online and throw dirt back.....

screwtype

07-29-2006, 04:16

Apart from the AI issue, most of the other complaints could be solved just by CA giving modders the ability to mod kill rates, speed and morale transparently. If they did that, we could all fine tune the game to our satisfaction and it wouldn't matter what the out-of-the-box experience was like.

If CA really listened to what the forums are saying, this would be one of the first things on their agenda. Unfortunately, we've had not a word about moddability, so I get the feeling that the many requests for control over these aspects of the game have been either ignored or forgotten yet again.

Duke John

07-29-2006, 07:42

Puzz3D

07-29-2006, 15:36

All they need to do is add another 3 unit stats for movement modifiers for walking, charging and running. Then add the variable in the formula right next to the terrain movement modifier. If they do that and announce it than it would reassure loads of people I imagine... think of the extra sales, CA!
Well I was shocked when I discovered movement speeds were not adjustable on individual units in RTW especially when the running speeds diverged so sharply from the speeds that had worked well in the previous games. There is no way you can pick movement speeds early in the development when the animations are being done that are going to be optimal later on when the gameplay is being adjusted. We have been told that it's too much work to change the skeletons, so that means the guy at CA who does the balancing is stuck with those non-optimal movement speeds. If CA didn't redo the skeletons for M2TW, there isn't going to be any change in movement speed from RTW.

I believe the change in movement speed initiated in RTW reflects a fundamental change in concept for the game which is the raising of spectacular graphical effects above plausable realism. I don't mean actual realism. I mean the kind of realism where things are to scale and don't violate physical laws in some obvious way. When the effects are no longer constrained by this consideration, the movement speeds and even the physical size of things no longer need be to scale. The game now has trees that are too big, walls that are too high, men and horses that burn to cinder in an instant, horses that jump as though they had wings, men that leap higher than they are tall, chariots that move faster than horses, animals in formation, rocks that explode, arrows that are more effective against men because they are fire arrows, units that move like a school of fish, and skirmishers that run nearly as fast as horses. The men and the terrain look great, but that's not enough to make the battles believable. RTW/BI has a gamey feel to it that wasn't there in the previous games. That's what players are perceiving when they say Total War is more like an RTS now eventhough it still has morale, fatigue and flanking.

DisruptorX

07-29-2006, 20:49

Puzz3d: Stealing the interface directly from Starcraft certainly didn't help dispell any "gamey" feel, either. :no:

The best interface is no interface, as in previous total war games. (yes, I know they patched RTW so you can remove it, but it shouldn't be there in the first place).

Puzz3D

07-29-2006, 23:31

Puzz3d: Stealing the interface directly from Starcraft certainly didn't help dispell any "gamey" feel, either.

The best interface is no interface, as in previous total war games. (yes, I know they patched RTW so you can remove it, but it shouldn't be there in the first place).
Yes, I guess that's a clear indication of who the game is trying to attract since it was the default interface, but the old interface was there from the beginning, although it was undocumented. I see in the recent interview with BoB Smith a statement to the effect that CA is trying to widen the appeal of the game without alienating the older fanbase. I don't think that's possible unless the game has two modes of play designed to appeal to each of the two groups, and I don't see how that is possible when the game is locked into one particular movement rate.

I think there is a misconception about why MTW battles were to slow. In SP, it was the reinforcement system coupled with the large maps that made the battles very long. In MP, it was the long time (15 minutes) it took to use the ammo of an xbow or arbalest that prolonged things. In STWmod MP which uses MTW movement rates, we have a very good 20 minute average battle length in team games on the large MTW maps and that's due to teppo not taking longer than 7 minutes to use all of their ammo, and attrition being high enough that many times the teppo haven't used all of their ammo before the armies close for melee. Rain stops them from shooting which is another factor. In MTW, the weakness of ranged weapons meant the skirmish usually dragged out until all the ammo was used, and players started resting the units since that slow use of ammo was fatiguing the shooters to the point of complete ineffectiveness. There was also a fast attacking style without skirmishing used by some due to that same weakness of the ranged fire.

It's a dynamic balancing issue to get the pace of the battles to something like 15 minutes. CA either won't or can't do it. Modders can be successful in adjusting it if they have the right moddable features such as exist in MTW, but without adjustable unit speeds it's very hard to achieve in RTW. You can perform a somewhat successful workaround in RTW using the global terrain slowdown parameter and turning off fatigue then use run most of the time, but the AI units suffer when they walk back to their lines while still under fire.

DisruptorX

07-29-2006, 23:40

I feel that while perhaps slightly overpowered, the missle unit strength in RTW was better than Medieval's. It would appear that in MTW, they were afraid of missles being too powerful(they weren't too powerful in STW...), so they cut down their power drastically. I only use them in multiplayer MTW, as in single player they are rarely worth the effort it takes to position them.

All my Rome multiplayer games are quite long, they don't feel shorter than MTW's. I've never actually played STW multiplayer, though, so I cannot comment on it.

Single player its hard to have long games in RTW, of course, when the AI's only tactic is a frontal charge and full speed.

sunsmountain

07-30-2006, 14:19

Sadly, many of the old players left the TW series because of RTW.

RTW sales are almost a million though, and i am sure many of the old players have bought RTW. Even if all old players stop buying MTW2, CA still has more than half a million copies they know they will sell for sure after launch.

I dont find it surprising that such a large proportion of the posts in the MTW2 threads are from the senior members/admins etc. Aside from bitching, there is little to say about RTW and lots to hope for with MTW2.

It seems to me that many of the old gamers do not leave the TW series, they turn into moaners, doom-and-gloomers, like us. Have you ever been to a Warcraft II or Starcraft forum? I haven't. And i have played both games until the hard disk they were on was gray!

Likewise, many of the new RTW/MTW2 players will not come to this forum, nor will they get beyond Gamespot or Gamefaq to understand what has essentially become, a shallow game, where all cav armies dominate and the AI simply charges you.

It's a dynamic balancing issue to get the pace of the battles to something like 15 minutes. CA either won't or can't do it.

I still have a hope they can pull this off, especially since they still try to communicate with us through the likes of Captain Fishpants...
... can't imagine they forgot about us or that they read nothing from these forums. There are not that many threads, certainly not compared to when Rome was going to be released.... your and my criticisms have been read. Wheter they will do something with that information, remains to be seen however.

econ21

07-31-2006, 03:07

Single player its hard to have long games in RTW, of course, when the AI's only tactic is a frontal charge and full speed.

That's overstated. For a start, you are talking about the AI as the attacker. As the defender, it will typically not charge at you unless you are shooting it to death or have entered its "fight or flight" zone.

In terms of the AI as the attacker, I'm sure I have observed the AI moving for a weaker flank - and so I have had to reorganise my line to meet the threat. It then reevaluates its approach.

When it has a marked numerical superiority, it can and does often envelope both your flanks.

I am not sure how the AI behaves when it has a marked missile superiority (I typically don't let it get that). However, I believe it handles horse archer armies - e.g. the Huns in BI - reasonably well. They certainly don't do a frontal charge at full speed.

One thing the AI can do well on occasion - in all TW games - is use its heavy cavalry opportunistically to take advantage of an expose flank or misaligned unit. It does this better than I am able to do.

It also tends to use spearmen reasonably well as counters to your cavalry.

[I've seen some very tricksy things with MTW AI - once it used javelin armed skirmishers to mangle my defensive line of expensive Varangians. Sometimes it would mix swords and cavalry in its assault wave, so that spears would be cut up by the swords and cavalry would run down my swords. I have not seen these with RTW, I admit.]

But actually, I would be fairly happy with an AI that executed a frontal charge on the attack. The RTW AI does that with barbarians and it can be brutally effective (given numbers, morale and quality units). IMO, it urgently needs to work on the phalanx AI - avoid the front breaking up - and less urgently it could make more use of archers, if it has a superiority in missiles.

Puzz3D

07-31-2006, 19:32

But actually, I would be fairly happy with an AI that executed a frontal charge on the attack. The RTW AI does that with barbarians and it can be brutally effective (given numbers, morale and quality units).
I think this is where changing the strategic AI so that it attacks only when it's army is stronger is important. A frontal attack will be very hard to stop if the AI units are stronger than yours.

In all the games in the series, the tactical AI is good about picking good targets for it's shooters. In RTW, it will distribute the fire of one unit over several units of the same type which I think is a result of being programmed to target the largest unit when all other things are equal. This happens somewhere between 10% and 20% attrition. If these targets have shields and you turn one of them around, the AI will immediatly target that unit and stay with it. These things show that the AI is thinking about which unit to target in a sensible way.

R'as al Ghul

07-31-2006, 20:26

The Ai can definitely act surprisingly well. It's unfortunately not consistent in it.
But I've seen some brilliant moments of tactical genius such as the pincer attack movement with two strong flanks and general in the center as bait when defending. :stunned: Sometimes it makes a nice ambush but it still hasn't mastered bridges, or rivers for that matter. It certainly does flank very well. Sometimes, that is. The fact that the General as most important unit is suicidal in all titles is quite ridiculous and should finally be fixed. I'd rather see the enemy General fleeing the field than having him lead the charge into the pikes. The concept of inter unit dependencies could also be improved. I'd like to see an AI that's able to learn from mistakes, as unrealistic as it might be.

Puzz3D

08-01-2006, 00:34

The fact that the General as most important unit is suicidal in all titles is quite ridiculous and should finally be fixed.
I think it was fixed quite well in MTW with the MTW v1.1 patch IIRC. The general definitely holds back, and will even leave the field without engaging if his army is loosing badly. This is why I was surprised to see the problem back again in RTW, and any notion I had that the tactical AI of RTW was building on the previous games was dispelled.

sunsmountain

08-01-2006, 14:34

Ahhh, positive AI experiences. See how this thread is changing to a more positive sound :)

Personally, I like how the AI manages its horse archers. When I try to catch his infantry with my infantry, the AI will constantly harass me, like it should, while his troops retreat until I catch them. At that point the AI should charge them to rout me (instantly, of course), but he doesn't. At that point my slower moving cavalry can drive his horse archers to the edge of the map, where they can be caught.

I think it was fixed quite well in MTW with the MTW v1.1 patch IIRC. The general definitely holds back, and will even leave the field without engaging if his army in loosing badly. This is why I was surprised to see the problem back again in RTW, and any notion I had that the tactical AI of RTW was building on the previous games was dispelled.

This, together with some positive experiences, make me hopeful about MTW2 AI. It can still disappoint and be as inconsistent as Rome's, but given the extra time into AI I expect more consistency to come out it. At least.

NeoSpartan

08-03-2006, 02:08

I definitely want to see a much better AI than any of the previous 3 TW titles.
I didn't get to play MTW much so I can't use it as a comparison. BUT there are a few things that SHOULD NOT happen in MTWII.

1- Giving up Historical Accuracy of units to conform with Current Misguided ideas. THAT what was what ticked me off the most after I got RTW and played with the Greek Cities, and specially Gaul. ~:pissed: (which is why I now play Historical correct Mods :2thumbsup: )

2- The AI army to fight as a "Cohesive Unit" and the only time individual units can make up their own judments is when: For example: The AI army is advancing while I send 2 cavarly units for a long flack, and a few of the AI's cavalray detaches from the main force to Intercept.

3- AGAIN GAME SPEED!!! Way to fast to be REALISTIC. How in the hell is the Cavalry thats all the way in the right flack be able to reach the Left flank in under 8 seconds!!!! (again, it is why I play mods)

3- Then the silly mistakes the AI made, like suisadal Generals, archers not firing, PHALANXES THAT BREAK :wall: . etc, etc.

In conclusion, I want to have a challanging AI becuase of its skill on the battle field rather than because it can Rout my army in a fair fight.

my 2 cents.

P.S I believe a lot of players of RTW have gone to play mods of RTW.

poo_for_brains

08-03-2006, 09:13

The thing is, when they made RTW, they were changing a huge portion of the game, with the new campaign map, and the full 3D models. Mabye they focused a bit too much on the new additions and didn't make sure that the basics were still up to scratch.

Although the graphics in this game are going to be way better than in Rome, the jump in the general dynamics of the game hasn't been as pronounced, so i hope thy'll have more time to focuse on refining the AI.
I'm optimistic - from the map screenshots it seems that at least campaign AI is changing - the factions can't get enough of naval invasion.

The Wizard

08-03-2006, 14:26

Considering the way CA treated fans during the siege bug affair, I'll be happy with every little improvement over RTW. Mind you, that means that they actually need to improve. RTW with some newfangled features and shiny graphics is not the way to go.

"I like the speed in this game, it's more like a standard RTS now."

This is the type of remark to make a TW veteran shudder. Ugh. TW was never and shall never become an RTS. It's a TBS where most battles can be decided in a tactical battle mode that has nothing to do with RTS gameplay, save the real time element. Other than that, the two entities are about as different as an ant and a lion.

TW does not deserve to become like an RTS. Sell-outs like this do not become a series which stands out for its originality and depth. Or rather, stood -- one game and two expansions haven't returned the concept back to its rightful place. No, instead, TW is now trying to navigate in between the original concept and that of an RTS. Great job, CA; but the best of both worlds is not something that's gonna happen. Spare your fans this gymnastics show and give us back what we came for.

Vladimir

08-03-2006, 16:25

I think it was fixed quite well in MTW with the MTW v1.1 patch IIRC. The general definitely holds back, and will even leave the field without engaging if his army is loosing badly. This is why I was surprised to see the problem back again in RTW, and any notion I had that the tactical AI of RTW was building on the previous games was dispelled.

:no: I win 90% of my battles in MTW by killing the general. 9% of the time he leaves the battlefield in the beginning because he's down to one unit. 1% of the time he flees like a little girl because of my boom sticks. Sometimes he does me a nice favor by standing in range of my organ guns or other missile troops while I kill him. It's real easy to keep the Pope down because he keeps getting himself killed.

That and everyone complains about run speed. Run speeds in MTW are slower than actual. With the pause button and speed slider I only see fast run speeds being a problem in MP.

The Wizard

08-03-2006, 16:49

I win 90% of my battles in MTW by killing the general.

Oh? That's not what I remember. I win 90% of my battles decimating the enemy army, occasionally lucking out and capturing the enemy general. Mostly, however, it involves crushing his army into dust.

That and everyone complains about run speed. Run speeds in MTW are slower than actual. With the pause button and speed slider I only see fast run speeds being a problem in MP.

Not really. You see, when you pause -- yes, you can issue all the orders you might want to issue. But AI problems concerning the units (they don't do exactly what you want in the first click; ... maybe you could even call this realism :sweatdrop:) and the general extreme speed of the battles makes for the fact that the moment the unpause button is pressed the speed becomes a problem again.

Vladimir

08-03-2006, 20:29

Well, targeting the army is the ethical thing to do. I imagine that if I was a medieval general or faction leader I would be ground into dust by the other aristocracy. The suicide charge isn’t there in VI/XL but instead I have mounted X-bows, Jinettes, longbowmen, arbalesters, etc.

Puzz3D

08-03-2006, 21:52

Run speeds in MTW are slower than actual.
The run speed is quite realistic in MTW for units in formation:

2.8 meters/second (6.2 miles/hour) for standard infantry,
3.4 meters/second (7.4 miles/hour) for light infantry,
5.2 meters/second (12.4 miles/hour) for standard cav,
6.8 meters/second (14.8 miles/hour) for light cav.

Within the same class, the ratio of cav speed to infantry speed is 2:1.
Charge speed is 10% higher than run speed.

The suicide charge isn’t there in VI/XL but instead I have mounted X-bows, Jinettes, longbowmen, arbalesters, etc.
That's true, but you don't have to shoot at the general. The AI doesn't realize that the casualties are being caused by a ranged unit, so the general doesn't pull back out of range. The AI in RTW/BI is also ignorant of this.

HarunTaiwan

08-04-2006, 08:56

I almost bought the new package of all the games.

Then I hesitated and did not.

Why reward CA? The customer is always right and they should listen carefully to their fanbase.

caravel

08-04-2006, 10:41

That and everyone complains about run speed. Run speeds in MTW are slower than actual. With the pause button and speed slider I only see fast run speeds being a problem in MP.

Run speeds in MTW are probably still too fast but not fast enough to be an issue, but are in no shape or form "slower than actual". The Roman moto-cav in RTW are definitely much too fast. This is pretty much why most of the best mods out there for RTW tend to reduce the speed to a more realistic pace.

R'as al Ghul

08-04-2006, 12:24

With the pause button and speed slider I only see fast run speeds being a problem in MP.

Well, I like to play my single player battles without pause. I see it as a challenge. I don't understand how the pause button and speed slider can be considered a workaround. Is it asked too much that I want to be able to play the game without pause?
I for one am not satisfied that I can only play Rome with this stutter function: Deploy army, click begin battle, look at the enemy, pause, issue orders, unpause, damn forgot one unit, pause, order, unpause, observe, pause, order , unpause, observe, pause,.......Sound like Fun? :no:
I'm admittedly exaggerating a bit here, but while M:TW is difficult to master without pause, R:TW is nearly impossible for me. Seems I'm in good company, though. :laugh4:

Vladimir

08-04-2006, 13:11

Well, I like to play my single player battles without pause. I see it as a challenge. I don't understand how the pause button and speed slider can be considered a workaround. Is it asked too much that I want to be able to play the game without pause?
I for one am not satisfied that I can only play Rome with this stutter function: Deploy army, click begin battle, look at the enemy, pause, issue orders, unpause, damn forgot one unit, pause, order, unpause, observe, pause, order , unpause, observe, pause,.......Sound like Fun? :no:
I'm admittedly exaggerating a bit here, but while M:TW is difficult to master without pause, R:TW is nearly impossible for me. Seems I'm in good company, though. :laugh4:

Yes and yes. If you want a more simplistic approach to combat, simplify your army. When I'm playing around with gunpowder I like to keep it simple but before that, unit diversity is the key. For more cerebral (read: older, like me :laugh4: ), being able to orchestrate a battle is much more fun.

Oh, and Puzz3D, I can run 12.4 miles per hour. The fact that I can only do that for about 15 seconds after a 20 minute warm-up is besides the point. I've ridden and seen many horses run and they can run a lot faster than a measly 12 mph. My big problem with speeds in M:TW is the cavalry speed. On normal speed settings, I'm watching those guys crawl along at full gallop.

R'as al Ghul

08-04-2006, 13:46

Yes and yes. If you want a more simplistic approach to combat, simplify your army. When I'm playing around with gunpowder I like to keep it simple but before that, unit diversity is the key. For more cerebral (read: older, like me :laugh4: ), being able to orchestrate a battle is much more fun.

I think we misunderstand each other. The pause button is fine when the phone rings but the game should be programmed in a way that it's playable without. I don't want a more simplistic approach, I want to be able to control my combined arms while the battle proceeds, I don't want to do the stop-motion-trick. I'm also over 30 and don't engage in hours of Unreal Tournament every day to keep up with click velocity of R:TW. Orchestration is what I want, but in real time. Otherwise I could just play chess or another strategy board game.
When I play Samurai Warlords MP, there's sufficient time for manouvering but the attacks of your enemy can come so quickly that you've always to be on your toes if you don't want to loose too early. In contrast to that, Rome took away the manouvering phase and attacks happen so fast that a succesfull countermove is almost impossible.

Puzz3D

08-04-2006, 13:55

Oh, and Puzz3D, I can run 12.4 miles per hour. The fact that I can only do that for about 15 seconds after a 20 minute warm-up is besides the point.
Put armor on, pick up a shield and sword and then see how fast you can run. You also have to stay in a formation which means you can go faster than the slowest guys in the group.

I've ridden and seen many horses run and they can run a lot faster than a measly 12 mph. My big problem with speeds in M:TW is the cavalry speed. On normal speed settings, I'm watching those guys crawl along at full gallop.
Same issue. The situation in the game is not like recreational riding. LongJohn said that his research indicated that medieval battle horses didn't move faster than about 14 mph. Charging speed for light cav in the game is higher than that. The cavalry in the game runs 2x faster than the infantry. That's plenty of differential.

The battlefield is supposed to be big since and the battle epic. Look at the advertising for the game: 'epic battles with 10,000 men'. When units are speeded up, all it does is make the battlefield effectively smaller. Who wants smaller battlefields? In RTW, you are playing on maps that are effectively about half the size of the largest maps in MTW because of the 50% faster running speeds and the physically smaller map.

SpencerH

08-04-2006, 13:56

............... I for one am not satisfied that I can only play Rome with this stutter function: Deploy army, click begin battle, look at the enemy, pause, issue orders, unpause, damn forgot one unit, pause, order, unpause, observe, pause, order , unpause, observe, pause,.......Sound like Fun? :no:
I'm admittedly exaggerating a bit here, but while M:TW is difficult to master without pause, R:TW is nearly impossible for me. Seems I'm in good company, though. :laugh4:

Thats exactly how I have to play RTW so I dont consider it to be an exaggeration at all.

econ21

08-04-2006, 14:03

I've always played TW in stutter mode. But the difference between MTW and RTW though is that even played in stutter mode, RTW plays out so fast that you cannot really savour the visuals or the maneouvring. I charged Alexander's companions into a barbarian unit on town forum and it was just like "kerpow!". Things happened faster than the eye could follow. By contrast, if you play with a realism mod like RTR or EB, you can really enjoy the gorgeous visuals and take time fencing with the AI.

But I don't think movement speeds are the only thing at work here - and probably not even the major one. Kill rates and morale are also crucial.

SpencerH

08-04-2006, 14:34

There are three issues wrt unit speeds.

1) overall speed of all units

As has been pointed out time and again, the minimal game speed is too fast to allow tactical changes. That means that the game plays too much like an RTS and we have to pause to try to regain some measure of control.

2) relative speed of inf and cav

Those of use who've actually been a "grunt" and carried a rifle, ammo, and all of the other equipment that has to be hauled around while in combat know that inf in RTW are way way way too fast. That being said, RTW is a game so of course gameplay considerations are an important factor. Realistic movement speeds may be too slow for a game such as this. The real issue is the relative speeds of inf vs cav. IMO, the straight line running speeds of cav should be at least 3x that of inf units. Turning/facing speeds should be reversed however, inf should be much faster in that regard.

2) speed of individual units

There is not enough speed differences between light, medium, and heavy units both inf and cav. Lightly armoured units should be able to easily avoid the heavily armoured units and vice versa should be able to easily pursue and catch heavy units. What's the point of skirmishers that barely get off one round of fire after closing within firing range before they have to turn tail in response to anything faster than approaching phalanx units? At the same time, the same skirmishers have barely enough time to fire more than once at any routing unit they pursue.

Puzz3D

08-04-2006, 18:15

There are three issues wrt unit speeds.

1) overall speed of all units
2) relative speed of inf and cav
3) speed of individual units
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, Creative Assembly made a game called STW. That game had exceptional static and dynamic balance in the battles (although it wasn't perfect and there was a bug that negated the charge bonus). The movement speeds were well matched to the length of time that units fought and allowed complex tactical maneuvering with individual units without ever pausing the game. You had the opportunity to come to the aid of units in trouble if they were close enough, and this could happen multiple times during a battle. The overall moral was high enough that you could spread out your units to set up angles of attack (individual flanking attacks) which created the possiblility of being too far away to assist a unit in trouble. Right there you had two offsetting tactical principles that you had to balance otherwise you would be vulnerable to a countertactic. If you stayed too compact, you would be vulnerable to a flanking attack in force. If you got too loose, you would be vulnerable to a concentrated attack on one portion of your army. In trying to take advantage of one of these two countertactics, you would expose yourself to the same countertactics if your judgement was a little off. You had to be accurate in assessing how long units could hold, how long it would take to travel the distance to assist and how long it would take to break the units encountered all on a unit by unit basis.

With regard to ranged units, the movement rate of the units matched the firing rate and skirmish distance of ranged units quite well. Guns were a little bit weak, but overall it was not cost effective to charge a ranged unit (the game only had archers and guns) with infantry unless you could take advantage of the temporary disruption of the enemy formation in a cost effective way. Ranged units were cost effective in the number of casualties they could inflict so you couldn't just ignore them, but they didn't inflict those casualties at such a high rate that you didn't have a chance to take effective countermeasures. What I mean is there was more to the tactics than getting in the first volley, and ranged units alone didn't determine the outcome of the battle. Conservation of ammo was an important consideration for archers, although it wasn't for guns which wasn't a game breaker because guns were not particularly strong. Ranged units had to be protected from cavalry by an anti-cav unit. We saw this gameplay breakdown in MTW/VI with ranged units being able to withstand cav charges along with the relative ineffectiveness of anti-cav infantry. It also broke down because the range fire itself was relatively ineffective and it took too long from a gameplay perspective to use the ammo of xbows and arbalesters. Artillery was introduced and promptly banned from multiplayer battles by most players which shows how much that added to the battles.

Movement speeds were chosen so that an anti-unit could catch a target unit within it's class (inf or cav) within a tactically significant distance without it being an excessively short distance. This was accomplished by making the anti-unit 20% faster than the target unit type. For instance, no-dachi is 20% faster than yari infantry, and yari cav is 20% faster than standard cav. There is some variation from this with the heavily armored naginata moving 20% slower than standard inf and the yari ashigaru moving 20% faster (the same speed as skirmishers). Cavalry moves at 2x infantry speed. This is a good choice within the tactical framework of the game. It's fast enough to catch even the fastest infantry within a relatively short distance without being so fast that you can't control multiple units of cavalry.

I've done plenty of battletests with cavalry that moves faster than this in the STW/MI v1.02 beta and in developing Samurai Wars. Things start happening with the dynamic balance when you increase the cav speed. Even a small increase of say an additional 20% makes cavalry more effective relative to infantry and less suceptible to ranged fire when moving. From a balance perspective, you have to change other things to remain balanced such as rate of fire, infantry movement speed, length of combat and the fatigue rate associated with those three things. The tradeoff for the battles playing faster is less control of individual units, effectively reduced map size and less chance to react to tactical situations with effective countertactics. The gamplay shifts toward one of first strike tactics where you guess at your opponent's opening setup, and mastery of the game's interface becomes more important than assessing what's happening on the battlefield and reacting to it becomes less important. RTW/BI took a huge step in this direction with its 50% increase in movement speed and consequent increase in combat speed. I get as much fun out of playing whack-a-mole as I do playing RTW/BI multiplayer.

At least the MTW/VI server is still available, but it will no doubt be shutdown eventually, and that may not be too far away. The Eras Collection might give it a little more longevity, but then again the Eras Collection contains STW/MI and there is no official server for that.

Little Legioner

08-04-2006, 19:57

It was a wise analyze Puzz3D worthy a old fan. You've drawed a picture with strong contours. My nightmare is fast battles which makes your challenge a picturesque but useless effort. All about MTW2 are looking so good that i hope and pray the battles in MTW 2 never be the same like RTW & BI hyperspace fashion.

Unit speeds, kill rates and the battlefield environment what we need to calculate before a brave charge will define to the decisive result of big picture. I hope that i don't fail. TW series always stands on battles. Every well thinked step that we did, every diplomatic maneuver that we made, every economic improvement that we build serves only our final step:

The battle! :book:

Your STW considerations were reflecting naked truth which make us a TW fan. Tactics, calculation, patience and momentum... Two dimensional No Dachi Samurai, Janissary or 3D Triarii were only a simple instruments in our show. Old series combined a great formula in gaming world. They put together strong historical accuracy and fun factor. They were equal in greatness. RTW had inside unnecessary mistakes and made many fans deeply upset. But it stayed in past with whole endless "realism" topics and tons of "realism" mods.

So, lets wait for the demo and look at them what they did.

Godspeed CA:2thumbsup:

caravel

08-04-2006, 20:04

Something else that has been said time and time again is that the game speed of MTW or STW was far too slow for the impatient youths that were to be the target consumerbase for RTW. As econ21 has said, kill rates and morale are also important, but in RTW those were quite messed up.

Little Legioner

08-04-2006, 20:28

If CA aimed on "impatient youths" there is no word no more. Despite of this if they put an easy to make an option such as "arcade - epic" for battles. That shall be make happy many of the fans.

Arcade for lower ages, Epic for oldschool gamers. Are we deal? :juggle2:

Different from RTW example detailed battle mechanic options can create a wider range for MTW as a product and satisfactory result for most of the consumers. Mature or young there will be no separation no heart breaking. :idea2:

Arcade:
Fast moving speed.
Fast kill rate
Lower morale

Epic:
Realistic movement speed.
Lower kill rate
Higher morale

Any suggestions?

GFX707

08-05-2006, 11:54

As long as there's a realistic-realistic-realistic option too....

Little Legioner

08-05-2006, 12:30

As long as there's a realistic-realistic-realistic option too....

So, why the fans are so promoted mods based on realism such as Rome Total Realism or Europa Barbarorum plus tons of mini realism mods then? :juggle2:

GFX707

08-05-2006, 15:24

Sorry, I don't understand....

Little Legioner

08-05-2006, 15:42

Sorry, i've confused:oops:

edyzmedieval

08-07-2006, 15:13

I wish the AI could be moddable. I only hope that....

Monarch

08-07-2006, 19:30

"Doesn't matter"

I play multiplayer :P

WarMachine420

08-09-2006, 18:25

"Doesn't matter"

I play multiplayer :P

JUST multiplayer?

why play Total War then?

Lord Adherbal

08-09-2006, 20:42

why play Total War then?

realistic 3D battles are still TW's key feature, and you might not realise but those are most fun in MP. It is people that auto-resolve most (SP) battles that deserve the question "why play Total War then?".

Myrddraal

08-10-2006, 00:10

hehehe an old MP vs SP debate brewing?

ON TOPIC:

About Shogun:

The movement speeds were well matched to the length of time that units fought and allowed complex tactical maneuvering with individual units without ever pausing the game.

Do you think so? I thought that movement speeds where a touch fast in Shogun compared to MTW, but maybe that's my imagination. One thing I didn't like about STW is the invariable mass-breakage caused by a generals death. Maybe in Japan in this period that's realistic, but I still prefered MTW.

Puzz3D

08-10-2006, 08:31

I thought that movement speeds where a touch fast in Shogun compared to MTW, but maybe that's my imagination. One thing I didn't like about STW is the invariable mass-breakage caused by a generals death. Maybe in Japan in this period that's realistic, but I still prefered MTW.

Shogun: walk/run (charge = run)

Naginata = 4/8
Yari Samurai = 6/10
Samurai Archer = 6/10
Musketeer = 7/12
Yari Ashigaru = 7/12
No-Dachi = 7/12
Warrior Monks = 7/12
Cavalry Archer = 8/20
Heavy Cavalry = 8/20
Yari Cavalry = 10/24

Medieval: walk/run (charge = run+1 for infantry and run+2 for cavalry)

Chiv Foot Knights = 4/8
Gothic Foot Knights = 4/8
Halbadiers = 4/8
Pavise Abbalester = 4/8
Pavise Crossbow = 4/8
Abyssinian Guard = 6/10
Almohad Urban Militia = 6/10
Arab Infantry = 6/10
Archers = 6/10
Arqbusiers = 6/10
Arbalesters = 6/10
Armored Spearmen = 6/10
Billmen = 6/10
Byzantine Infantry = 6/10
Chiv Man-at-Arms = 6/10
Chiv Sergeants = 6/10
Crossbows = 6/10
Feudal Foot Knights = 6/10
Golden Horde Warriors = 6/10
Handgun = 6/10
Janissary Archers = 6/10
Janissary Infantry = 6/10
Longbows = 6/10
Militia Sergeants = 6/10
Order Foot = 6/10
Ottoman Infantry = 6/10
Pikemen = 6/10
Saracen Infantry = 6/10
Swabian Swordsmen = 6/10
Swiss Armored Pikemen = 6/10
Swiss Halbardiers = 6/10
Swiss Pikemen = 6/10
Trebizon Archers = 6/10
Varangian guard = 6/10
Viking = 6/10
Almughavars = 6/12
Fanatics 6/12
Slav Javelinmen = 6/12
Slav Warriors = 6/12
Bulgarian Brigands = 6/12
Ghazi Infantry = 6/12
Highland Clansmen = 6/12
Janissary Heavy Infantry = 6/12
Muwahid Foot = 6/12
Nizari = 6/12
Turcoman Foot = 6/12
Gothic Knights = 9/12
Kataphraktoi = 9/12
Armenian Heavy Cav = 9/20
Byzantine Cavalry = 9/20
Byzantine Lancers = 9/20
Chivalric Knights = 9/20
Faris = 9/20
Feudal Knights = 9/20
Ghulam Cav = 9/20
Golden Horde Heavy Cav = 9/20
Hobilar = 9/20
Khwarazmian Cav = 9/20
Knights Hospitaller = 9/20
Knights Templar = 9/20
Lancers = 9/20
Mamluk Cav = 9/20
Mounted Sergeants = 9/20
Polish Retainer = 9/20
Pronoiai Allagion = 9/20
Steppe Heavy Cav = 9/20
Alan Merc = 9/24
Mounted Crossbows = 9/24
Golden Horde Horse Archers = 9/24
Horse Archers = 9/24
Saharan Cav = 9/24
Spanish Jinetes = 9/24
Steppe Cav = 9/24
Szekely = 9/24
Turcoman Horse = 9/24
Turcopole = 9/24

Speed of 6 = 3.72 miles per hour = 1.68 meters per second in both games.

The rout point in Shogun is -24 morale. Death of general = -8 morale.
The rout point in Medieval is -18 morale. Death of general = -8 morale for 10 to 15 seconds and -2 morale thereafter.

econ21

08-10-2006, 09:08

Do you have any movement speed stats for RTW, Puzz3D? Doesn't have to be all units - just a typical infantry and cavalry unit?

Duke John

08-10-2006, 10:17

The calculations were based on the animation files of R:TW 1.1. Infantry is at 100% and the rest is relative to that. Second row are the movement rates for M:TW:

Infantry walking 100% 3.7 mph 100% 3.7 mph
Infantry running 280% 10.4 mph 166% 6.2 mph
Infantry charging 348% 12.9 mph 183% 6.8 mph
Fast infantry running 337% 12.5 mph 200% 7.4 mph

Cavalry walking 127% 4.72 mph 150% 5.6 mph
Cavalry running 470% 17.5 mph 333% 12.4 mph
Cavalry charging 716% 26.6 mph 367% 13.7 mph
Fast cavalry running 630% 23.4 mph 400% 14.9 mph

Note: I don't know how fast infantry is walking in mph, I took the number from S:TW provided by CBR. I think we can assume that walking speed in R:TW is at least not less than in S:TW. I included it to get some grasp of how fast an unit would run in real life.

hoetje

08-10-2006, 17:07

why would we not be satisfied?
A new total war game is always satisfaction!:laugh4:

WarMachine420

08-10-2006, 18:17

why would we not be satisfied?
A new total war game is always satisfaction!:laugh4:

my only real concern is the 225 turn thing. Still not sure if it's an actual "turn limit" or if the average game will just take 225 turns. Will there be games that last 170, and also games that last 450?

what's the specific deal?

sunsmountain

08-10-2006, 19:01

my only real concern is the 225 turn thing. Still not sure if it's an actual "turn limit" or if the average game will just take 225 turns. Will there be games that last 170, and also games that last 450?

I would love them to make turns dynamic, so that I actually reach the end of the year count for once! I have yet to play an imperial campaign in Rome:TW that gets beyond 200 BC. In Medieval I've played the full scenario for a few factions, but most end within the era (early, high, late). I.e. 200 turns is more than enough for me, if the game could speed itself up to let time pass that much quicker, all the better: More content for me. But with MTW2, it's try before I buy.

Looks like the walking speeds in Rome just became extremely slow, the ratio of cavalry running to infantry running seems about the same for both games... i.e. a factor 2.

WarMachine420

08-10-2006, 19:23

I would love them to make turns dynamic, so that I actually reach the end of the year count for once! I have yet to play an imperial campaign in Rome:TW that gets beyond 200 BC. In Medieval I've played the full scenario for a few factions, but most end within the era (early, high, late). I.e. 200 turns is more than enough for me, if the game could speed itself up to let time pass that much quicker, all the better: More content for me. But with MTW2, it's try before I buy.

Looks like the walking speeds in Rome just became extremely slow, the ratio of cavalry running to infantry running seems about the same for both games... i.e. a factor 2.

well, it's still a concern of mine...

anyone know if it's average 225 or 225 limit?

econ21

08-10-2006, 20:38

Looks like the walking speeds in Rome just became extremely slow,...

Not sure where you get that from. Casual observation suggests walking speeds are comparable in the 3 games (although if someone said it is faster in RTW I might not dissent).

... the ratio of cavalry running to infantry running seems about the same for both games... i.e. a factor 2.

Not from Duke John's table - cavalry is only about 70% faster in RTW.

I believe the key differential people have pointed to is between infantry walk and run speeds. From the table, it's going from 6.2/3.7=1.67 in MTW to 10.4/3.7 =2.8 in RTW.

Warmachine: I suspect 255 turns is the default limit designed to coincide with the end date for the game. There may be a "play on" option but no specific scripting of later historical events or technologies etc. I also suspect most players will win more quickly.

WarMachine420

08-11-2006, 00:21

Not sure where you get that from. Casual observation suggests walking speeds are comparable in the 3 games (although if someone said it is faster in RTW I might not dissent).

Not from Duke John's table - cavalry is only about 70% faster in RTW.

I believe the key differential people have pointed to is between infantry walk and run speeds. From the table, it's going from 6.2/3.7=1.67 in MTW to 10.4/3.7 =2.8 in RTW.

Warmachine: I suspect 255 turns is the default limit designed to coincide with the end date for the game. There may be a "play on" option but no specific scripting of later historical events or technologies etc. I also suspect most players will win more quickly.

The fact that you suspect that worries me. Why do you suspect that? Is it because you think the game's going to be too easy? I mean if people are regulary winning in under 200 turns, how would that be historically accurate (figure 100 years? to take 50 provinces and control the world?)

Puzz3D

08-11-2006, 01:18

Not sure where you get that from. Casual observation suggests walking speeds are comparable in the 3 games (although if someone said it is faster in RTW I might not dissent).

I believe the key differential people have pointed to is between infantry walk and run speeds. From the table, it's going from 6.2/3.7=1.67 in MTW to 10.4/3.7 =2.8 in RTW.
The infantry walk speed is the same for all 3 games, STW, MTW and RTW, and it is 3.72 miles per hour (1.68 meters per second). The 1.68 m/s bears out with measurements using 1 STW tile = 40 meters which was determined by comparing the range of certain effects as given by LongJohn with the measured distance in meters for that effect, and was confirmed by the MTW Official Strategy Guide. I don't remember how CBR determined distance in RTW. He may have used the spacing of the men.

One of the RTW patches (I think v1.2) slowed infantry run speed to 2.5x walk speed.

econ21

08-11-2006, 15:01

The fact that you suspect that worries me. Why do you suspect that? Is it because you think the game's going to be too easy? I mean if people are regulary winning in under 200 turns, how would that be historically accurate (figure 100 years? to take 50 provinces and control the world?)

Every TW game has been designed so that most people win before the last turn. Basically, the game limit is sort of a "time's up" call - you should have won before that. TW games are struggles against the AI, not against the clock (except maybe Alexander).

Every TW game (again except maybe Alexander) has been historically inaccurate in allowing players to conquer more and conquer faster than what the faction they control really did or could have done. There's no reason to expect that to change with M2TW.

I am starting to get confused on the relation between turns and years (which is deliberately opaque), but I think the 200+ turns interval of the game corresponds to something closer to 400 years of history, than to 100 years.

WarMachine420

08-11-2006, 15:26

Every TW game has been designed so that most people win before the last turn. Basically, the game limit is sort of a "time's up" call - you should have won before that. TW games are struggles against the AI, not against the clock (except maybe Alexander).

Every TW game (again except maybe Alexander) has been historically inaccurate in allowing players to conquer more and conquer faster than what the faction they control really did or could have done. There's no reason to expect that to change with M2TW.

I am starting to get confused on the relation between turns and years (which is deliberately opaque), but I think the 200+ turns interval of the game corresponds to something closer to 400 years of history, than to 100 years.

Well that's part of the problem...225 turns covering 500 years, but we'll save that for another discussion.

My point is this: If there were RTW games that lasted 400 turns (there have been many...look around...vh/vh games typically do last that long, especially with a mod) then MTW2 (not m2tw lol) should have games that last at LEAST that long.

Again, I have no problem with some games lasting 200 turns, as long as sometimes games taking 300+.

Still, nobody has answered whether 225 is a "LIMIT" or a "rough estimate" of how long the average game will take.

This is the real question here...

poo_for_brains

08-11-2006, 16:09

Still, nobody has answered whether 225 is a "LIMIT" or a "rough estimate" of how long the average game will take.

This is the real question here...

I've seen that question answered elsewhere: it isn't a limit. The game is designed to last for around 225 turns, but if you like to play it slowly, or perhaps if you are on the hardest difficulty, then you can continue past this point. The only difference, I think, is that you won't get any scripted events occurring ,as happens up until 225 turns with the invention of gunpowder, the plague, discovery of America etc.

WarMachine420

08-11-2006, 19:39

I've seen that question answered elsewhere: it isn't a limit. The game is designed to last for around 225 turns, but if you like to play it slowly, or perhaps if you are on the hardest difficulty, then you can continue past this point. The only difference, I think, is that you won't get any scripted events occurring ,as happens up until 225 turns with the invention of gunpowder, the plague, discovery of America etc.

Thank you for the response...we're almost there lol.

Last question related to this: I think I'm understanding that the game may sometimes take longer than 225, sometimes less...you're confirming that (in my understanding). However, that still doesn't answer then what the turn limit for victory conditions is. Ok...so the game may take 320 turns. I'm happy with that because I usually do play slower. But that only solves half the problem if 225 is when victory must be achieved. Do we even know the specific victory conditions are yet?

:dizzy2:

econ21

08-12-2006, 00:28

WarMachine420

08-12-2006, 23:16

Someone posted a screenshot with the English victory conditions: they may change, but I don't recall them having to be achieved within a certain time. Allowing players to play on past the limit would be rather self-defeating if the objectives expired.

Agreed. However, this is how RTW is...can play beyond the deadline but with no real point other than self satisfaction.

This is what I don't want being the case with MTW2 because to say "no, there's no time limit...but if objectives aren't met in 225 turns you can't win the game"...is sort of a conflicting statement ya know?

Sethik

08-14-2006, 18:22

WarMachine420

08-14-2006, 18:39

I think it'd be a better move to let the player start off in 1080/1090 and let him/her play on as long as they like. Tie historical events not to years, but to advances the player or the AI achieve. For example, if the player builds a certain combination of buildings and reaches a high enough tech level then he or she are the first to discover gun powder. This discovery gives him a valor bonus or something to all gunpowder troops trained. Also after a certain grace period (say 10-20 years) other factions gain the ability to produce firearms as well. Hell, with something along these lines you could add a whole new espionage portion to the game. Stealing secret formulas and sabotage would have a far great impact on the game. And this only just one example. If fleshed-out it could be a pretty cool mechanic.

Also this gives the player a greater contorl of the history of the game and gives the sense that his actions really impact the world.

Brilliant. However, based on some of the things I've read in the past couple of days (dev diaries and the like) I think that historical events, as well as the overall "progression" of the game IS tied into the player and AI's "current standing". It seems to me that some games will naturally start with situations that will pretty much guarantee that it will be a "longer than usual" game. At the same time, the random chance will exist that your faction, as well as the other factions, will start in a setting conducive to the whole game taking a little less than the normal amount of turns. It should vary.

That said, I think the brightest light is the one that really is the point here: events corresponding to this progress. If most of the "main civilised" factions of the game are on the 2nd or 3rd level of the tech tree (in their highest city) it would be a problem if historical events that tie into architecture/technology found on level 4/5+ of the tech tree pop up strictly because, for example, 75 turns have passed. These should be based on the current "global setting"...not a hardcoded predetermined number of turns.

This is something in itself that could lead to horribly unbalanced armies, cities, castles, and religion. As well as a compounding of the issues seen in RTW such as the AI factions never striving to move up the tech tree as ambitiously as a real human opponent would.

Again though, as I stated above, with the most recent news released on the game...things are only looking brighter and brighter to me. I think it's very possible that by this time next year (still very early in MTW2's lifespan) we'll all be looking at RTW in a different light. Instead of looking at all of the things that needed to be "fixed" and how akin to "pulling teeth" receiving support was...we will be looking at how worthwhile all of the comments, suggestions, bug fixing, experimenting, and even protesting was with RTW and realizing that without the project RTW became the Strategy Game of The Year for 2006 (MTW2 hands down...I'm calling it) would not exist.

This scenario would also make the series as a whole more gratifying for those of us who have been around it for years. Seeing all of the hard work come together on one project would lead to a truly amazing, as of yet unseen, experience with MTW2 come this fall/winter.