a Lord played MTW2

[Lord Adherbal]

Lord Chretzel (from the Lordz modding team) says he played MTW2:


i played Medieval Total War 2 day before yesterday at the games convention. dont think this hasnt been released anywhere?

visually it really seems like the game is not far from done.
i think they are really testing on game balance.

picked the battles of agincourt and parma. i think they included two more in the preview.
animations doesnt seem to be finished yet as well. soldiers would move strangely slow. there was a unit of arkebusiers. they could change their formations while shooting, the first line would turn around and step back for the next line to come forward and shoot. but in slowmo. horrible to look at. and i dont remember about the reloading but altogether it looked odd, not very fluent.


basicly they put a lot more polys in vegetation. great variety of bushes and plants in different settings. it looked awesome.
the unit models and textures were looking fine. they made a great use of gloss maps
flags looked very nice. they are more important, because of the detail made it even harder for me to distinguish units.

but unit handling seemed to need some more work. maybe i had too many prosecco, but units were really hard to control. i felt like half of my clicks were ignored. surrounding the enemy seemed not to bring any advantage. knights moved slow and fought weak. i tried to rush into the enemy but some units would stop for no appearent reason before getting into melee.

don't wanna be pessimistic yet, but especially the "surrounding the enemy seemed not to bring any advantage" and "some units would stop for no appearent reason" sounds like major problems from the RTW engine that still not fixed?

[Ibn Munqidh]

I must say Im dissappointed, especially from the last paragraph from his writing. The arquebusiers, I really hope they can clean this up too.

Thanks fro posting Addy!

PS: Its old Overlord_63 here ;)

[Doug-Thompson]

More evidence that unit speed and meatcutter kill rates have been toned down. :laugh4:

[x-dANGEr]

Good news..

// They won't releast the game with such clear un-fluent gameplay.. So it will prolly be fixed.

[L'Impresario]

Those will be the days, when we 'll all be lamenting the loss of the awesome RTW gameplay and blaming CA's catering to ages over 80, slow motion movement and all...
They took a masterpiece and turned it into monopoly for inmates.

[CBR]

Well if half his clicks were ignored then the pc was choking when he played. But from the latests vids the overall speed has not been reduced, so I doubt the slow animations he is talking has anything to do about speed and killrate.


CBR

[professorspatula]

In one of those preview videos, you can also see some of the RTW issues weren't resolved, like the cavalry who failed to properly charge down a unit of infantry. At the end of the video, instead of charging straight through them, they turn and hit the end infantry man instead, the kind of nonsense that made chasing down routers in RTW annoying. Hopefully all these issues will be resolved before the game is released.

The final demo could be very telling if the battle engine is finalised for it. I can only remember playing the RTW one and thinking it must be a cut down/easy version of the full game, only to discover, no, the real thing is the same.

[Lord Adherbal]

I'm rather pessimistic that CA actualy went through the problems of the battle engine and fixed them. I bet they don't even consider most of these thing to be significant problems. And they might not be in SP were you win easily anyway, but they are very frustrating in MP games.

As always, the demo will have to convince me that I'm wrong. Or a full game review from a reliable TW vet.

[Duke John]

Or a full game review from a reliable TW vet.
That could be a problem, practically all of them seem to have the same attitude.
"You buy it."
"No, you buy it!"
"I am not even touching it before you!"
:wink:

[edyzmedieval]

I'll buy it.

Like I care about initial playing, I care more about modding. ~D

[Lord Zimoa of Flanders]

On a side note Lord Chretzel was also diappointed there were no CA/Sega
representatives, being able to answer some technical questions on the engine.

He was probably better technically baggaged than the guys showing off MTW2.

The MTW2 engine has great potential, I hope they look at some great suggestions and critic raised the last two years here within the community.

We just have to wait and see and pray a little...

LZoF:help:

[Martok]

That could be a problem, practically all of them seem to have the same attitude.
"You buy it."
"No, you buy it!"
"I am not even touching it before you!"
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Guilty as charged. ~D

[econ21]

This was a good topic, but is starting to go off-topic fast and to veer into territory that is strictly off limits within the Org forums. I've deleted posts referring to that territory, so let's forget all about them and get back to the subject of the first post. Any more off-topic stuff, I'll lock the thread and start handing out warning points.

[Midnight]

This is disappointing news. Personally, I don't care about vegetation, beautiful units, etc, since I usually don't have the camera very close (otherwise I miss things on the battlefield). I'm not happy to hear that units sometimes still just stop dead for no reason, and if surrounding the enemy now does next to nothing...

[Lord Adherbal]

if surrounding the enemy now does next to nothing...

in RTW it gives a morale penalty, but no combat penalty (or one that is so small that it has no effect). The result is that unless the surrounded unit routs, it will not suffer from being surrounded by weaker units. If it could beat the 2 weaker units in a head-on attack, it'll beat them even faster when they try to surround it.

[Puzz3D]

Posted at the Total War Forums by the player who played the demo.


The Demo Battles were very very easy to win and i have to say the combat is pretty fast , even infantry combat.....

....Mark Sutherns , Marketing Manager from Creative Assembly said for him personally Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game aswell.

I think this says it all. Creative Assembly is continuing down the path they started with RTW. If that doesn't please you, you must be a hardcore player. Wait for the SP mods a year or so down the road, and hope at least one of them improves the gameplay enough that you find it worth playing. For multiplayer, I'm putting my effort into Samurai Wars.

[CBR]

All combat is based on individual soldiers fighting. If they turn towards the threat there wont be any special flank/rear modifier for the attacker. That has been the case in all total war games.

But RTW soldiers sense danger and turn towards it and that wasnt really the case in STW/MTW until after enemy impact.


CBR

[Lord Adherbal]

then the modding support AND the combat engine had better been excellent cos I'm not gonna bother modding with buggy tools and a flawed engine again.

[Lord Adherbal]

All combat is based on individual soldiers fighting. If they turn towards the threat there wont be any special flank/rear modifier for the attacker. That has been the case in all total war games.

hm I always had the feeling most units started "losing (badly)" once they became surrounded, while they would be "winning (easily)" when attacking in one direction only.

How can a man still fight at 100% effeciency when he's "wavering" by the knowledge that the enemy is all around him. Not to mension how important of the support from deeper ranks was in infantry combat.

[Little Legioner]

The Demo Battles were very very easy to win and i have to say the combat is pretty fast , even infantry combat.....

....Mark Sutherns , Marketing Manager from Creative Assembly said for him personally Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game aswell.

This is a disaster, then :furious3:

Just imagine a person who wants to reach all types of person at any cost. You can't do that if you are man of principle.

While the CA was acting like that they are completely erasing personality and extraordinary style of TW series. Infact, willingly they make the game simply ordinary. Excuse my words but they aimed on not making the best but money.

I remember tons of realism mods in RTW! I don't remember RTW as a complete game. RTW was a cripple game which needs a mod staff for walking.

[x-dANGEr]

Adherbal']in RTW it gives a morale penalty, but no combat penalty (or one that is so small that it has no effect). The result is that unless the surrounded unit routs, it will not suffer from being surrounded by weaker units. If it could beat the 2 weaker units in a head-on attack, it'll beat them even faster when they try to surround it.
Isn't the fact that the Defence Skill or the Shield ratios aren't counted for attacks from the back enough..

[Little Legioner]

I'll buy it.

Like I care about initial playing, I care more about modding. ~D

Then, we should pay much more money compared to CA? :juggle2:


Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game aswell.

We do you fix they say simply. Isn't it? "Do something" yes modders do something. Thanks to god we have talented modders to "do something".

CA made me a pessimist person. Shortly i'm dying to learn that whats were so wrong in older series? What was wrong in STW and MTW? They were'nt able to reach "all types of players" ? They were financialy a failure? So, what?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

There are probably alot more things to be ironed out before the release. Just because the AI is bad at Agincourt doesn't mean anything. All this pessimism about the game is gettting really old and really boring me now

[Lord Adherbal]

Isn't the fact that the Defence Skill or the Shield ratios aren't counted for attacks from the back enough..

which only matters if the unit is 1 rank deep, or when the soldiers haven't turned around yet before their are charged in the back.

[CBR]

A unit hit in the flank or rear would have much higher loss rate. Some soldiers didnt have time to turn before getting hit and then the next rank of soldiers could be hit that then had to run because they by default are facing forward.

I have seen units that fought for some time, even when totally surrounded, simply because they didnt take that many losses at first and all the men who had an opponent had turned to face them them.

In RTW that just happens more often as soldiers dont have to have an opponent attacking them before turning towards him.


How can a man still fight at 100% effeciency when he's "wavering" by the knowledge that the enemy is all around him. Not to mension how important of the support from deeper ranks was in infantry combat.

A square/column formation should be able to fight properly even though its surrounded and that is pretty historical too. Of course there is always a danger that parts of the unit would fall back a bit if combat goes badly, and the unit overall would be too compressed.

But historically a unit surprised by an enemy coming in from the rear would most likely rout even before impact. Even if the rear ranks managed to turn around they would overall not be of the same fighting quality as the front ranks of the unit.

AFAIK pike units went into a dense formation (half the normal width per man) when facing cavalry and used 4 ranks of pikes, so that would mean a formation of 8 ranks were needed to face cavalry with maximum/optimal number of pikes.


CBR

[Lord Adherbal]

A square/column formation should be able to fight properly even though its surrounded and that is pretty historical too. Of course there is always a danger that parts of the unit would fall back a bit if combat goes badly, and the unit overall would be too compressed.

that only counts when they have spears, pikes or bajonets and when it faces cavalry. Squares repelled cavalry because horses would refuse to walk into the hedge of sharp points, and the horsemen would not be able to reach the enemy with their swords.

The only accounts of squares being broken by cavalry is when they either broke before contact, or when the muskets were disabled by rainy weather and enemy lancers would ride up to the square and stab their way through the line of infantry - whose bajonets could not outreach the lance.


Remember how the romans were slaughtered at Cannae. If they didn't "receive a combat penalty" from the panic that spread then how would so few carthaginian soldiers with worse equipment ever be able to slaughter so much romans.

Aslong as a strong unit can attack the enemy head on they can push forward and grind through the enemy. But when they are suddenly attacked in the back, the rear ranks can nolonger give support to that forward movement. Any attempt to move forward in a certain direction will open up the formation allowing individual men to become surrounded and killed easily. Add to that the fear from the knowledge that there is no way to retreat to anymore, soldiers will be much less focused on attacking but only about staying alife.

[Puzz3D]

Isn't the fact that the Defence Skill or the Shield ratios aren't counted for attacks from the back enough..
For individual combat yes, but for unit level combat RTW isn't playing like STW/MTW. I happened to be running some tests in Samurai Wars last night, and I had to confront a YC (yari cav) with an NC (naginata cav). The YC will defeat the NC frontally. I think an NC in hold formation can last about 1 minute vs a YC. The YC had the NC down to half strength while it had lost only 10%. However, I had a CA (cav archer) at 60% strength nearby. If I had thrown that CA into the melee frontally I would have lost, but I maneuvered the CA around and hit the YC from the back. The 90% strength YC routed. In STW/MTW, a rear attack gets a 350% combat bonus or a 500% combat bonus if charged in the rear for a couple of combat cycles. This coupled with the morale penalty associated with rear attack tripped the YC into a rout.

The system is balanced so that a rear attack with a unit that would loose frontally can rout a strong unit if the strong unit is already engaged. A rear attack by itself will rout a relatively weak unit. You can get this gameplay in STW/MTW while still having the units stand and fight for a relatively long time when only engaged frontally. That's what sets up the ablility to carry out these flanking meneuvers, and you can do it multiple times during a battle. We spent long time making sure this kind of gameplay worked in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well CA is still working on it right?

[Lord Adherbal]

well CA is still working on it right?

they are still working on parts of the game, yes. But the believe that they would fix the problems of the RTW demo is what led many to buy RTW and be disappointed. I rather complain now, giving CA more time to decide whether these problems need to be fixed or not. But considering they didn't fix it after the RTW demo, patches and BI expansion I don't have much hope they're gonna fix it now.

[Puzz3D]

Well it's interesting because in an interview he gave more than a week ago Bob Smith said the game was finished and they were just tweaking it. Player 753 who just played the demo said the game seemed to be about 70% completed and that it crashed a lot because parts were unfinished. There may not be a whole lot of time to spend on AI programming once the unfinished pieces are really finished.

If you want to be a paying beta tester then buy the game when it first comes out, give feedback and hope CA can fix the major issues in the first patch.

[Midnight]

Is it really so hard to have decent-length combat, important factors like the power of a charge to the rear, compressed combat penalties, etc, in the game and simply an option to turn them off for the "less hardcore" players? Perhaps make the regular game up to MTW's standard, and dumb down the Arcade Mode to RTW's level?

I loved Medieval, and was disappointed with Rome. I'd also rather make some noises now, before the demo or full game is ready, when there's hopefully still some time to make some changes.

[TB666]

There are probably alot more things to be ironed out before the release. Just because the AI is bad at Agincourt doesn't mean anything.
Indeed especially since it goes against what we have heard in previews and considering that this 753 posted that and was never heard from again.:inquisitive:

[L'Impresario]

Player 753 who just played the demo said the game seemed to be about 70% completed and that it crashed a lot because parts were unfinished.

I don't think there's a clause saying that a game must be completed in order to get a release.

[Little Legioner]

They have always a chance. Actually, There are pretty enough time to do this. Solution is simple: Pure Arcade mod and pure Epic mod then everybody is gonna be happy. Why not?

[CBR]

Adherbal']that only counts when they have spears, pikes or bajonets and when it faces cavalry. Squares repelled cavalry because horses would refuse to walk into the hedge of sharp points, and the horsemen would not be able to reach the enemy with their swords..
What does what weapon they used have to do with it? The point is that such a formation does not have a real flank or rear. It is formed up with enough depth and width to be able to deal with attacks from any direction.


The only accounts of squares being broken by cavalry is when they either broke before contact, or when the muskets were disabled by rainy weather and enemy lancers would ride up to the square and stab their way through the line of infantry - whose bajonets could not outreach the lance.
Thats Napoleonic times, and I wont even go into details on that as that would be OT. There are examples of cavalry piercing pike formations only to reform and come back for another attack. That also has nothing to do with what Im saying. Read above.


Remember how the romans were slaughtered at Cannae. If they didn't "receive a combat penalty" from the panic that spread then how would so few carthaginian soldiers with worse equipment ever be able to slaughter so much romans.
We know the pursuing and disordered infantry, that had broken through the center, got hit in both flanks by the African infantry. Apart from the obvious losses taken from such an attack it would most likely have caused a big movement of men retreating towards the center. Men from second and third line might still have been moving forward and it would have caused a compressed mass of confused and desperate men.

As RTW doesnt have any penalties for overlapping units, it is difficult to recreate with this combat engine. It also has a simplistic morale/combat system that doesnt make losing units fall back but either fight or flight.


Aslong as a strong unit can attack the enemy head on they can push forward and grind through the enemy. But when they are suddenly attacked in the back, the rear ranks can nolonger give support to that forward movement. Any attempt to move forward in a certain direction will open up the formation allowing individual men to become surrounded and killed easily.

Yes that is certainly true but units can certainly stand firm and fight hard without attacking much. Hastings is one example.


Add to that the fear from the knowledge that there is no way to retreat to anymore, soldiers will be much less focused on attacking but only about staying alife

Sun Tzu says something like: "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape". RTW now has units fighting to the death if they are completely surrounded. Leave a way out and it becomes easier to kill them.


CBR

[doc_bean]

Is it really so hard to have decent-length combat

Well yes, a lot of things TW games do or at least try to do are very hard to pull off. But that's why people give them money in exchange for their product. :juggle2:

[Orda Khan]

I don't like the sound of that DIY if you want a decent game quote. Are CA going to make it easy for modded games to be hosted on MP? Just another reason to allow plenty of time for response before purchase

.......Orda

[Orda Khan]

For multiplayer, I'm putting my effort into Samurai Wars.
Make the most of it, you'll probably find the VI server shut down before too long

......Orda

[Lord Adherbal]

Yes that is certainly true but units can certainly stand firm and fight hard without attacking much. Hastings is one example.


the huscarls at hastings fought defensively. They would've been much more effective at killing when used offensively, but the enemy was too numerous for that. The same reason why a surrounded unit may still be able to hold out for long, but it would lose much of it's offensive capability.



RTW now has units fighting to the death if they are completely surrounded. Leave a way out and it becomes easier to kill them.

yeah, because routing units turn into brainless sugar. And units fighting to death don't do any damage at all, they just take a bit longer to kill (then routing units).


What does what weapon they used have to do with it? The point is that such a formation does not have a real flank or rear. It is formed up with enough depth and width to be able to deal with attacks from any direction.

you used the square formation as an example. I explained why and under what circumstances it is effective.

your example is like 4 units forming a square box. In that situation it has no real flank or back. But a single unit in (R)TW does not represent something that is large enough to hold off an attack from multiple sides and still remain at full combat efficiency, regardless of it's formation depth.

you do agree that when a unit is "uncertain" or "wavering" from being surrounded it should lose offensive efficiency, right? because if even that doesn't make sense to you I shouldn't bother discussing this. Just put yourself in the shoes of a soldier that is part of a 60 men unit and surrounded by the enemy.

[CBR]

Adherbal']the huscarls at hastings fought defensively. They would've been much more effective at killing when used offensively, but the enemy was too numerous for that. The same reason why a surrounded unit may still be able to hold out for long, but it would lose much of it's offensive capability..
That is pure conjecture. We have very little information about the Norman heavy infantry. And that is still not the point. Standing firm and you can repel enemy attacks. Sure they might not be able to advance to push an enemy unit to the breaking point. I never claimed they could do that.


yeah, because routing units turn into brainless sugar. And units fighting to death don't do any damage at all, they just take a bit longer to kill (then routing units).
Well I would like to go back to STW/MTW routing units that takes longer to kill. But in my last campaign I still found I had fewer losses if I didnt completely surround the enemy.


you used the square formation as an example. I explained why and under what circumstances it is effective.
I mentioned both square and column formations. The Swiss used some massive columns which other nations also started to use. A threat or charge on the flank of such a formation would force it stop up but that is still a lot better than when in a line as that could cause a rout.


your example is like 4 units forming a square box. In that situation it has no real flank or back. But a single unit in (R)TW does not represent something that is large enough to hold off an attack from multiple sides and still remain at full combat efficiency, regardless of it's formation depth.
Well that depends on how one looks at it. Why should individual units not be able to act like that? After subtracting cavalry and missile units you might not have that many infantry units left to form up more than one or two big columns. Some BI units have the square formation too. TW battles are pretty abstract as we are not using realistic numbers of men. Having special formations that works for a selected group would be great.


you do agree that when a unit is "uncertain" or "wavering" from being surrounded it should lose offensive efficiency, right? because if even that doesn't make sense to you I shouldn't bother discussing this. Just put yourself in the shoes of a soldier that is part of a 60 men unit and surrounded by the enemy
Yes the individual soldier AI is too aggressive. Units and soldiers should fall back when "losing badly" Surrounded units thats are losing badly should become compressed and get penalties for that. Should all soldiers get a combat penalty just because their unit is surrounded? As long as they have room to wield their weapon they should be able to inflict just as many wounds as they would normally do. Maybe one could argue that they should turn into "hold formation" ala STW/MTW and have some attack go over to defense instead, I dont know.


CBR

[econ21]

Interesting discussion - [cf]Adherbal makes interesting points about units not getting a combat penalty for being surrounded; and also about RTW units turning to face threats more easily. I had not noticed either feature until he pointed them out in this and an earlier thread. But I'm not convinced either is feature is particularly silly.

On the first point, just because you've had to turn around to face an opponent to the back of your formation, it does not necessarily mean that one-on-one, you will do any worse in hand-to-hand combat with them. (The exception being phalanxes, where RTW does a pretty good job of modelling the vulnerability from switching to swords). The main penalty for being surrounded or flanked should be a morale one. Beyond that I think the combat bonus from striking someone in the back being negating of the defence skill and shield is sufficient. Surrounded men may well fight more vigorously, hence Sun Tzu's advice to always leave a golden bridge from retreat.

On the second point, if you see a mass of enemy forming up to charge you in the back, it is pretty natural for the rear-ranks to turn to face you. I did notice it recently when I tried to line up my cavalry to charge a phalanx in the back in a forum and my reaction was "clever AI!" not "dumb AI". You can manage to surprise formations and hit them in the back, but in my experience, you have to distract them with another unit or rely on speed. Just slowing lining up behind them will not do it and perhaps rightly so. (I doubt Ancient warfare was as formal and linear as Napoleonic combat).

I think flanking, surrounding etc does work reasonably well in realism mods like RTR Platinum. In these kind of mods, kill rates are slow and morale is high. If you just fight face to face, it's a meat grinder, so flanking is everything. Even the AI does it.

Here's one example from RTR PE, from an AI vs AI battle I contrived for a PBM. Some principes (uber-troops in RTR) fight Gallic warbands (no better than the vanilla ones really).

https://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7149/massilia23zz1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Another AI Gallic warband lines up a nice rear charge - no principes turn to face them in anticipation:

https://img376.imageshack.us/img376/1096/massilia25uo5.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

In the melee, the rear principes do turn and fight:
https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9953/massilia27iq6.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

They break with about 60 men left (loss of their general earlier had weakened their morale):

https://img451.imageshack.us/img451/7995/massilia28ak9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

If their general had not been killed, I concede, the principes might have fought for a long time - almost to the death. But the again, I suspect real principes might also have done that in such a backs to the wall situation. Lesser troops would fold like the principes above did.

[Lord Adherbal]

is that principes unit in guard mode? the formation looks too organised for a unit with guard mode off. If so, that could explain why the unit breaks on impact.

Still, I think it's silly that you have to "surprise" a unit and break it by the charge, or else surrounding has no effect. Even if the soldiers do turn around and notice the unit in their back, shouldn't that cause atleast some sort of confusion and panic in the unit that has an effect on it's performance?
In reality being able to move into the back of an enemy without getting noticed by some soldiers would be impossible. Some men would look behind and notice the maneuvre, at which point confusion and panic would definitly start too spread. Unless they're all the uber cool Gladiator Roman types I guess, those guys obviously didn't fear anything, and don't care if their line of retreat is being cut off.

[econ21]

Adherbal']is that principes unit in guard mode? the formation looks too organised for a unit with guard mode off. If so, that could explain why the unit breaks on impact.

I don't know if it was on guard mode - the AI controlled both sides. Sometimes my own principes start a battle in guard mode, sometimes not. I haven't worked out why. But the principes did not break on impact. As you can see by the third screenshot, the rear turned around and fought for a while.


Still, I think it's silly that you have to "surprise" a unit and break it by the charge, or else surrounding has no effect. Even if the soldiers do turn around and notice the unit in their back, shouldn't that cause atleast some sort of confusion and panic in the unit that has an effect on it's performance?

Yes, but confusion and panic are primarily morale effects, not ones that reduce an individual soldier's chance to hit (or increase their chance to be hit).

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't believe surrounding has no effect after the initial charge. I would expect the morale effects to last for as long as you are outflanked. In MTW, you got a -6 morale for both flanks being threatened and a +4 for both being secure. That net +10 effect is pretty big. We don't know what the corresponding modifiers in RTW are, but unless someone finds out to the contrary, those figures sound plausible.

I think TW models morale rather well - I like the "steady", "wavering" etc status and the way in realism mods, there is a world of difference between a few fragile cavalry charging steady troops in the flank and the same charging waving ones. It's one of the reasons why I think TW is such a superb engine for modding hardcore wargames and why I am grateful for CA continuing to produce products suitable for this.

Here's another screenshot, showing how charging in the rear is important. I distracted the phalanx with cavalry and the triari were able to come in for the kill.

https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/5240/debeltos3eb0.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

As it happens, I messed up the charge by having left the triarii on guard formation, but still the end result was inevitable. The benefit of charging in the rear is so big, I could safely move on and focus on another point of the battle (flanking the next phalanx...). Note that this "phalanx" is an RTR PE one, so it has spears, not pikes (no switching to swords) and it is not in the special "phalanx" formation, just deployed in a dense square. The phalanx did not break on impact, but slowly inexorably it was defeated at modest cost.

I don't really want to see flanking get any more powerful in TW. At least for the SP game, it's fine. Strengthen it any more and we'll get something like the "knights falling like flies when touching pikes" effect we see in one of the M2TW trailers.

[IrishArmenian]

They are releasing the Demo probably to get feedback from 3rd party players. I see this as a way to fix the game. I assume these issues will be dealt with because this guy spoke out.

[TB666]

Another report here
http://www.totalwar.org.pl/indexeng.php?ArtId=440

[econ21]

Wow, that's a very informative account, TB666. :bow:

Sounds like cavalry have been toned down from RTW - perhaps too much. Unlike the author, from a historical realism point of view, I am glad that dismounted English knights can beat mounted French ones; even billmen. (The French dismounted at Agincourt for a reason). But the billmen beating them when they had their backs to horses sounds bad - like the butt-spike effect of spears and pikes we see in RTW.

[hoetje]

The demo that was available in Leipzig didn't reveal any strategic mechanisms but - according to the information that I've heard from Sega - this aspect should be added to the public demo which is still being worked out.

Does anyone know when the demo will be released?I mean an official source.

[TB666]

Well hopefully this will be fixed in the final game.
According to 753 they still got 30% to go and balancing is probably one thing they need to do(unless the stats are made for the demo, in other words the knights are suppose to be weak).
As a member on the TWC wrote

Heavy Cav was the dominating force in RTW, an age of infantry, and now in MTW they have severely nerfed it, in a time where heavy cavalry was king

[Midnight]

Combat slowing down - excellent!
Knights as tough as wet tissues - not so good.

Good find, TB666!

[screwtype]

There are probably alot more things to be ironed out before the release. Just because the AI is bad at Agincourt doesn't mean anything. All this pessimism about the game is gettting really old and really boring me now

Yes, I have to agree with that, the game isn't finished so what is the point of criticizing the gameplay now? Let's at least try and wait for the finished product (ie the demo) before getting all pessimistic about alleged missing features.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gah. I'm already pessimistic. I remember when we were told not to be pessimistic when the unit preview for the gladiator in RTW was released.

CA have confirmed they are continuing in the RTW battle-lite direction, that they view making a halfway realistic battle simulator as 'market limiting'.

It also sounds like MTW2 has some issues for a game to be released in November(?).

That is not my main problem with it. The problem is having to wait 1+ years for a good mod to make the game good.

It is, of course, CA's right to make whatever game they please. I would not be unhappy about some competition in the genre, however.

Crazed Rabbit

[AussieGiant]

Great report, but I'd keep everything in perspective.

There is a lot of work to be done. Some work sounds kind of serious (Cavalry getting murdered after charging Billmen in the rear), and some not so serious.

In the end I am consistently surprised by the number of reports from people all over the planet regarding movement speeds and kill rates. CA must have worked this out by now surely?

In the end the graphics seem to have been solved but the core battle behaviour is still a tough nut for CA to crack.

I'm looking forward to the guy's here getting their hands on the Demo.

[Lord Adherbal]

There is a lot of work to be done. Some work sounds kind of serious (Cavalry getting murdered after charging Billmen in the rear), and some not so serious.

In the end I am consistently surprised by the number of reports from people all over the planet regarding movement speeds and kill rates. CA must have worked this out by now surely?

these problems existed in the RTW demo and were never fixed in the full release, patched or expansion. If they still aren't fixed now, what makes you so certain they will fix them before the release? I really think CA doesn't care about these kind of combat engine flaws anymore. Aslong as it all looks spectacular and hollywoodish their target fanbase (kids) will be pleased.

[hoetje]

I dont think their target fanbase are kids. Kids want fast gameplay,the campaign map won't please them.They should play tekken or so :balloon2: :laugh4:

[Longjohn4]

I think a point that you've all missed is that in the Agincourt demo, the English army all have huge experience (hence the number of flags) so they're not going to break from morale, and they have a big edge over the knights that they wouldn't have if the experience levels were even.

[Puzz3D]

I think a point that you've all missed is that in the Agincourt demo, the English army all have huge experience (hence the number of flags) so they're not going to break from morale, and they have a big edge over the knights that they wouldn't have if the experience levels were even.
A voice from the past with important info. Thanks LongJohn.

[sunsmountain]

I think this says it all. Creative Assembly is continuing down the path they started with RTW. If that doesn't please you, you must be a hardcore player. Wait for the SP mods a year or so down the road, and hope at least one of them improves the gameplay enough that you find it worth playing. For multiplayer, I'm putting my effort into Samurai Wars.

I hope they at least provide enough moddability to have the "hardcore players" set their preferred game and kill speeds. Cavalry dropping like flies is actually a good thing, since cav is way too strong in RTW now.

[Lord Adherbal]

Cavalry dropping like flies is actually a good thing, since cav is way too strong in RTW now.

I disagree, fights shouldn't be over in 5 seconds. Cav should kill slower, not die faster.


A voice from the past with important info. Thanks LongJohn.

any prove he's the CA LongJohn you're been talking about?

[AussieGiant]

Adherbal']these problems existed in the RTW demo and were never fixed in the full release, patched or expansion. If they still aren't fixed now, what makes you so certain they will fix them before the release? I really think CA doesn't care about these kind of combat engine flaws anymore. Aslong as it all looks spectacular and hollywoodish their target fanbase (kids) will be pleased.

Well if they are then this next edition of their game will begin their demise. RTW was the beginning of fast battle and now RTWII is the second edition after this change. If they persist then they could find themselves on the wrong side of their sales target as they lose a segement they were counting on.

I'm just trying to be positive Adherbal. At the moment that is all I can do.

[Lord Adherbal]

pessimism will save you from being disappointed ~;)

[CBR]

Long live pessimism!


CBR

[AussieGiant]

I know Adherbal...I know :wall:

The me the most sobering thing that has come out recently is an article in the official site in which one guy has a link to a review in which one of the CA guy's admits that the Total Realism Mod had impressed people inside CA but due to time constraints it was not possible for them to do this themselves.

Their strategy right now is clearly as follows:

"Produce a game that is aimed at a broad spectrum of players, make it moddable enough for the hardcore guys from the Shogun and MTW era to tailor it to what they need."

And there you have it...they get the maximum sales they need to continue staying in business while me...and fair few others have to wait for the modding community to do the rest.

I have never used a modd before in my life!!! And now it looks like I will have to. As far as I'm concerned that is just unacceptable! It is perfectly possible to to cater for the broader spectrum inside the current parameters they have used for sometime.

The use of the "Arcade" option which has been around for bloody ages and the "Slide Bar" speed control would allow them to make the game "real", and allow the broad spectrum players to do their thing (arcade) and keep the speed relative AND real while allowing the boring bits to be fast forwarded (sliding speed rule or 2x or 4x speed settings).

IT REALLY IS DISAPPOINTING that they can't do this!!

So fine...I've lost it!!!!! Finally!!

:wall:

[Lord Adherbal]

yeah, it's hard to understand why CA doesn't just include realism options. Just like flight and race simulators do. How hard can it be? One could argue they would have to do twice as much unit balancing, but do the people wh prefer fast paced hollywood action even care about balance? judging from RTW gameplay, and combat engine flaws that still haven't been fixed I would say not.

[AussieGiant]

exactly Adherbal.

But...I'm sure some bright spark in CA canned that idea for a few good reasons.

BUT, as you mentioned, the Broad spectrum players (I love the title I have given them) would not know or even care about balancing or strange movement issues.

Therefore you balanace the game based on realism and then modify the Arcade version with moral changes and speed increases. It is not as if there would be no complaints but surely it is a less dysfunctional idea than warping things as the "Baseline" version.

I've calmed down now...thanks for listening:2thumbsup:

[Puzz3D]

Well if they are then this next edition of their game will begin their demise.
No it won't be their demise because there are plenty of players who find RTW/BI gameplay acceptable. What's unfortunate is the decision to appeal to the lowest common denominator (broad spectrum) because, once you do that, the gameplay will never approach its full potential. The more astute player is marginalized with the term "hardcore", but what he's advocating would benefit all players. We can see that some features of the original battle engine have now been discarded, and the tactical AI isn't playing as well either. I don't see how that benefits the average player.



Therefore you balanace the game based on realism and then modify the Arcade version with moral changes and speed increases. It is not as if there would be no complaints but surely it is a less dysfunctional idea than warping things as the "Baseline" version.
I think balancing is a separate issue, and since the game is so complex now it's not longer feasible for CA to balanced it to a high degree. This is the downside to including lots of units and factions.

LongJohn was very clear back in MTW days about why there aren't more gameplay options in multiplayer. He said it would confuse new players, and give veteran players an unfair advantage over them. The problem I have with the "let the modders make the game into what they want" idea is that modders cannot really overcome AI deficienies or missing features in the engine. No mod can bring RTW battlefield gameplay up to the level of MTW/VI because the RTW battle engine is missing important features, and the AI is not moddable either.

[Ludens]

Adherbal']yeah, it's hard to understand why CA doesn't just include realism options. Just like flight and race simulators do. How hard can it be? One could argue they would have to do twice as much unit balancing, but do the people wh prefer fast paced hollywood action even care about balance?
Perhaps because no one agrees about what is balanced? There have been many discussions on MP balance in the past, and different players often disagreed about what would be desirable. So if CA spends a lot of time balancing it, many people will still disagree, making it rather questionable why CA should bother in the first place. The way they do it now the hardcore community can decide for itself what it wants. Lazy? Perhaps, but part of the community is going to dislike the balance no matter what CA does.

Don't get me wrong; I actually agree with your points, but it will take more than just adding a realism-swith to please the serious gamers on this board.

[Lord Adherbal]

I dont agree with that. People will always complain that knights are too strong - or too weak, or something like that. But if the overall game involves the same degree of tactical gameplay from MTW, I'm sure we will all be very pleased.

[Ludens]

Adherbal.]I dont agree with that. People will always complain that knights are too strong - or too weak, or something like that. But if the overall game involves the same degree of tactical gameplay from MTW, I'm sure we will all be very pleased.
Well, I don't share your optimism. I expect that in such a situation, people would just complain that CA did not improve the gameplay over M:TW when its errors where known. ~;)

[CBR]

The tactical gameplay of MTW was powerful cavalry and swords, very few units were actually worth buying in MP and a long but nearly pointless missile phase. I would certainly hope something has been improved.


CBR

[Puzz3D]

The tactical gameplay of MTW was powerful cavalry and swords, very few units were actually worth buying in MP and a long but nearly pointless missile phase. I would certainly hope something has been improved.
And that was after 3 post-release balancing adjustments, MTW v1.1, VI v2.00 and VI v2.01. The multiplayer community asked for improved ranged units, and after the v1.1 patch they asked for better spears. The main disagreement was about morale level, and we had asked for multiple settings on morale and fatigue rate which we didn't get.


There have been many discussions on MP balance in the past, and different players often disagreed about what would be desirable. So if CA spends a lot of time balancing it, many people will still disagree, making it rather questionable why CA should bother in the first place.
That's right. Blame the players for CA's failure to balance the game. If CA can't or doesn't want to balance the game properly, then they should provide multiple settings on morale, fatigue and ammo, although deficiencies in the new battle engine and excessive gamespeed make it moot for multiplayer if they aren't addressed.

[AussieGiant]

Puzz,

I only say it will be their demise, because I really believe that if the "Baseline" realism is warped too far as "the standard", then down the line it will come back to bite them.

Either because they lose CA staff who do not know the history and context of "how" they go to this point, and the fact that if they move too far away from their core building blocks it is a sure fire way to end a good thing.

I could be wrong in my beliefs and that is perfectly possible. But my experience indicates this to be an accurate concept.

To me balancing is slightly separate to the game speed and realitve movement rates.

Unless I talk about balancing specifically then I am normally just talking about our two pet problems of the relative speeds of units and game speed overall.

[AussieGiant]

I think a point that you've all missed is that in the Agincourt demo, the English army all have huge experience (hence the number of flags) so they're not going to break from morale, and they have a big edge over the knights that they wouldn't have if the experience levels were even.

Indeed LongJohn with some tit bits of importance.

Should we be worried LongJohn? Or is this a bit of storm in a tea cup at this stage?

[ShadesWolf]

What did the battlefield for Agincourt look like ?
What type of features did it have on it ?
Could you place stakes in the ground?
Is there any mud ofn the battlefield ?

[Little Legioner]

That's right. Blame the players for CA's failure to balance the game. If CA can't or doesn't want to balance the game properly, then they should provide multiple settings on morale, fatigue and ammo, although deficiencies in the new battle engine and excessive gamespeed make it moot for multiplayer if they aren't addressed.

Depends on their decision. If they wanna reach honestly "all type of players" as they ment before several times then they must do this. Why do they stretch this matter so long? They just say that "we'll put an option". and the issue has been solved last and forever.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Hi,

I was also in Leipzig and played the demo. The graphics is very pretty, but the 2 demo battles doesn't let enough space for extensive testing. The computer attacked fast. I couldn't buy the units, that I want to. It felt like Rome. That was really disappointing. There was less informations. All that Sega always presents is the pretty graphics. But where are the news about other things like size and number of maps. Or is 4vs4 possible? Where are the bars on the unit cards that shows the exhaustion? I couldn't see them in Leipzig. Rome was a new game. But MTW II is a sequel. Why do they go backward? I expected at least the features we already have had. Other companies has shown the multiplayer part of their games. Why it was not possible with mtw. I am very pessimistic for the multiplayer part. But the Games Convention in Leipzig couldn't inform of the open questions and I feel, that Sega doesn't want to inform us about all features.

Sorry CA. But what do you expect? Celebrations because of you changed the nearly perfect tactical part totally. The members of our clan have played MTW 1 since 3 or 4 years. We expected only that you improve the graphics and the anti cav units. Or a ranking system for the multiplayer would be nice. Some other modi like capture the flag or king of the hill...


Best Regards

Di3Hard

[TB666]

Or is 4vs4 possible?
I think I saw a video where they said that you could do that.
Where are the bars on the unit cards that shows the exhaustion? I couldn't see them in Leipzig.
Was never suppose to be in so if you thought that it would be in then that person lied to you(And no, CA never said it).

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

4vs4 ...

I think I saw a video where they said that you could do that.

That sounds good. :) Hopefully it will be playable without lags. When I think about Rome. Only with small units (they called them normal unit size lol) it was possible to play 2vs2 ;) That was horrible.


... exhaustion bars ...

Was never suppose to be in so if you thought that it would be in then that person lied to you(And no, CA never said it).

Rome is not MTW. I accept that. But MTW II is the sequel of MTW 1. They should integrate the same features at least as we have had already in MTW 1. If they don't do is they disappoint all old players. And It cannot be difficult to show these bars. I don't call them liars, but I miss facts and informations about the tactical combat. I don't need informations about the flowers on the battle field or which pants the knights wear.

[TB666]

But flowers are very pretty :flowers:

Edit: And found the video where they talked about mp and the sega/ca guy said that you could play up to 8 people.

[Duke John]

But MTW II is the sequel of MTW 1.
No, M2:TW is the sequel of R:TW, just like M:TW was the "sequel" of S:TW.

[Little Legioner]

Sorry CA. But what do you expect? Celebrations because of you changed the nearly perfect tactical part totally. The members of our clan have played MTW 1 since 3 or 4 years.

We can't understand clearly what do they expect indeed. Their comments based upon "reach all type of players" since RTW days but actually they've been reached with STW and MTW to "all types of players" but upon different and unique philosophy of strategy. They offered a different stage of strategy gaming and we and most of strategy players have been accepted their attractive invitaton gladly.

In reality i do not prone to pessimism about newcomer series of TW but simply i'm just a bit curios about them. Still, they are able to satisfy to fans and new players if they simply create two different game style for all kind of TW players.

I do not demand that CA obediently listen our wishes and do what we desire. This would be a silly expectation. I'll just wait the demo for my further comments. Until the release of demo i'll stop my pessimistic :sweatdrop: messages and take a new breath.

[Lord Adherbal]

I've been thinking. Isn't a turn based campaign rather "hardcore" in the first place? how many "12y old kids" actualy enjoy playing that? Why make the campaign gameplay so deep with lots of strategic options, but let the battles - the main selling point - be a silly rushfest full of flaws, imbalances and involving few strategy at all?

[Orda Khan]

What did the battlefield for Agincourt look like ?
What type of features did it have on it ?
Could you place stakes in the ground?
Is there any mud ofn the battlefield ?
The description I read mentioned exceptional terrain textures, very realistic shrubs, trees and even flowers. There was even a bit of rain which was acceptable but nothing special, though the sky is supposedly very realistic. The archers' stakes were impassable to cav but infantry was unimpeded. Among the features of the battlefield was a ploughed area but there appeared to be no hill. Whether there was actually a gradient remains to be seen (I consider RTW maps to be quite deceiving in this area). The map editor, if it is still a feature, should solve any issue regarding accurate details to enable some form of historical battle creation.

Longjohn4 has covered the issues regarding unit strengths, which has always been the case with historical battles in TW, namely the upgrades. Should anyone really be surprised at unit abilities when they are pumped with upgrades? Remember the Jaffa battle with MTW and how easy it was against incredible odds?
I am more concerned with how upgraded the PC will have to be to run the game, especially if trying to host a 4v4 on MP. Another thing is how stable a server will be provided? The answers to these questions are not available

......Orda

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

No, M2:TW is the sequel of R:TW, just like M:TW was the "sequel" of S:TW.

But MTW 2 is the second version of MTW 1 and not a sequel of Rome. The demo in Leipzig told me that are right, but the naming is illogical imo.

[Lord Adherbal]

considering the change of concept & target market between STW/MTW and RTW(/MTW2) it probably shouldn't even get the "total war" label anymore. Just like CA's "Spartan" is part of a new "total warrior" series. They should've called RTW "Arcade War" or something, would've been much more clear. You can't make a game that is supposingly a sequel - thus staying faithfull to the original gameplay - but completly change the gameplay and not expect your original fanbase to be disappointed.

[Duke John]

M2:TW is build on the "philosophy" of R:TW. The only connection it has with M:TW is that it covers about the same era. Edit: see Adherbal.


Why make the campaign gameplay so deep with lots of strategic options
What is so deep about the campaign? Practically all features can be either automated or ignored. Especially since defeating the tactical AI is so easy.

[Little Legioner]

M2:TW is build on the "philosophy" of R:TW. The only connection it has with M:TW is that it covers about the same era. Edit: see Adherbal.

If they continue the RTW tradition in MTW 2 then i cannot see any connection between MTW 1 and MTW 2 besides age similarity.


What is so deep about the campaign? Practically all features can be either automated or ignored. Especially since defeating the tactical AI is so easy.

True... Every single clicker can challenge with his rival factions without any diplomatic maneuvers, sabotage or assasinations. Why is that so coz i've seen it.

One of my friend has been made a full stack heavy chariot army of Britons in RTW and he won numberless battles with this Panzer Division like horde. He didn't care politics, developing his cities and such as this things.

Example two: another new player TW series dude of me was playing with Seleucids. He had a strong Catapract army. No peltast, no archers just a few Phalanx... Despite of this strange mixture band he was able to win battles. While he was playing so silly the game he had approx 50.000 denarii per turn! He was ignoring campaign messages, he had no diplomat, he didn't care city management. As a result simply he was a awesome :laugh4:

Just make a full stack latest model army and march upon your enemy. If you can do that why should you tire yourself with diplomats or assasins?

So, Whats the point? Point is there was no border between good player or bad player in RTW style battle mechanics.

What was the big deal then? If we can win battles any tactical sense or unit calculations why should i focus on my economy, diplomacy or espionage matters?

As you said truly in your message i ignore them and march forward. :juggle2:

[Lord Adherbal]

the problem is that MTW2 will certainly get +90% scores in all PC magazine reviews. Those reviewers are either biased or they are so "noobish" and astonished by the graphics that they dont realise that there is no need for tactics and strategy - something I would expect from a "real time strategy" game, especially one that claims to have "epic battles". Thus the game becomes another big commercial succes, thus there is no reason why CA should consider changing it's current course.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Adherbal']the problem is that MTW2 will certainly get +90% scores in all PC magazine reviews. Those reviewers are either biased or they are so "noobish" ...

Indeed. Here in Germany we have the same problem. These magazines don't have the knowlegde and/or time to test the tactical mode right. In my opinion, they should ask the mtw 1 veterans. We have the knowlegde to form an opinion. But somebody who everyday test the next "command and conquer" clone, cannot see the differents between mtw 1, rome and mtw 2.

[Little Legioner]

Adherbal'] Thus the game becomes another big commercial succes, thus there is no reason why CA should consider changing it's current course.

Sad but true :shame: Why do they change the course while they are making tons of money upon the game?

No noobs play RTW but TW fans still play MTW. This is a big and meaningful difference.

[econ21]

Example two: another new player TW series dude of me was playing with Seleucids. He had a strong Catapract army. No peltast, no archers just a few Phalanx.

IIRC, you have to work quite hard to get access to Cataphracts in the Seleucid campaign. By the time you get them, you probably can outtech the enemy. But the Romans will have probably had the Marian reforms too, so it may not be so easy.

We did a Seleucid PBM on VH/M and it struck me as one of the more interesting campaigns in the vanilla game. You face a number of adversaries from the start, have a large territory that is hard to manage and rather primitve troops that can gradually be up-teched to the best roster in the game:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60359

Playing it my impression was, yes, cataphracts are strong. But I was also struck by the power of elite archers/slingers. Often times, I just mowed down the Romans. Realism mods like RTR and EB fix this easily. I've yet to try Seleucia in them though - it just looks too vast.


We expected only that you improve the graphics and the anti cav units.

Not sure I am getting this - are you saying they have not done that? Have you seen the video of the knights all dropping dead when they hit the pikes? I fear they may have improved the anti-cav too much, but again this issue is eminently moddable.

[Lord Adherbal]

Not sure I am getting this - are you saying they have not done that?

he means MTW2 should be MTW with splendid graphics and solving some balance issues MTW had. Instead it's RTW with a medieval theme.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Adherbal']he means MTW2 should be MTW with splendid graphics and solving some balance issues MTW had. Instead it's RTW with a medieval theme.

Yes, that was it, what I wanted to say.

[econ21]

Adherbal']he means MTW2 should be MTW with splendid graphics and solving some balance issues MTW had. Instead it's RTW with a medieval theme.

Fair enough. But for me the question is will the game after modding be comparable to MTW, but with better graphics and some balance issues solved. Based on the RTW experience, I am pretty confident it will be.

RTR PE and Goth mod for BI have both already surpassed MTW in my estimation. EB will probably top them both when it gets to 1.0. Now those are pretty big mods and we've had to wait a while for them. But people are churning out smaller mods at a fair rate now and solving some of the key issues will probably be simple. Kind of like the 0.1 mod for Alexander that just cut the speeds and added 10 to the morale and the defence.

The TW engine may have lost a few features (enumerated by Puzz3D) moving from MTW to RTW, but with modding it is still capable of giving a similar SP experience to MTW. Read any of my battle reports in the Throne Room and tell me I'm playing a RTS clickfest. Here's one:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1179602&postcount=11

[Orda Khan]

Modding the game will work wonders....for SP; most of us agree on that. Given the issues with hosting modded MP games, what chances are there for this experience online?

........Orda

[The Wizard]

[...] CA wants to reach all types of players [...]

And that's just it, hmm? They're not reaching all kinds of players. They are only reaching the gimmick kids, arcade runts and gamey fanboys. Meanwhile, they've kindly put the veteran -- just as much a lover of the series if not far more so -- out on the street with no company but the wind and the weather and the eyesore that was RTW gameplay.

I find it so disappointing. Many shreds, yes, but they add up. This is but the latest bit. The surrounded penalty was already taken out in the RTW engine. Little hope that they'll put it back in with this revved up version of the former. What that points to? A game with little tactical depth in its battles, relying on gimmicks such as elephants with cannons and cool-looking sieges to carry your average twelve year old through the oh-so-hard battles.

We better hope to God that CA don't decide to make MTW2 the same "modder's paradise" as RTW was. Remembering my EB days that means a severe limit to our capabilities to actually improve the game. :wall:


But for me the question is will the game after modding be comparable to MTW, but with better graphics and some balance issues solved.

Is that not the problem here, Appleton? We are the ones with the responsibility to take the game back to the level it had possessed earlier on?

[Puzz3D]

The TW engine may have lost a few features (enumerated by Puzz3D) moving from MTW to RTW, but with modding it is still capable of giving a similar SP experience to MTW.
I don't agree. Stacked units in RTW perform better when they should be performing worse. I successfully defended a city center with two inexperienced basic phalanx units against two strong AI units which would have easily beaten me if I hadn't stacked my units. In the STW/MTW battle engine, men who have less than 1 meter of space fight at half strength. Also, since there is no LOS for individual men in the RTW engine, it make no difference in their effectiveness what formation they assume or whether there are units standing in front of them. The only thing that happens is on low trajectory weapons you have friendly units getting hit in the back. M2TW is going to have guns which are very low trajectory weapons. Just imagine what's going to happen if they fire a volley with a friendly unit standing in front of them.

In the STW/MTW engine, only the first two ranks had unobstruced view in a close formation. In a loose formation, the first 3 ranks had unobstructed view, but going to loose cost you 2 points in morale. Deeper the formations suffered more inaccuracy, but if you placed a deep formation on a downslope, then more than the first 2 ranks had unobstructed view and accuracy improved. Considerations like this are gone in RTW. Another issue is that arrow velocity is so high that archers shoot men in their own unit on low angle shots and make rediculously high angle shots over obstructions such as buildings at far too great distances on units that it has targetted but which retreat out of normal open fire range.

In SP, the AI turns its units backs to ranged fire even when the unit has a shield. No mod has fixed that. Also, CA made 3 attempts to fix the suicide general. Why would anyone think it's going to be fixed in M2TW which would be the 5th time its under consideration if you count RTW v1.0? I find it hard to believe that most players don't notice the suicide general or that it doesn't make any difference.

[Lord Adherbal]

The only thing that happens is on low trajectory weapons you have friendly units getting hit in the back. M2TW is going to have guns which are very low trajectory weapons. Just imagine what's going to happen if they fire a volley with a friendly unit standing in front of them.

agreed on everything you say, except for this. Individual soldiers do check if there are friendly units in front of them. The NTW2 mod would've been impossible if that didn't happen.
I believe it didn't work in RTW 1.0 though, it was fixed in a later patch.

[Puzz3D]

Adherbal']Individual soldiers do check if there are friendly units in front of them. The NTW2 mod would've been impossible if that didn't happen.
I believe it didn't work in RTW 1.0 though, it was fixed in a later patch.
Slingers aren't fixed even in RTW v1.5. They inflict substantial losses to friendly units standing in front of them. If slingers skirmish back behind your front line, it's best to stop them from firing.

[Duke John]

That is because the trajectory of sling stones is high enough to go over the friendly units in front. But since those stones have a random modifier to their aim (looks like cannister fire) some will hit the friendly unit. With high velocity bullets the trajectory is much flatter and then units indeed refuse to fire if a friendly unit obstructs view.

A fix would have been more accurate sling stones and a smaller attack value to even out.

In the video with the Pavia battle you can see Handgunners reloading behind, I believe Pikemen, it is not shown wether they actually fire, but it doesn't look good.

[Puzz3D]

That is because the trajectory of sling stones is high enough to go over the friendly units in front. But since those stones have a random modifier to their aim (looks like cannister fire) some will hit the friendly unit. With high velocity bullets the trajectory is much flatter and then units indeed refuse to fire if a friendly unit obstructs view.
Ok. I'll strike LOS off my list. Are you saying the whole unit refuses to fire or only the men who can't see a man to target?

[Doug-Thompson]

Adherbal']I've been thinking. Isn't a turn based campaign rather "hardcore" in the first place? how many "12y old kids" actualy enjoy playing that? Why make the campaign gameplay so deep with lots of strategic options, but let the battles - the main selling point - be a silly rushfest full of flaws, imbalances and involving few strategy at all?


Interesting point. Even bad strategy will win if you can win every battle.

Of course, if I designed a shooter there wouldn't be any health packs and you could bleed to death even if you were shot in the arm. What fun am I?

[Duke John]

Are you saying the whole unit refuses to fire or only the men who can't see a man to target?
No, that is where R:TW shows its geniality... If a few soldiers have clear line of sight then the entire unit goes through the firing animation but only the ones with LOS actually fire. Although it may also be that if you order to fire the unit will always go through the animation (this doesn't mean that the unit fires) regardless of LOS, I don't remember it precisely, but it is not really sophisticated.

And another thing, didn't units in R:TW go through one entire blank (as is not firing) reload/aim/fire sequence before actually firing? I believe it only happens when ordering an unit to fire.

[econ21]

I don't agree. Stacked units in RTW perform better when they should be performing worse. I successfully defended a city center with two inexperienced basic phalanx units against two strong AI units which would have easily beaten me if I hadn't stacked my units.

Then don't stack. It's not something I exploit nor something the AI exploits against me. Over-stacking was never a big deal in MTW, as I recall. It probably only kicked in regularly for me in bridge battles and those are still murder in RTW.


In SP, the AI turns its units backs to ranged fire even when the unit has a shield. No mod has fixed that.

Not a big deal, IMO. If I can work my missiles round the backs of the AI, I deserve to do some damage. Ditto if the AI can do it to be me. But to be honest, it does not happen much. When I do get rear shots, it's typically because I've pinned the AI with a melee units and worked a peltast around its flank. (I do tend to limit myself to 1-2 bows/slingers per stack.)


Also, CA made 3 attempts to fix the suicide general. Why would anyone think it's going to be fixed in M2TW which would be the 5th time its under consideration if you count RTW v1.0? I find it hard to believe that most players don't notice the suicide general or that it doesn't make any difference.

RTW has much less of a suicide general problem than STW and no worse a one than MTW. Most of my battles are not decided by decapitating the general - if anything, it seems less significant than it was in MTW (I can't be the only one to remember those waves of reinforcements in MTW that would never stand because their general died in the first wave).

I can only speak from my experience, which is that it is possible to have long, satisfying battles in modded RTW that are very comparable to those in MTW. I'm sorry you have not had that experience, but I suspect a lot of RTR and EB players have, which is why they are playing those mods and not MTW or STW. If there is a problem, it is that the RTW strategic engine does not deliver those kind of battles as often as the STW and MTW one. I think that's largely a function of the switch from the Risk-style map, but the RTW AI shows signs of starting to catch up with the switch.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Hi,

I found an image in the screenshot thread, that confirm my fears. After buying of 4068 soldiers the battle exceeds recommended size :oops:

One army has 1000 men (20 possible units). This means maximum 2vs2. :wall:

The pictures were made from the full version.

If this problem is also in the final version, our clan will play mtw 1 for a while and then we say good bye to Total War. Well that's life. Sometime anything is over.

Here you can find the image:

http://pff.swrebellion.com/index.php?topic=4626.0

[Ringeck]

The pictures were made from the full version.


Was it? I was under the impression it was an unfinished product?

[Ser Clegane]

Here you can find the image:

http://pff.swrebellion.com/index.php?topic=4626.0

The screenshot says that the recommended size for the detected settings has been exceeded which might result in performance problems.

How can this be a surprise, that you might run into performance problems at a certain point?
Obviously you will not be able to play 10000 soldier battles on all PCs without any problems - what did you expect?
This message does not say anything about whether 4 vs. 4 is generally possible.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Obviously you will not be able to play 10000 soldier battles on all PCs without any problems - what did you expect?
This message does not say anything about whether 4 vs. 4 is generally possible.

4vs4 means 8000 men. And 4vs4 is what we expect. And I don't wanna play with a 500 soldier army. In mtw 1 an army has 860 - 1000 soldier. And mtw 2 has 4 slots more (20 instead of 16 units).

[TB666]

Was it? I was under the impression it was an unfinished product?
It was the full game but not the final version because merchants weren't in yet according to Callatian.
I think optimisation takes place at the end in games(correct me if I'm wrong).

[Ser Clegane]

4vs4 means 8000 men. And 4vs4 is what we expect. And I don't wanna play with a 500 soldier army. In mtw 1 an army has 860 - 1000 soldier. And mtw 2 has 4 slots more (20 instead of 16 units).
It does not say anywhere that you will not be able to play 4 vs. 4 with 8000 soldiers - it only says that with the settings that were used when the screenshot was taken you might have performance problems.

[Ringeck]

I think optimisation takes place at the end in games(correct me if I'm wrong).

As does streamlining (usually), at least from my experience as a beta tester (Wee! A grand total of one!) - which means it's probably possible to get more lil'men into battle in the final game.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

It does not say anywhere that you will not be able to play 4 vs. 4 with 8000 soldiers - it only says that with the settings that were used when the screenshot was taken you might have performance problems.

I got the same message in Rome with 3500 soldier. This message means LAG.

[TB666]

I got the same message in Rome with 3500 soldier. This message means LAG.
Get a better computer then and you can handle more ~;)

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

I bought a new computer for Rome :embarassed: But it was not fast enough. :dizzy2:

[TB666]

I bought a new computer for Rome :embarassed: But it was not fast enough. :dizzy2:
Oh that sucks :oops:
I got a 2.3 GHz Celeron, 512 MB Ram and a Radeon 9800pro 128mb and I can have 6800 guys before Rome gives me that message.
I guess with M2TW that would be around half for me.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Oh that sucks :oops:
I got a 2.3 GHz Celeron, 512 MB Ram and a Radeon 9800pro 128mb and I can have 6800 guys before Rome gives me that message.
I guess with M2TW that would be around half for me.

I have a 3000+ AMD with 1gb RAM. 3500 - 4000 was the limit. Tried again after some patches but the same. I deinstalled the game.

[Lord Adherbal]

I heard people with simular problems. Their comps are a lot better then mine (athlon 1800+ GF4 Ti 4200, 768mb ram), but perform worse in RTW.

I also notice how decreasing GFX detail hardly makes me get a better performance. I have the feeling MTW was programmed better then RTW. The battle engine seems to be more complex (individual range checks for units etc) yet it puts less strain on my CPU. Obviously the RTW battle engine might be more complicated then I think, but that would bring us back to the topic: then why does it have much more flaws then MTW's?

[Duke John]

It's probably caused by pathfinding and collision detection which seems more complex and detailed. Although I prefer the movement of units in M:TW despite being simplistic, at least it works!

I believe you can notice it by playing with loads of soldiers in M:TW; it will only lag when the units are in view -> graphics puts a big strain on the CPU and not pathfinding. When doing this in R:TW you will see that the lag will remain even when you have turned the camera away from all units -> pathfinding and collision detection continue to be calculated and causes lag despite not seeing a single unit.

So the computers that can handle large soldiers well are probably the ones with processors that can quickly calculate the pathfinding and collision detection algorithms. Does anyone happen to know wether certain processers are better at that?

[CBR]

Im getting the warning at 6.5K but I can still play with twice that amount at around 15 fps and no input lag. So I dont think that particular warning in the screenshot is anything to worry about as you dont know what machine it was used on.

This game use same engine as RTW so should put same stress on the cpu and more stress on the vidcard if playing at the highest gfx setting.


CBR

[Puzz3D]

Then don't stack. It's not something I exploit nor something the AI exploits against me. Over-stacking was never a big deal in MTW, as I recall. It probably only kicked in regularly for me in bridge battles and those are still murder in RTW.
The RTW experience is not the same as STW/MTW. In STW/MTW, units moved if they were overlapping until they no longer overlapped.



Not a big deal, IMO. If I can work my missiles round the backs of the AI, I deserve to do some damage. Ditto if the AI can do it to be me. But to be honest, it does not happen much. When I do get rear shots, it's typically because I've pinned the AI with a melee units and worked a peltast around its flank. (I do tend to limit myself to 1-2 bows/slingers per stack.)
It's a big deal for me. I'm seeing the AI move a unit towards my line and then turn it around and walk back to its line. This happens many times during every battle. This is on the BI.exe v1.6.



RTW has much less of a suicide general problem than STW and no worse a one than MTW. Most of my battles are not decided by decapitating the general - if anything, it seems less significant than it was in MTW (I can't be the only one to remember those waves of reinforcements in MTW that would never stand because their general died in the first wave).
The RTW suicide general is definitely worse than MTW. I'm winning many battles becuse the RTW AI throws away its general. I use the BI.exe v1.6.



I can only speak from my experience, which is that it is possible to have long, satisfying battles in modded RTW that are very comparable to those in MTW. I'm sorry you have not had that experience, but I suspect a lot of RTR and EB players have, which is why they are playing those mods and not MTW or STW.
I'm using a good mod for RTW/BI, XGM. I played this for over 150 turns, and now I'm about 200 turns into an original STW campaign, and the STW is better especially on the battlefield. In particular, the morale system is very well balanced, the AI varies it's battlefield strategy and uses trees and high ground well. It uses the various unit types properly although it doesn't flank with cavalry (that came in in MTW), and the suicide general is a problem that ruins many battles just as is does in RTW. The MTW battle AI is best, but the large maps coupled with the reenforcement system made the battles too long. A solution might be to substitute small maps which I intend to do for STWmod for MTW/VI, but unfortunately the weather effects of STW were lost in MTW.

[Lord Adherbal]

It's probably caused by pathfinding and collision detection which seems more complex and detailed.

might be true, but I fail to see what this was necessary. Pathfinding shouldn't cause much slowdown cos it's only calculated for moving units, and RTW maps don't have much complicated maps (siege maps use a preset pathfinding system). And collision detection seemed fine in MTW. It's not like RTW calculates whether a soldier is hit in the head or torso.

When I hear about these individual animations and soldiers actualy looking at their opponents I wonder why we need all that. More useless eye candy that slows down the game (yes we asked for that, but not like this) while the battle engine remains inferior to S/MTW.

[Ludens]

That's right. Blame the players for CA's failure to balance the game. If CA can't or doesn't want to balance the game properly, then they should provide multiple settings on morale, fatigue and ammo, although deficiencies in the new battle engine and excessive gamespeed make it moot for multiplayer if they aren't addressed.
I am not saying it's the communities fault; what I tried to explain was why CA might be disinclined to balance the game to the level the hardcore community demands. I know of the problems with the engine and I don't like them either. However, it is going to take more than a realism-switch or a second set of stats to solve them.

[AussieGiant]

This is off the other site.

A Hungarian preview apparently.

http://www.gamestar.hu/downloads.php3?op=visit&lid=5688

You have to download it.

Puzz, screwtype,

How are those movement rates looking!! ?? :laugh4:

[Puzz3D]

I am not saying it's the communities fault; what I tried to explain was why CA might be disinclined to balance the game to the level the hardcore community demands.
It's well beyond that. They actually took stuff out of the engine which makes it impossible for the hardcore community to get kind of balance they could get before. I've seen them refuse to impliment suggestions simply because they were deemed hardcore and not because anybody disagreed with the suggestion. Who would disagreed with seeing the right unit stats when you mouse over an upgraded unit in the army purchase screen? Also during MTW, LongJohn posted that he thought balanced to about 25% was good enough which right there hurts multiplayer. So, it's been clear for a long time that the degree to which CA balances the game is related to what they percieve will satisfy the average player. Now we have a new statement saying the game isn't aimed at hardcore players.

I now believe that "squeezed to tight penalty", "range calculation for individual men" and "reduced accuracy for deep formations" were removed from the battle engine to increase framerate.

[Dooz]

This is off the other site.

A Hungarian preview apparently.

http://www.gamestar.hu/downloads.php3?op=visit&lid=5688

You have to download it.

Puzz, screwtype,

How are those movement rates looking!! ?? :laugh4:

Is it just me, or did the speed look decent? I don't get what happened when it suddenly cut to the close-ups of the units at one point, looks like before battle. In any case, I love those damn units, I have a good feeling about this.

[Puzz3D]

Puzz, screwtype,

How are those movement rates looking!! ??
That one infantry unit that was running looked like it was faster than realistic, but playable. We don't know the speed modifier for that terrain.

[Little Legioner]

That one infantry unit that was running looked like it was faster than realistic, but playable. We don't know the speed modifier for that terrain.

Probably 1.0 X :inquisitive:

[sunsmountain]

That one infantry unit that was running looked like it was faster than realistic, but playable. We don't know the speed modifier for that terrain.

Playable? Puzz I think you just made the biggest compliment so far ~:)
Actually, those speeds did remind me a bit of MTW speeds, so that should bode well. Together with podcast no. 5 it is safe to say CA is taking our whinging quite seriously, and would love to get us back as fans.

Who knows, they might get lucky :laugh4:

[AussieGiant]

That one infantry unit that was running looked like it was faster than realistic, but playable. We don't know the speed modifier for that terrain.

I also think the speed looked about right. Call me crazy!!:laugh4:

And Puzz...don't go all crazy on me now and start giving back handed compliments!! The world might tilt if you do that...:2thumbsup:

[The Lord of Dance]

The speeds looked good to me!

[Duke John]

Not wishing to be pessimistic, just pointing out the "facts". Agincourt is known for its mud that slowed down the French. In the video you can see the units standing on ploughed fields. I wouldn't be surprised if that slowed the units down by a factor (0.8 or whatever).

[econ21]

Speeds looked fine, but it is hard to believe it is the same engine as RTW. The last part of the video, reviewing the stationary knights was extraordinarily good visuals - the way the horses moved their heads, I could almost believe I was watching a film.

[Little Legioner]

So, in normal terrain conditions game is gonna be faster than Agincourt then... We are very curios and pessimistic people :laugh4: My mental balance broken because of MTW 2.

Hear us CA staff, please say something about overall speed and balance or we'll gather in a sacrifiacial ceremony under the rule of High Priest Puzz 3D and sacrifice one of your staff to the gods or worst something. :spider:

[Puzz3D]

Hear us CA staff, please say something about overall speed and balance or we'll gather in a sacrifiacial ceremony under the rule of High Priest Puzz 3D and sacrifice one of your staff to the gods or worst something.
As CA said two years ago, it's their game and they make the gameplay the way they like it. Within the past two years they also said that historical accuracy and realism are not their focus, and that Total War is not a history lesson. It's also not intended for hardcore (serious) gamers.

[The Wizard]

It's also apparently not designed to be a good game. I'm no hardcore gamer spending hours of his day making polygons die in a hundred different ways, but I am serious about game quality. RTW lacked that in far too many ways, and that became apparent more and more as you played it longer.

[sunsmountain]

As CA said two years ago, it's their game and they make the gameplay the way they like it.
They're trying to cater to most gamers, while hopefully providing enough moddability for those who feel it should be different.


Within the past two years they also said that historical accuracy and realism are not their focus, and that Total War is not a history lesson.
Thank god for that, both can be extremely boring.


It's also not intended for hardcore (serious) gamers.
This I do not agree with, look at the mods, who do they cater for? Exactly, the hardcore gamers & history nuts. Would that have been possible without the moddability? No.

Now there is a line between realistic and unrealistic, but gameplay comes first. Your argument shouldn't be that RTW speeds are unrealistic (even if they are), your argument should be that it detracts from your gameplay. Warcraft-boys may disagree but you are a loyal fan. They're not insensitive to hardcore gamers, but their communications to us are filtered, managed & sometimes twisted by people who do not understand what we understand. Could they talk to us directly I am sure they could take any doubt you have away, but they would draw the same line for History and Realism that I am drawing: Gameplay comes first.

They went a little overboard giving RTW an arcade feeling, but it's not too late. And despite these recent positive sounds, the hardcore gamers will "punish" them if they insist on maintaining the arcade feeling in MTW2. If I want some cool graphics I'll buy Oblivion.