View Full Version : Developer blog update: Morale & Difficulty Settings
CeltiberoMordred
10-18-2006, 17:56
http://totalwardev.blogspot.com/
It looks promising.
Sounds very good.
I'm so gonna go for VH now that he is challenging us :laugh4:
If it is. I'd like to play on hard or very hard.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-18-2006, 18:14
Looks good, does look promising FYI
does look promising FYI
Lol I think you mean IMO ;)
Anyway seems...odd. Mainly from an mp aspect, what difficulty will we be set on? I mean if difficulty affects fatigue etc looks like this will surely effect mp...looks like just more rules and settings to chose :juggle2:
But otherwise looks good.
So they've removed the bonuses to attack the AI got. That's good for immersion, but for me I imagine the AI will be even easier to beat considering I used to play on HARD in RTW and found that easy enough...
Sounds good overall, but still hints that battles will be a bit too short for certain tastes. It was mentioned somewhere there that "you will be lucky if units rout within 30 seconds of engaging in melee, and if they do...". Seems overall battles still won't last too long, but I suppose such things can be modded.
Also, I kind of didn't mind the difficulty levels giving the AI attack bonuses, as it was the only way to kind of even out casualties in RTW. Maybe they should have some small defense bonuses or something? Well, in any case, I suppose we'll see how it all plays out in a few weeks, then modding will take care of the rest.
Zatoichi
10-18-2006, 19:08
It does sound like an improvement - I raised morale across the board in vanilla RTW to get battles to last longer, so it'll be nice if I don't have to do that again!
One thing that follows on from units lasting longer in combat is the number of casualties on both sides increasing.
This leads on to the inevitable retraining question - will the AI make sensible use of retraining on the campaign map, or will we face ragtag beaten up armies again like in RTW? Also, will retraining be like it is in RTW or will there be limits to the number of units retrained in a turn like in MTW? Will recruitment pools have an effect on retraining? I'm just retraining crazy tonight it would seem!
The Blind King of Bohemia
10-18-2006, 19:24
I think I see a couple of Martinellas in the background of that Milan fighting Byzantines pic. Looks like we might see them and Carraccios in the game.
Best of luck to anyone that can beat the AI on the “Very hard” setting with a full 20 unit army. My advice is: if you are new to Total War and want to just get to grips with the controls start on the “Easy” setting, if you’re a veteran of Total War games opt for “Hard” or “Very Hard”. Best of all I am confident that “Very Hard” will ensure M2TW is going to sit in your PC for a long, long time, I can’t see even the best Total War Players winning on “Very Hard” without more troops.
I guess this will be the test before going on MP:
"Have you beat AI at Very Hard"?
Anniep
ps.: it seems we can set the difficulty level as we host MP, or I speculate too much?
Lord Adherbal
10-18-2006, 20:00
I hope this also means they fixed the instant destruction of (a large part of)routing units.
Ironside
10-18-2006, 20:05
So they've removed the bonuses to attack the AI got. That's good for immersion, but for me I imagine the AI will be even easier to beat considering I used to play on HARD in RTW and found that easy enough...
If you compare MTW with RTW you'll see a considerble difference in the difficulty of winning battles (in MTW:s favour, aka much harder battles). If his comments is correct then the AI is a huge improvement from MTW :2thumbsup: , and 200 miles ahead of the RTW one.
shifty157
10-18-2006, 20:13
Well. It does sound very promising. I know ill be going for VH/VH right away to see just how much thought they put into these changes.
Hmm. Dare I exhibit cautious optimism, or is it too soon yet?
Barkhorn1x
10-18-2006, 20:23
Hmm. Dare I exhibit cautious optimism, or is it too soon yet?
I hear ya, but hope is good. :balloon2:
Barkhorn.
As K'ung-fu-tzu has said, "Only in the case of regime change is it always too soon to exhibit cautious optimism".
Anyway seems...odd. Mainly from an mp aspect, what difficulty will we be set on? I mean if difficulty affects fatigue etc looks like this will surely effect mp...looks like just more rules and settings to chose.
Are there difficulty settings in MP now? There never have been before.
I really don't understand this blog. If morale and fatigue are ultra realistic on very hard, and the AI is at its smartest, I can't see why that makes playing on very hard a great challenge. It sounds like a level playing field, and I am pretty confident most experienced players can beat even the smartest TW AI on a level playing field.
The big tension with RTWs battlefield difficulty is between realism and challenge. Medium is realistic in the sense that unit match-ups are what you'd expect from the stats. But veteran SPers often press for hard or very hard to make it more challenging. This greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc.
I can see that higher morale across the board might be both more realistic and make it more challenging (as in RTR), but still on medium and with equal forces, the experienced player will still walk it.
Fatigue I actually think hurts the AI in RTW - it's often exhausted when it hits your fresh troops. I've started turning fatigue off to increase the challenge.
Smarter AI is nice, of course, but I can't see why it should not be on by default - rather than linked to difficulty levels. With all due respect to CA, I just can't see it being so smart, it's too smart for most players. Yes, a chess AI can thrash most inexperienced players like me but I doubt TW AI has got to that level yet - there are just too many and too complex options for the AI to compute.
Something does not compute. The only way I can see very hard being extremely difficult is if things are unrealistically slanted in favour of the AI (e.g. your men rout or tire realistically, but the AIs act like tireless Spartans). Either VH is not very challenging - which is unlikely given that Jason is an experienced MPer - or it is not the most realistic experience you are likely to have. If the AI will only be smart on a difficulty level where things are in some hidden way slanted in favour of the AI, then that is a bad game design decision, IMO.
Sounds good overall, but still hints that battles will be a bit too short for certain tastes. It was mentioned somewhere there that "you will be lucky if units rout within 30 seconds of engaging in melee, and if they do...". Seems overall battles still won't last too long, but I suppose such things can be modded.
Even in MTW and STW you could get a unit to route in less than 30 seconds. I think the line :
"you will be lucky if units rout within 30 seconds of engaging in melee, and if they do..."
Is saying if a unit routs in less than 30 seconds you or the AI brought a knife to a gunfight.
I really don't understand this blog. If morale and fatigue are ultra realistic on very hard, and the AI is at its smartest, I can't see why that makes playing on very hard a great challenge. It sounds like a level playing field, and I am pretty confident most experienced players can beat even the smartest TW AI on a level playing field.
The big tension with RTWs battlefield difficulty is between realism and challenge. Medium is realistic in the sense that unit match-ups are what you'd expect from the stats. But veteran SPers often press for hard or very hard to make it more challenging. This greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc.
I can see that higher morale across the board might be both more realistic and make it more challenging (as in RTR), but still on medium and with equal forces, the experienced player will still walk it.
Fatigue I actually think hurts the AI in RTW - it's often exhausted when it hits your fresh troops. I've started turning fatigue off to increase the challenge.
Smarter AI is nice, of course, but I can't see why it should not be on by default - rather than linked to difficulty levels. With all due respect to CA, I just can't see it being so smart, it's too smart for most players. Yes, a chess AI can thrash most inexperienced players like me but I doubt TW AI has got to that level yet - there are just too many and too complex options for the AI to compute.
Something does not compute. The only way I can see very hard being extremely difficult is if things are unrealistically slanted in favour of the AI (e.g. your men rout or tire realistically, but the AIs act like tireless Spartans). Either VH is not very challenging - which is unlikely given that Jason is an experienced MPer - or it is not the most realistic experience you are likely to have. If the AI will only be smart on a difficulty level where things are in some hidden way slanted in favour of the AI, then that is a bad game design decision, IMO.
My centiments exactly.
Prince of the Poodles
10-18-2006, 21:36
The new morale and fatigue system with nice combat speeds and larger unit sizes will ensure the game is smooth and ensures success is not determined by mere chance but by better tactics.
In the last few days the Quality Assurance department have been playing LAN games and many campaign players are now addicted to multiplayer.
umm... yay! :2thumbsup:
Sol Invictus
10-19-2006, 02:10
Time will tell. I desperately want to get my hopes up.:fainting:
The message from you, the community was loud and clear. As a result in Medieval II: Total War, the difficulty settings will only affect unit morale, fatigue and AI. As the difficulty ramps up, the influence of morale and fatigue become more apparent with the “Very Hard” setting giving you the most realistic battle experience possible. In addition we have included AI mechanics that will give the AI a faster and far more intelligent feel. Best of luck to anyone that can beat the AI on the “Very hard” setting with a full 20 unit army.
The AI units respond faster on the higher difficulty settings (Note the last sentence which suggests that no one will be able to handle the full 20 units against the AI which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage.), and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's. Difficulty settings have always caused a dispartiy in morale between the player and the AI in every Total War game, and now they've extended that idea to include fatigue. Also, the blog doesn't actually say the AI is more intelligent. What it says is that some AI mechanics have been included which gives the AI a more intelligent feel. Again this sounds like an advantage the AI gets and the player doesn't.
The AI units respond faster on the higher difficulty settings (Note the last sentence which suggests that no one will be able to handle the full 20 units against the AI which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage.), and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's. Difficulty settings have always caused a dispartiy in morale between the player and the AI in every Total War game, and now they've extended that idea to include fatigue. Also, the blog doesn't actually say the AI is more intelligent. What it says is that some AI mechanics have been included which gives the AI a more intelligent feel. Again this sounds like an advantage the AI gets and the player doesn't.
Normally I agree with you Puzz3D, but you lost me here. I don't think that he means any actual "speed" difference, as in the AI's troops move faster than yours do. It seems to me Jason intimated that the AI will react more readily and aggressively to your troop maneuvers--for example, recognizing and moving to counter any flanking attempts more quickly--than the troops sprinting like Justin Gatlin on steroids. The AI may get some less obvious and less potent fatigue and morale gifts on VH, as econ21 illustrated, that may give the illusion of being faster, but I do not think you can draw the conclusion that speed itself is altered. Those AI bonuses are designed to make the game closer to the challenge that we all desire (which I am sure you're okay with and I myself don't mind), but I would be astounded if the AI itself wasn't greatly improved. They made such a leap from MTW to RTW that the AI couldn't really keep up. Now having learned some lessons, there is no reason not to expect the AI to be much more "intelligent."
But that is my opinion, and only mine. :juggle2:
I agree. After all, isn't speed actually tied to the soldier model and its animation?
Anyway, I still fail to see how Jason can be so adamant that TW vets won't be able to beat the AI 20 on 20 at VH. That's never happened in any of the TW titles to date and I seriously doubt it's going to start here.
I hope that the AI isn't dumbed down for the easier difficulty levels - that makes no sense. The AI should be as good as it can be all the time. Bonuses to fatigue and morale seem fair enough ways to compensate the AI at the higher difficulty levels. In fact, coping with fatigue is arguably the AI's achilles heel in all TW games, particularly during lengthy siege battles. In that respect maybe giving it a helping hand with fatigue will be a great addition...
Furious Mental
10-19-2006, 12:48
Technically it should be possible to beat an enemy with an equal army if one uses the right tactics. The fact that it supposedly isn't suggests two things
- the AI is now so amazingly good that it will outwit you every time
- the computer side now has even more ridiculous stats bonuses
The latter is much more likely and frankly I find that very disappointing
Normally I agree with you Puzz3D, but you lost me here. I don't think that he means any actual "speed" difference, as in the AI's troops move faster than yours do. It seems to me Jason intimated that the AI will react more readily and aggressively to your troop maneuvers--for example, recognizing and moving to counter any flanking attempts more quickly--than the troops sprinting like Justin Gatlin on steroids. The AI may get some less obvious and less potent fatigue and morale gifts on VH, as econ21 illustrated, that may give the illusion of being faster, but I do not think you can draw the conclusion that speed itself is altered. Those AI bonuses are designed to make the game closer to the challenge that we all desire (which I am sure you're okay with and I myself don't mind), but I would be astounded if the AI itself wasn't greatly improved. They made such a leap from MTW to RTW that the AI couldn't really keep up. Now having learned some lessons, there is no reason not to expect the AI to be much more "intelligent."
But that is my opinion, and only mine.
I didn't say the AI units will move faster. I said they will respond faster. I was thinking there might be a reduction in the delay responding to orders for the AI. Actually Jason says the AI will have a faster and more intelligent feel which is a subjective thing, but I think it's more than just an illusion because he says it makes the game harder.
Where does econ21 illustrate that the AI gets fatigue and morale gifts? He uses the term "across the board", and talks about increased fatigue hurting the AI. I think only the player is going to get increased fatigue. Similarly, only the AI will get a morale boost or possibly the player will get a morale reduction. They also have dumbed down the AI on easy difficulty in past games.
KyodaiSteeleye
10-19-2006, 13:27
Well, I just re-installed RTW on my computer after a gap of a year, and just started reading these forums again, and the blogs (blogs?! - unheard of!). I have to say its all sounding rather nice. I was utterly dissappointed with RTW mulitplay and stopped playing very quickly after getting it, after being a regular on the STW and MTW servers. Maybe that will now change with the new game? Oh i hope so... - I miss the challenge and atmosphere of a balanced 4 by 4 :balloon2:
Fingers crossed...
There is a delay response between the time you give your order and the time the unit acts on it. It is quite noticeable and it is not machine speed dependent (I played demo on both crappy laptop and my gaming machine and there were same fraction-of-a-second delay).
So I guess there is an artificial delay between command and action for both player and AI. Depend on setting, AI may get faster response time.
Anniep
I didn't say the AI units will move faster. I said they will respond faster. I was thinking there might be a reduction in the delay responding to orders for the AI. Actually Jason says the AI will have a faster and more intelligent feel which is a subjective thing, but I think it's more than just an illusion because he says it makes the game harder.
Fair enough; I had not considered the order delay that is in RTW, since I've not played it in a very long time. MTW fills up the void in my gaming, and then some... But when you said "which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage" I took it to be a literal speed advantage, when in actuality you meant the exact same thing I did. :2thumbsup: And I still can't imagine that the AI will be on par with RTW's; CA has to have learned something in the intervening years and the AI must be improved, all subjectivity aside.
Where does econ21 illustrate that the AI gets fatigue and morale gifts? He uses the term "across the board", and talks about increased fatigue hurting the AI. I think only the player is going to get increased fatigue. Similarly, only the AI will get a morale boost or possibly the player will get a morale reduction. They also have dumbed down the AI on easy difficulty in past games
I got that from him saying "[t]his greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc." How does that happen...why from AI bonuses or (to be safe) player minuses.
So really, the only thing I meant by my original post is you confused me with your improper "speed" usage. :laugh4: Whoops.
And I still can't imagine that the AI will be on par with RTW's; CA has to have learned something in the intervening years and the AI must be improved, all subjectivity aside.
Sure it will be better than RTW's AI, but I don't think RTW should be used as the standard since it has the worst AI in the series. RTW also has the worst battle engine.
I got that from him saying "[t]his greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc." How does that happen...why from AI bonuses or (to be safe) player minuses.
In MTW, hard difficulty setting gives a 15% bonus to the AI's combat factors, and very hard gives a 30% combat bonus in addition to a +4 morale increase to the AI. At .com, one or the developers, and I can't remember his name, said it was easy to make the AI better by increasing the combat bonus it gets. This was heavily criticized as not representing better AI, and was simply an AI cheat. Maybe this is what Jason is referring to when he says they responded to the fans.
I think it's good to find other ways to make the battles harder besides changing the combat values. More fatigue for the player would mean the player has to do a better job managing fatigue, but if this is coupled with increased morale for the AI, it could become an insurmountable task because the fighting times will increase and there is a high fatigue rate associated with fighting. It all depends on how well the parameters are adjusted.
The delay provides and opportunity to give the AI another kind of advantage, but I'm not a fan of the delay because it's on the order of 2 seconds, and at RTW speeds IMO that's a significant advantage for the player who moves first in multiplayer. The lower running speed in M2TW will make a 2 second delay less of a disadvantage for the reactive player.
Certain words such as realistic are now being used in the PR for the game in a way that's inconsistent with what CA has stated in the past. When we asked for changes based on realism, the excuse from them for not making the changes was that realism was not their focus. I remember this clearly because I was stunned by this response. What I'd like to know is that, if realism is back as a serious consideration, why is the speed boost for charging units still at RTW's unrealisticly high percentage. They reduced the running speeds by 20% (which is still unrealistically high), but not the charging speeds by that amount so now there is an obvious unrealistic discontinuity between a running unit and that same unit when its charging.
Orda Khan
10-19-2006, 16:38
We will have a hard time beating the AI in a straight 20 units v 20 units? Well wouldn't that be nice?!
I'd be amazed if it's true but very happy, though somehow I don't believe it
.......Orda
Divine Wind
10-19-2006, 18:20
We will have a hard time beating the AI in a straight 20 units v 20 units? Well wouldn't that be nice?!
I'd be amazed if it's true but very happy, though somehow I don't believe it
.......Orda
Indeed, I will however take Jason's comments with a pinch of salt.
Lets wait and see shall we.
Little Legioner
10-19-2006, 18:29
They reduced the running speeds by 20% (which is still unrealistically high), but not the charging speeds by that amount so now there is an obvious unrealistic discontinuity between a running unit and that same unit when its charging.
For a good clarification i'm waiting for Episto's report. I'd wish that they invite you to Brisbane office too Puzz.
We're gonna face two options of TW:
First one is advanced RTW which is gonna be disaster for us again.
Second one is advanced MTW... I pay 100 dollar for this without any doubt.
In my point of view they're pure different examples of TW tradition.
Besides eyecandy and shiny blogs gameplay shall decide real path of Mtw 2.
My two cents.
I'd wish that they invite you to Brisbane office too Puzz.
Palamedes has no doubt done as much as anyone can do, and got more changes than I expected. I was considering buying M2TW given those changes, but the Athlon XP multiplayer issue has put me off. I'll reconsider it after the patch.
Well, what Pala wrote is both challenging and puzzling at the same time. Challenging because I am sure that now everyone wants to beat the AI on VH, puzzling because just like everyone else I do not see how could the AI offer a serious challenge to a human player on an even battleground.
The most likely solution is that the battleground won't be even, the troops of the human player might be more affected by fatigue and morale ... but this is just an educated guess ... also it seems that on VH it will be very difficult to beat the AI units head on (probably because of the above effects).
Based on the responses it seems that most people are unwilling to grant CA the benefit of the doubt and assume that they put an awful lot of time and effort into improving the tactical AI as opposed to resorting to hidden bonus type shenanigans for AI controlled armies. Can't say that I blame these people but should CA's claims wind up being considered false or grossly misleading the public outcry from the TW community would be massive. Basically I doubt CA would be so underhanded and/or stupid as to try and pull the proverbial wool over our collective eyes.
The relative openness that CA has exhibited via these developer blogs has only increased my optimism for MTW2. Not that I'm quite ready to jump off the fence and pre-order my copy but stuff like this certainly brightens my spirits.
Yes, the blog is the reason why I came back to haunt this place :)
Anniep
AussieGiant
10-20-2006, 20:52
I also smell something fishy here.
As Jambo, and Econ have already mentioned there seems to be a few counter active concepts being revealed.
I hope the blog is simply not explaining things very well, because if VH is giving you the most realistic actual statistics then we are in a bit of trouble as far as i am concerned.
Orda Khan
10-20-2006, 22:47
I also smell something fishy here.
As Jambo, and Econ have already mentioned there seems to be a few counter active concepts being revealed.
I hope the blog is simply not explaining things very well, because if VH is giving you the most realistic actual statistics then we are in a bit of trouble as far as i am concerned.
Very well said
.........Orda
AussieGiant
10-22-2006, 08:55
Very well said
.........Orda
Thanks Orda, and I just had an ironic thought.
For me Very Hard Campaign and Medium Battle was the best set up in Rome.
If what is being said is in fact true, then we might be reversing our traditional difficult settings.
Medium Campaign (so the AI doesn't have thousands of florin to spend each turn) and VH Battle, which gives all of us accurate stats.
The analysis of the diffucult settings will be paramount for me having a good game.
I hope CA explain it in full once the game is released. I'd much prefer having them do that, rather than spending hours trying to test and confirm what each setting change does.
screwtype
10-22-2006, 11:02
The AI units respond faster on the higher difficulty settings (Note the last sentence which suggests that no one will be able to handle the full 20 units against the AI which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage.), and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's. Difficulty settings have always caused a dispartiy in morale between the player and the AI in every Total War game, and now they've extended that idea to include fatigue. Also, the blog doesn't actually say the AI is more intelligent. What it says is that some AI mechanics have been included which gives the AI a more intelligent feel. Again this sounds like an advantage the AI gets and the player doesn't.
Well I don't know if you're right, but if the AI has a fatigue advantage in VH, I imagine that could make for a pretty tough challenge.
Really though, I cannot understand CA's obsession with making all the decisions for the gamer, instead of letting him make his own. Why can't there simply be a set of game options where you can set things like morale and fatigue levels for both yourself and the AI, so that you can tailor the game to the exact level of challenge you find most appropriate?
and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's.
Thats the way i read it also. What would be the point of lowering both the AI and player's stats uniformly? That results in no differences at all!
IMO this is CA's last chance to get the Total War series back on track. Understandably the new engine in RTW wasn't as polished as the STW engine was in MTW, it simply wasn't as developed. Lets hope that's the problems CA have addressed in MTW2 look more towards MTW as a benchmark and from this blog i'm encouraged (although not convinced).
Anyway, only time will tell; all this speculation is making me dizzy! :dizzy2:
Why can't there simply be a set of game options where you can set things like morale and fatigue levels for both yourself and the AI, so that you can tailor the game to the exact level of challenge you find most appropriate?
Excellent idea btw screwtype!
Excellent idea btw screwtype!
Creative Assembly doesn't think it's an excellent idea. We've been asking them for this for 5 years. They have refused to provide player selectable options on morale and fatigue, saying that it would be unfair to new players in multiplayer.
edyzmedieval
10-22-2006, 17:27
I am keeping my doubts regarding to the game...
Faenaris
10-22-2006, 17:28
Creative Assembly doesn't think it's an excellent idea. We've been asking them for this for 5 years. They have refused to provide player selectable options on morale and fatigue, saying that it would be unfair to new players in multiplayer.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get that explanation. If you are a new player and you talk a bit with the host, I'm pretty sure you can set the values to a comfortable level.
But, I'm going off-topic.
I have read the blog and while it seems very promising, I won't get excited until I have played a campaign in M2TW. Making promises is one thing, holding to them is another and I hope CA can deliver all its promises. But, as I said, it all looks very promising.
TerranAce007
10-22-2006, 17:42
Really though, I cannot understand CA's obsession with making all the decisions for the gamer, instead of letting him make his own. Why can't there simply be a set of game options where you can set things like morale and fatigue levels for both yourself and the AI, so that you can tailor the game to the exact level of challenge you find most appropriate?
You can actually, if you manually edit the preferences.txt in notepad, but I don't know if that affects MP or not.
The problem that comes from putting so much "choice" in the game is that everyone has their own opinion of what difficulty settings make the game the most "realistic." For single player, it's not much of a problem, since it's you own decision, but in multiplayer (especialy in a competitive sense) some kind of standard for the difficulty settings will have to be set, and the standard will most-likely be different between various tournaments as they try to properly balance gameplay with realism...
For example: I like strategy games like Total War, but I also play flight sims as well. One of my favorites is a WWII flight sim called IL-2 Sturmovik. The game has tons of realism options that people argue about all the time. Padlock makes your virtual head automatically "follow" an enemy aircraft, which is a hell of a lot easier than looking around with your thumb and a hat switch while trying to fly. The downside is that it can also be used as "radar" since the game doesn't know if you can actually see the enemy. He could be behind the clouds, but you can still "lock on" to him. The result is that a lot of good servers turn off padlock in the name of realism, making the game unrealisticly hard, unless you are nerdy enough and have money to blow on a trackIR system (basically a motion sensor helmet you wear that tracks your physical head's motion and moves you virtual head accordingly, so you can actually "look around" in the game)...
I know it's a lengthy and somewhat off-topic analogy to some of you, but think of it as a democracy - every idiot out there has a say in how you play the game....
cannon_fodder
10-22-2006, 18:43
So now difficulty levels don't affect a unit's actual stats? That's good. It also seems implied that the enemy has no statistical advantage. If that is the case, I commend CA.
Orda Khan
10-23-2006, 10:40
You can actually, if you manually edit the preferences.txt in notepad, but I don't know if that affects MP or not.
Desync
.......Orda
Polemists
10-23-2006, 10:43
While I understand the mp aspect the it seems to contradict the ideas of AI many of you seem to have a problem with. If your goal is to fight other players on the same level, then AI won't matter. I guess if it was a 2 on 1 type of deal it may matter.
I dunno just some of my random thoughts.
Personally I've played demo, i was impressed by morale and fatigue. Much better then MTW and Rome in my opinon. It finally felt like a drawn out battle not a quick little skirmish of 40 ppl fighting and then me cutting down 400. I like the fact that a army can return that hole running the entire length of map in retreat thing got annoying. That's fine if calvary but if no one's chasing you it makes sense you may regroup and come back.
You can actually, if you manually edit the preferences.txt in notepad, but I don't know if that affects MP or not.
You only have on/off settings for morale and fatigue in the preferences. These are switched using the arcade option in multiplayer. Prior to RTW, the players had separate control of these options. This combining of morale, fatigue and ammo into a single switch shows that Creative Assembly is actually moving in the opposite direction to what the community beta teams and screwtype have suggested.
The problem that comes from putting so much "choice" in the game is that everyone has their own opinion of what difficulty settings make the game the most "realistic."
We're not asking for more settings on morale. fatigue and ammo for the sake realism. We're asking for more settings besides simply on/off on these for the sake of gameplay since Creative Assembly doesn't optimize the gameplay.
TerranAce007
10-23-2006, 18:19
We're not asking for more settings on morale. fatigue and ammo for the sake realism. We're asking for more settings besides simply on/off on these for the sake of gameplay since Creative Assembly doesn't optimize the gameplay.
Well, what do you mean by "optimize the gameplay?" Is that not what the difficulty settings are for in the first place? If I am correctly interpreting your post, you mean the user should be able to set the impact of morale and fatigue indepedently of the diffuculty settings? If so, then what purpose does diffuculty serve? From what I understand about the AI system in RTW, difficulty level determines what advantages and disadvantages (ie. morale, fatigue, reaction time, etc...) are given to the AI, which is the same algorithm regardless of the difficulty setting. In that case, separate morale and fatigue settings would render the difficulty setting obsolete, but would allow you to "optimize" the gameplay to your personal desires.
I'm a bit of a nerd (comp sci major), so I understand some of what goes into programming AI opponents. For the subject of realism, it is my understanding that arcade mode disables morale, fatigue, etc, to make the game more 'fun,' while non-arcade mode enables them for, well, a more 'realistic' experience.
If the AI in M2TW is really as good as they claim, then we could be talking about "smarter" AI opponents on harder difficulties, rather than just bonuses to make up for a lack of "intelligence" in the AI on harder settings. In the blog, they seem to equate "very hard" with being the most "realistic," so it would appear that there are variable morale and fatigue settings in the game (some way or another). Now, with different AI, your system would be more feasable since you know the difficulty setting determines the :intelligence" of the AI, while the morale and fatigue settings would allow you to optimize the game to your liking.
But then we still have the enormously subjective difficulty standard I mentioned earlier...
Backtrack :) Gotta separate out SP and MP issues...
Anniep
Well, what do you mean by "optimize the gameplay?" Is that not what the difficulty settings are for in the first place?
It has nothing to do with difficulty settings. The battle engine is a system with various parameters. They haven't set the morale and fatigue parameters to values which allow the system to provide the gameplay which it is potentially capable of providing. They got it basically right with STW, but not since then. They admitted they forgot to optimize the fatigue for the larger maps that MTW used, the morale level was set too low in multiplayer and ranged units were not effective enough. These things got some adjustments, but they still missed the mark because CA doesn't go through enough iterations on these adjustments. The fatigue and morale was still off the mark in RTW, but the ranged units were better balanced. Now it's clear that the reload time in the M2TW demo is problematic, so I would add reload time to the parameters over which the players need some control.
It would split the community into subgroups, but you would have more people playing (a lot more) as compensation, and the players would be happier with the game. CA has said that want to make the game "fun" to play. Why are they content to have so many dissatisfied players, and so many former players who have quit?
For the subject of realism, it is my understanding that arcade mode disables morale, fatigue, etc, to make the game more 'fun,' while non-arcade mode enables them for, well, a more 'realistic' experience.
I don't know a single veteran player who finds arcade mode to be more fun.
The AI has another advantage over the player: It can control all units pretty much at the same time whereas the player can only give one unit a time an order and then has to select the next unit, etc. Each order takes at least 1sec for a good player, a lot more if you have to think a bit or aren't so good.
The AI utilizing this only on the higher difficulty settings might also be part of a speed advantage the blog talks about.
TerranAce007
10-23-2006, 21:01
I don't know a single veteran player who finds arcade mode to be more fun.
Maybe I used the term 'fun' a little too loosely. I myself play vh/vh because I like difficulty and realism, which is 'fun' for me, as well as to all the veteran players you refer to. More 'simplistic' is probably a better word, since it dumbs down the strategy and tactics and turns the game into an all out melee, hence the term arcade mode. Strategic victories from good tactics are always fun, but arcade mode makes the game more attractive to newcomers and casual players since it involves less thinking and more action. Or if you just feel like firing up a quick battle between classes to massacre a significantly larger AI army for a little amusement.
Either way, I think I will enjoy M2TW. To do all the tweaking you mention takes a lot of time and testing, which means more waiting for us. If the battle engine sucks, they can always release a patch, but at least we have a game to play...
Theres always mods too...
Either way, I think I will enjoy M2TW. To do all the tweaking you mention takes a lot of time and testing, which means more waiting for us. If the battle engine sucks, they can always release a patch, but at least we have a game to play...
Theres always mods too...
Mods are not a solution for multiplayer. We need multiple selectable options on morale, fatigue, ammo, reload and gamespeed. This would not delay the release of the game. What will never happen is for CA to go through all that's necessary to optimize the gameplay. They haven't even come close to doing so in the recent attempts.
I don't see how selectable options whould harm SP, but have no fear because as soon as M2TW is released a multiplayer forum for M2TW will be created, and you won't have us around bothering you. We'll be shuffled off to a separate forum where it will be easy to ignore us.
Mods are not a solution for multiplayer. We need multiple selectable options on morale, fatigue, ammo, reload and gamespeed. This would not delay the release of the game. What will never happen is for CA to go through all that's necessary to optimize the gameplay. They haven't even come close to doing so in the recent attempts.
Yuuki you should be a bit more optimistic than that. ~;) Do you really think that they dont want to "optimise" it? (according to their criteria of course)
BTW, have you played BI MP?
I don't see how selectable options whould harm SP
It wont harm SP but it could create a nightmare in MP. Imagine everyone hosting with different morale, fatigue, ammo, reload and gamespeed setups. Different setups favour different styles which in turn favour different units. That means that one have to test and keep in mind the best style and best unit combos for each setup. It is not just nearly impossible (if you have just 3 options for each then it is 3x3x3x3x3=243 different combinations) but most players are simply not interested in that.
ProudNerd
10-24-2006, 02:43
I really don't understand this blog. If morale and fatigue are ultra realistic on very hard, and the AI is at its smartest, I can't see why that makes playing on very hard a great challenge. It sounds like a level playing field, and I am pretty confident most experienced players can beat even the smartest TW AI on a level playing field.
The big tension with RTWs battlefield difficulty is between realism and challenge. Medium is realistic in the sense that unit match-ups are what you'd expect from the stats. But veteran SPers often press for hard or very hard to make it more challenging. This greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc.
I can see that higher morale across the board might be both more realistic and make it more challenging (as in RTR), but still on medium and with equal forces, the experienced player will still walk it.
Fatigue I actually think hurts the AI in RTW - it's often exhausted when it hits your fresh troops. I've started turning fatigue off to increase the challenge.
Smarter AI is nice, of course, but I can't see why it should not be on by default - rather than linked to difficulty levels. With all due respect to CA, I just can't see it being so smart, it's too smart for most players. Yes, a chess AI can thrash most inexperienced players like me but I doubt TW AI has got to that level yet - there are just too many and too complex options for the AI to compute.
Something does not compute. The only way I can see very hard being extremely difficult is if things are unrealistically slanted in favour of the AI (e.g. your men rout or tire realistically, but the AIs act like tireless Spartans). Either VH is not very challenging - which is unlikely given that Jason is an experienced MPer - or it is not the most realistic experience you are likely to have. If the AI will only be smart on a difficulty level where things are in some hidden way slanted in favour of the AI, then that is a bad game design decision, IMO.
That’s exactly what I think the entire blog makes the AI sound totally redundant. I’m not impressed in he slightest. Btween this and the apprantly same horrible dipo its removed a heck of alot of the excitement for mtw2. Who caes thats its a new setting and all that if it has these two gaming ruining flaws?
To do all the tweaking you mention takes a lot of time and testing, which means more waiting for us. If the battle engine sucks, they can always release a patch, but at least we have a game to play...
Theres always mods too...
Personally i'd be happy to wait much longer for a well developed fully tested game, even if that meant another year or two! This, of course, never happens due to the pressure of the money men to make a profit!
Patching should really be restricted to C bugs IMO. And not everyone is willing to spend the time investigating MODS, no matter how good they most definitely are; I usually buy a game based on the contents of the box (which incidently should include a map as standard) not what I can potentially do with the contents! *says while making a paper hat out of his RTW map*
Do you really think that they dont want to "optimise" it? (according to their criteria of course)
They don't go through enough iterations. I've been on 4 of their beta teams. I know how they operate.
BTW, have you played BI MP?
No. It's too fast. We know it's too fast because CA has slowed down the game in M2TW. They screwed up with RTW/BI multiplayer, but all we heard from them for 2 years was how great it was. The result of that is many veterans stopped playing. My whole clan stopped playing.
It wont harm SP but it could create a nightmare in MP. Imagine everyone hosting with different morale, fatigue, ammo, reload and gamespeed setups. Different setups favour different styles which in turn favour different units. That means that one have to test and keep in mind the best style and best unit combos for each setup. It is not just nearly impossible (if you have just 3 options for each then it is 3x3x3x3x3=243 different combinations) but most players are simply not interested in that.
The upgrade system produces this nightmare you talk about. Units are individually upgraded which breaks the RPS system, and creates all kinds of imbalance between the units and weird unit combos. My suggested options would apply to all units equally. We need adjustments on morale and fatigue because CA has gotten these wrong since STW. Now it seems they have screwed up reload. Every mod made for RTW improved the gameplay. That's how easy it was to improve on the official gameplay. It's not the insurmountable task that you imply.
We can pass on the ammo setting, but they should get rid of unlimited ammo. The majority of players don't use unlimited ammo. Why is it there if, as you suggest, only the options desired by the majority should be implimented? They don't use the no morale and no fatigue settings either.
A gamespeed setting would not favor different styles of play. Despite the reduction in speed in M2TW, there are still 25% more units to control than in STW/MTW.
M2TW brings back the tax on more than 4 of one unit type. That's a red flag which suggests they haven't balanced the units well enough. If the units were well balanced in an RPS system, that crutch wouldn't be needed.
I think you are right that most players don't care about playbalance. They'd play the game no matter how bad the playbalance was.
Dead Knight of the Living
10-24-2006, 16:23
I think the AI blog update was more promising than this one. This sounds like all they did was give the AI a "GOD" cheat code. The AI will still do stupid stuff, but since we bumped up their morale and increased fatigue rates for the player they'll be harder to kill. I don't want an AI that is harder to beat because it's morale values have been boosted. I want an AI that does what they said that Turkish Army did in the AI blog... use it's "A" Brain.
Backtrack :) Gotta separate out SP and MP issues...
Anniep
Addendum: Start seperating Arcade and non-arcade mode more clearly. Both versions with Morale, Fatigue and Ammo on/off options. ;)
Dead Knight of the Living, i think many people read the blog differently to you. I never saw it mention this would only happen to the player, all it says is that morale and faitque will change for the different difficult settings.
Duke John
10-24-2006, 17:00
Units are individually upgraded which breaks the RPS system, and creates all kinds of imbalance between the units and weird unit combos.
I agree completely . We removed the ability to upgrade units from Napoleonic 2: Total War and I can say it's working very well; I can't recall a single complaint about it! Not only does it improve game play (although that can debateable) it also reduces setup time as buying armies is much more intuitively.
PROMETHEUS
10-24-2006, 17:06
I agree completely . We removed the ability to upgrade units from Napoleonic 2: Total War and I can say it's working very well; I can't recall a single complaint about it! Not only does it improve game play (although that can debateable) it also reduces setup time as buying armies is much more intuitively.
I do not see why the unit upgradeability should break gameplay or umbalance it , infact if you pick upgraded units you pay more for them so the result is that you will have less units , I remeber it worked very well for the online battles of medieval , also the Devs stated that they will implement 10k rule as well or 5k wich was the standard on online multyplayer battles at this time ....
Orda Khan
10-24-2006, 17:37
All upgrades, including honour/valour should be removed from the MP side of the game, I have been advocating this since I started playing. Upgrades are fine for SP as they depict faction improvements along with the various buildings. In MP they detract from the essence of tactical play; sure, tactics are still required to win battles but with far less thought and relying on uber units. The last thing I want to see in MTW II is the boring cav/sword armies of VI.
Having selectable options would be another step forward and I don't see there being a problem here either. Just like army cost, it will not be long before a 'generally accepted' level becomes the norm
.....Orda
Bob the Insane
10-24-2006, 17:39
I do not see why the unit upgradeability should break gameplay or umbalance it , infact if you pick upgraded units you pay more for them so the result is that you will have less units , I remeber it worked very well for the online battles of medieval , also the Devs stated that they will implement 10k rule as well or 5k wich was the standard on online multyplayer battles at this time ....
While not a MP player I do understand the issue here... The problem is that sometimes Unit A with the right upgrades in more effective than unit B and cheaper dispte unit B being a more advanced version of unit A...
At a simple level it was not balanced sufficiently...
Of course the mechanism works beautifully in SP but that not the problem here...
TerranAce007
10-24-2006, 18:21
I don't see how selectable options whould harm SP, but have no fear because as soon as M2TW is released a multiplayer forum for M2TW will be created, and you won't have us around bothering you. We'll be shuffled off to a separate forum where it will be easy to ignore us.
Well, as you can tell by my post count, I'm not hugely active in the forums, so I am probably not as well versed in the forum politics as you. I have been reading the forums a lot more lately because I have been excited about M2TW, just like everyone else. You seem to be very knowledgeable about the Total War games and said you have experience with some of the beta teams, so I don't see where your opinion would be bothersome. User opinions are obviously what the programmers want, so they can improve the game...
I really don't play RTW on multiplayer a lot because I like the strategy involved in the campaign play, but that doesn't necessarily mean I don't care about what developments are being made to M2TW in the multiplayer area. I play computer games enough in general, though, to understand how factionalized the community can become, but SP and MP are two different worlds, so separate forums do make sense. Maybe I won't read the MP forum as much since I play mostly SP, but again, its personal preference on gameplay. I'm not trying to ignore anyone. As far as i'm concerned, improvements to the game are a good thing, regardless of whether they are in SP or in MP.
Mods are not a solution for multiplayer. We need multiple selectable options on morale, fatigue, ammo, reload and gamespeed. This would not delay the release of the game. What will never happen is for CA to go through all that's necessary to optimize the gameplay. They haven't even come close to doing so in the recent attempts.
I meant for in SP if the AI still sucks, but mods can be played MP as well, can't they?
Patching should really be restricted to C bugs IMO. And not everyone is willing to spend the time investigating MODS, no matter how good they most definitely are; I usually buy a game based on the contents of the box (which incidently should include a map as standard) not what I can potentially do with the contents! *says while making a paper hat out of his RTW map*
I definately agree with you that the features should be finalized upon relase, and patches should be for fixing bugs, but it doesn't seem to work out that way because of time & money constraints you mentioned. By releasing M2TW and claiming that the AI and such have been improved, but then releasing a patch a few months down the road to "fix" the AI suggests that the "improved" AI was not completed in the first place (or just sucks despite the improvements, perhaps due to what Puzz said about them not testing enough...), so I can see why everyone doubts the claims made in the blog. You should get what you pay for, not an incomplete or plain bad product.
Modability, though, is something I see as a big plus when buying a game, since the replay "potential" of the game is so much greater. That does not excuse the problems in the original game, but it keeps the game alive much longer and creates a diverse fan base. As for a game that doesn't allow mods, after you have exhausted the many scenarios from countless hours of playing, you are forced to wait (and pay for) official expansion packs, (which may improve the game greatly, or just add some new stuff to the existing game - ie. BI). Everyone gets bored of a game after a while, and mods just give more choice. Since CA seem to be supportive (or ar least not prohibitive of mods), I think mods are a good selling point. It allows the players to use their own creativity to "make their own fun," and these mods are made by people to whom the game is a hobby and not a job, so money is not an issue.
I can't say how much time everyone here spends playing *tw, but if you play even a little, you have some free time. You don't have to spend time "researching" to find the best mod, you just have to try different mods, maybe in some of the free time you would be playing the stock game. I don't know, maybe you like playing the same game over and over again, so play however you want. I just know I like to try something new every now and again.
My favorite mods, BTW, are Rome Total Realism (RTW) and Invasio Barbarorum (BI), but I have also played the stock campaigns in the original games countless times.
I do not see why the unit upgradeability should break gameplay or umbalance it , infact if you pick upgraded units you pay more for them so the result is that you will have less units , I remeber it worked very well for the online battles of medieval , also the Devs stated that they will implement 10k rule as well or 5k wich was the standard on online multyplayer battles at this time ....
Anti-cav bonus is included in the base price of the unit. Upgrades cost a percentage of the base price, but the anti-cav bonus doesn't increase with upgrades. This means all anti-cav units pay too much for their upgrade relative to non-anti-cav units. This is part of the reason that cav/sword armies came to dominate MTW multiplayer. You have the same situation with ranged units. In MTW, LongJohn attempted to address this by giving discounted upgrades to ranged units, but all this did was transform upgraded ranged units into super melee units breaking the RPS gameplay.
Another issue is that CA insists on tying morale to the experience upgrades. This causes gameplay problems because morale determines at what point a unit will rout. The value of some units is dependent on their ability to rout enemy units using a fixed magnitude morale penalty, but this value will be eliminated if morale gets too high. The cost to purchase that unit doesn't change, but its value on the battlefield does as morale level changes.
The game doesn't work right if the morale is too low or too high, and there isn't a lot of dynamic range in the system. In MTW, you only have about a 4 point range over which it works well. It's a stretch to say it works well over a 6 point range. The engine has fixed morale penalties for all kinds of combat effects, but allows unit morale to vary all over the place via upgrades, both purchased upgrades and battlefield upgrades. You can't design a particular gameplay under such conditions. It's unclear whether morale is still tied to upgrades in M2TW because Palamedes didn't talk about morale in the conntext of multiplayer except to say that units no longer rout in less than 5 seconds.
Certainly, battlefield upgrades have no place in multiplayer. They were removed by CA in MTW/VI v2.01, and the game played better as a result. Then battlefield upgrades came back in RTW. Where is the logic in that? They had better gameplay without the battlefield upgrades, so they put them back in RTW and left them in through 3 patches and an expansion?
Good things are that the upgrades don't provide as much of a combat boost as they did in STW/MTW and are more limited, and they are pricing them so that a unit is most cost effective at its base price. This is much improved over the STW/MTW system, and means that choosing a good morale level is even more important if there isn't going to be a separate adjustment. The very fastest a unit should rout is about 30 seconds, and that's with the strongest offensive unit matched against the weakest defensive unit. The longest a unit matchup should last is probably around 2.5 to 3 minutes, and that would be with highly defensive units matched up.
You seem to be very knowledgeable about the Total War games and said you have experience with some of the beta teams, so I don't see where your opinion would be bothersome. User opinions are obviously what the programmers want, so they can improve the game...
There are Beta and then there are Beta teams :)
What I mean is that it depends on how the Beta team is setup and how the feedback is incorporated into the design process. I can't go too much into the details here or they would kill me :)
I meant for in SP if the AI still sucks, but mods can be played MP as well, can't they?
Yes mods could be played on MP, but unless the stats are automatically downloaded (with some sort of trusted mods registry), people don't bother download mods. Switching between mods were a pain too, despite efforts to make it smoother. So, only dedicated players actually play mods, relegates it to a small minority.
Anniep
User opinions are obviously what the programmers want, so they can improve the game...
Actually, CA has said that they make the game the way they want, and if you don't like it that's tough for you. I told them the unit speeds were too fast in August 2004, and they said they didn't see anything wrong with them. Now they have lowered the unit speeds in M2TW, and claim it's an improvement. What happened to "We don't see any problem with the speeds."?
Do you want accurate mouseover info in the unit purchase screen? You're aware it's incorrect right? Try suggesting to CA that it should be fixed, and see what they say if they even give you an answer.
Do you want the civil war bug in RTW campaign to be fixed? Sorry. You're out of luck. Tough for you. Who cares about RTW anyway?
Everyone gets bored of a game after a while, and mods just give more choice.
Interest didn't slack off with STW v1.12 MP. Participation was still increasing over a year after the game was released, and it wasn't possible to mod that game. STW/MI was released with a +12 morale added to all units in MP. MP participation rapidly dropped to 30% of what it had been. This is directly attributable to inferior gameplay. It wasn't that players were getting bored.
In STW MP, it never got boring. The tactics had many fine points that made a difference, but the really interesting thing was to master the tactics well enough that you could play the battles at a strategic level. I don't mean just anticipating what your opponent might do. I mean being able to make countermoves to what your opponent did do. You had to account for every single enemy unit because even one uncountered unit could cost you the battle if it moved into a flanking position. Units fought long enough that flanking moves could be delayed, and still be effective. You had multiple flanking and counter flanking moves being made in a single cav skirmish because there was enough time to make multiple moves.
And all that is done under thick fog, I must add :)
hehe
I can't say how much time everyone here spends playing *tw, but if you play even a little, you have some free time. You don't have to spend time "researching" to find the best mod, you just have to try different mods, maybe in some of the free time you would be playing the stock game. I don't know, maybe you like playing the same game over and over again, so play however you want. I just know I like to try something new every now and again.
My time is limited i'm sorry to say, my original point was merely to say I would prefer MTW2 to work out the box, to be highly enjoyable, balanced, rigorously tested, and bug-free. Without the need to mod to get a good game. I admit such a hope is astromically out of all proportions, but hey, one can hope!
As for mods, great, i fully support the whole sherbang (sp?). But for example :
RTR install instructions from their website (no disrespect meant to anyone involved)
Installation Instructions
~ Fresh Installation:
1. Uninstall all traces of Rome: Total War from your Computer. (My computer needs an upgrade, takes longer than it should)
2. Install a fresh version of Rome Total War 1.0. (Three disk installation)
3. Install the official Rome Total War 1.2 Update Patch (link unavailable, even on official site)
4. Install Rome Total Realism 6.0 Full into your Rome Total War directory. (289mb download)
5. Install the Rome Total Realism 6.2 patch. (40mb download)
6. [Optional] Install the Music Addon (recommended) (Okay optional but 125mb)
7. Installation complete! (Hurray!)
Im' sure i'll love it but what happens if i don't? Un-install - Re-install - Install BI - Patch. Great! Tomorrow in my time off i might try installing EB!
And all this is after the fact that I've read these forums to discover that these are probably two of the best mods available. I simply don't have the time! I'd prefer to spend what little time I have playing the game (which I haven't had a chance to play to death yet! :no: ).
I think we're fighting from the same corner, and in no way did i mean any disrespect. I am glad that you have managed to take advantage of the wonderful world of modding available, I just wish i could afford to do the same. ~:mecry:
TerranAce007
10-24-2006, 22:26
Im' sure i'll love it but what happens if i don't? Un-install - Re-install - Install BI - Patch. Great! Tomorrow in my time off i might try installing EB!
Yea, that is a big downside having to reinstall the game with every new mod. You can simply make a copy of your original RTW folder to restore later, but it eats twice the disk space to do so, and requires a little more manual installation. No problem for most people, but I know I would have a nightmare trying to talk my brother through it on the phone. I've read about some mod managers but never tried them. A better mod switching system would definately be a good suggestion to CA, if they'll listen...
Actually, CA has said that they make the game the way they want, and if you don't like it that's tough for you. I told them the unit speeds were too fast in August 2004, and they said they didn't see anything wrong with them. Now they have lowered the unit speeds in M2TW, and claim it's an improvement. What happened to "We don't see any problem with the speeds."?
Well, they obviously can't please everyone during beta testing, and maybe unit speed was an issue, but not high enough on the priority list, which is likely, since you say they don't do enough testing, probably due to time & budget constraints. It is their game and their prerogative, afterall, to choose what features to include, but after seeing that unit speed turned out to be a big issue, it looks like they are adressing it in M2TW. Though that still doesn't do RTW any good, at least they are addressing the issue.
Do you want accurate mouseover info in the unit purchase screen? You're aware it's incorrect right? Try suggesting to CA that it should be fixed, and see what they say if they even give you an answer.
I was aware that there were issues with it at some point, but I haven't played stock RTW in a while. Like I said earlier, I have recently gotten back into RTW due to the nearing of M2TW's release (I was more into Battlefield 2 all summer). Went from RTR to Invasio Barbarorum. I did notice errors in custom battles, but I assume those are the fault of the respective mods. It is surprising (and says a lot for their quality control) though that those issues remain after all the patches.
But to ask them to fix RTW a bit of a stretch, seeing as it is an old game now, and they seem to have enough problems to work out in M2TW as it is...
But to ask them to fix RTW a bit of a stretch, seeing as it is an old game now, and they seem to have enough problems to work out in M2TW as it is...
The request to fix the mouseover info was made in Jan 2005 before the RTW v1.2 patch was released. Since they refused outright to fix it, no more requests were made. The civil war bug was apparently introduced by the RTW v1.5 patch, and it's unlikely there will be anymore patches for RTW. Now project this state of affairs onto M2TW.
Well, they obviously can't please everyone during beta testing, and maybe unit speed was an issue, but not high enough on the priority list, which is likely, since you say they don't do enough testing, probably due to time & budget constraints.
It wasn't an issue for CA. It was only an issue for the players, and it didn't get fixed because it wasn't an issue for CA not because it was too far down the list of things to do. It wasn't even on the list of things to do. So, I have a game that I bought that I can't use because they weren't up front about the change in direction they were taking the game. It turned out a lot more than gamespeed had been secretly changed. When I posted that CA had a new vision, MikeB responded that it was news to him, and he wasn't aware of any new vision. The gameplay was dramatically altered, but there was no new vision? What was it then, a bunch of mistakes? I'll tell you why MikeB tried to discredit my remark. It was because CA was still trying to ride the coattails of MTW, and sell the game to players who expected it to be a refinement of MTW gameplay. That's why there was a huge outburst of animosity towards CA by the veterans who bought RTW. There was even talk of suing CA for false representation. The multiplayer petition had aver 500 signatures, and because of that CA says they will no longer give petitions any consideration.
All I can say is you better hope M2TW is very good out of the box otherwise you're in for a mountain of frustration and wasted time unless you're quick to move on to something else.
PROMETHEUS
10-25-2006, 01:30
Thanks for the nice explanation , now I see why it could be a problem , though I am still thinking that if well balanced the upgrades can be very well used for MP , also becouse on field you will be able to see the units if they are or aren't upgraded with their armours and weapons beeing different .....
You can simply make a copy of your original RTW folder to restore later, but it eats twice the disk space to do so, and requires a little more manual installation.
That's no problem! I'm very computer literate and i have 480gb hard drive space! Just can't afford the time :beam: .
One thing for sure though this thread definitely confirms that we all give a damn where this franchise will go?
One thing for sure though this thread definitely confirms that we all give a damn where this franchise will go?
No. How did you arrive to this conclusion?
TerranAce007
10-25-2006, 18:01
No. How did you arrive to this conclusion?
Maybe all the talk about how EA doesn't care about user opinions and how the TW series has gone downhill from the original STW...
Obviously, everyone here likes playing Total War, or they wouldn't be wasting their time in this fourm. That being said, I think it's safe to say that everyone here is concerned over the decisions being made in the production of M2TW -- hoping that EA doesn't turn the TW series to crap with this next release.
Additionally, all of the discontent *should* be a sign to them that they need to get it right with M2TW, or there might not be any fan interest when they start planning their next game.
I am likewise hoping for M2TW to be awesome, but there are plenty of other games out there to play...
Orda Khan
10-26-2006, 11:04
This is a purely MP based reply.
For what it's worth and even though I am sceptical, cynical or whatever (though this is mainly caused by RTW) I would love this new game to be truly superb. The tactical possibilities of STW married with the wonderful commands and smoothness of MTW, plus the graphic splendour and the left/select and right/command of RTW. Something like that WOULD be a step in the right direction
......Orda
Dead Knight of the Living
10-26-2006, 14:01
Dead Knight of the Living, i think many people read the blog differently to you. I never saw it mention this would only happen to the player, all it says is that morale and faitque will change for the different difficult settings.
I know it's not only going to affect the player. What it sounds like to me is they're going to boost the AI's morale to make it harder for the players to defeat them. That's not my idea of improved AI. THat's basically giving them a GOD cheat. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's basically what it sounded like they were doing to me.
So you took:
As the difficulty ramps up, the influence of morale and fatigue become more apparent with the “Very Hard” setting giving you the most realistic battle experience possible.
to mean the ai gets morale bonuses??
That to mean means that the morale becomes more realistic, and one side getting morale boosts is not realistic so im guessing whatever changes in the morale to make it more difficult at different difficulty levels affects both the ai and player equally.
Maybe all the talk about how EA doesn't care about user opinions and how the TW series has gone downhill from the original STW...
Obviously, everyone here likes playing Total War, or they wouldn't be wasting their time in this fourm. That being said, I think it's safe to say that everyone here is concerned over the decisions being made in the production of M2TW -- hoping that EA doesn't turn the TW series to crap with this next release.
Additionally, all of the discontent *should* be a sign to them that they need to get it right with M2TW, or there might not be any fan interest when they start planning their next game.
I am likewise hoping for M2TW to be awesome, but there are plenty of other games out there to play...
EA? Is there some kind of secret infiltration going on :inquisitive:
EA? Is there some kind of secret infiltration going on :inquisitive:
I'm pretty sure he meant CA, not EA. ~;)
EA only published Shogun along with its expansion pack, Mongol Invasion (plus Shogun Warlord Edition, which combines the two). It has (fortunately) not been involved in the Total War series since then.
EA! :help:
Suddenly the intent of the unit variability comes clear, its so that they can use spyware to put different advertising on the units shields & on the walls of cities :clown:
TerranAce007
10-27-2006, 04:36
EA! :help:
Suddenly the intent of the unit variability comes clear, its so that they can use spyware to put different advertising on the units shields & on the walls of cities :clown:
Sorry, meant CA. As for EA, I liked BF2, but wont do 2142 for that very reason...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.