View Full Version : Demo is okay but should not represent final product in anyway
during my session with the demo i could tell it was incomplete because of the weird unit graphics and terrible slow down. also in the battle of Jaffa the foot knights have no weapons!! they litterly punched their enemies to death, i guess they are truly the worlds greatest!! castle sieges could use a few improvements such as my men not being able to stand right next to the wall and be safe (wheres the rocks and boiling oil).
small catapults seem too powerful and siege weapons seem to have a thousand projectiles to throw at a castle before they run out of ammo. Gate assaults were also reputed to be dangerous but i recieved no casulties in attacking one and my men were magically able to open it.
the a.i. is much better with soldiers realistically reacting to being attacked, cavalry seems more dangerous and can litterly trample archers when they charge into them.
all and all i'm very excited about this game.
"siege weapons seem to have a thousand projectiles to throw at a castle before they run out of ammo"
They also MISS a lot so that makes up for their ammo stockpile.
I just wish I could move troops from one siege engine to another, especially if I have one that's out of ammo and the troops are just standing around doing nothing while another siege device has too few troops to operate. Obviously the men with no job should be able to fill in at the other siege weapon.
I also want to see moveable catapults, since they have wheels, they should be able to slowly, slowly, be moved by the men so they can be repositioned. That way once an outer wall is breached they can be pushed closer to hit the inner wall.
Hirosito
07-04-2002, 22:02
i like the way siege engines get better at hitting a target the longer they shoot at it.
dagdriver
07-05-2002, 01:15
I really like that siege enignes are immobile during battle.
That way you have to be carefull about the positioning, and anticipate you opponents move.
A few years ago I played Warhammer http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gifark Omen. There you had immobile cannons too. It worked very well giving you a weapon that was both very powerfull, but also extremely weak bacause of its immobility.
It will add another layer with the deployment fase prior to battle when a badly placed siegeweapon can't be moved during battle.
Ahhhh Warhammer: Dark Omen
Great game. Very advanced by that time ... and also incredibly buggy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
A lot of people is still in love with that game. In effect I still play it regularly. It is a pain to manage but still a blast http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Orda Khan
07-05-2002, 05:33
I think the number of projectiles represents the time it would take to besiege a castle, months or even years.
As for the game I am sure it will be much better than the demo
........Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
About ammunition of siege weapons....... I mean, for crying out load how hard is it to find rock (or dead body) and set it as projectile. After all it is not gold they are throwing. Army is not that stupid to operate a siege with little ammunition, especially against huge fortresses. Otherwise the gameplay would be terrible (at least for me).
PS. I would also like to see a some kind of supply wagon as a stratigic and tactical unit (or something like that) for full realism and gameplay.
------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-05-2002, 07:06
Quote Originally posted by Prodigy:
About ammunition of siege weapons....... I mean, for crying out load how hard is it to find rock (or dead body) and set it as projectile. After all it is not gold they are throwing. Army is not that stupid to operate a siege with little ammunition, especially against huge fortresses. Otherwise the gameplay would be terrible (at least for me).
PS. I would also like to see a some kind of supply wagon as a stratigic and tactical unit (or something like that) for full realism and gameplay.
[/QUOTE]
Why?
Seriously...why?
What would the "realism" do to improve the gameplay?
The philosophy behind the seige is NOT to simulate a real seige - to do that you may want years and years whilst you're little stones hammer away at sometimes literally impregnable walls - no fun.
The idea is to "represent" the making of a breach and then fight the assault through that breach(es).
To do otherwise is nonsensical and you'd need to move the "seige" element into the campaign map section (which it bascically allready is for starving em out type seiges).
Just imagine the seige-engine part as a time-lapse section of the game, with limited ammo in as the "gameplay" factor - if you dont want to run out of ammo then just click the "unlimited ammo" option in the settings for your "realism" factor of picking rocks up off the ground - easy enough id say ...?
/em shrugs
Emp. Conralius
07-05-2002, 08:07
well, your most likely not going to get your supply wagon. Hope it doesent ruin your "realistic" fun...
Well I just tried a demo from a game called Warrior Kings ... And you get a Supply Wagon to go with your archers http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Darkmoor_Dragon,
If you like to critisize people's opinions ....... God bless you with that. I was simply stating my right of opinion and if you have something against it ....... well........ it is your problem. To answer your question, realism brings up the gameplay for me because the more realistic the game, the more it feels like I am taking part of reallity and history, not fake story.
------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
Emp. Conralius, I know there wont be any "supply wagon" in Medieval TW, I was refering to the future TW games.
------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
Quote Originally posted by dagdriver:
I really like that siege enignes are immobile during battle.
That way you have to be carefull about the positioning, and anticipate you opponents move.[/QUOTE]
Except that in the only mission in the demo where you get to use them they are already placed - you have no say in where they are. So no, it's not good that you can't move them.
And as for liking them so immobile - it's STUPID seeing things that can't be moved being able to aim left or right. That's a physical impossibility.
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-05-2002, 16:34
Quote Originally posted by Prodigy:
Darkmoor_Dragon,
If you like to critisize people's opinions ....... God bless you with that. I was simply stating my right of opinion and if you have something against it ....... well........ it is your problem. To answer your question, realism brings up the gameplay for me because the more realistic the game, the more it feels like I am taking part of reallity and history, not fake story.
[/QUOTE]
It wasnt a criticism but a serious question.
Your perspective and points i'd agree with if it were a sim or a wargame - but it isn't. (Ca/Activision were most insistent on pushing the point that it isn't a wargame in the classical sense.)
These things have to be viewed in perspective - if you start on the "realism" trail you end up with a sim of nightmare proportions, lets follow the thread:
I want supply wagons for proper seiges.
Therefoe i need to be able to interupt those supplies. I need units to deliver supplies. I need a time-scale for deliveries and a gui to plot them. I need to add additional game time to allow for a slow (very slow) seige... I need therefore to change the rates of tiredness in the entire battlegame or my assault troops are knackered by the time i have a breach.. the list goes on.
Superficially it seems an "easy" option, but in actual gameplay terms it is both quite complex and it changes the entire "elelemnt" of the battle engine. It becomes a strategic process to knock a wall down - and that is something the campaign map handles.
Remember that is the key difference in the TW franchise - they split the Strategic and tactical options, all resource and strat level elements go onto the campaign maps so that "when you fight you just fight" (you're not having to tend farms and construction queues ala a typical RTS).
Its known as "design philosophy" and it's really not as simple as just saying "but this would be more realistic".
As I said in another thread - its fine to want a "realistic" army: of syphilitic, pox-ridden soldiers who are illiterate and only speak saxon, whilst their commanders only speak Court French, followed around by an army-camp of laborors, whores, bastards and such like - its "realistic" but it won't do much for gameplay in real terms.
SO:
Im not questioning or criticising the "WHY" do you prefer this - im questioning the "WHY" of how it would suit the game type.
Hopefully you can see the difference.
Quote Your perspective and points i'd agree with if it were a sim or a wargame - but it isn't. (Ca/Activision were most insistent on pushing the point that it isn't a wargame in the classical sense.)
These things have to be viewed in perspective - if you start on the "realism" trail you end up with a sim of nightmare proportions, lets follow the thread:
[/QUOTE]
Okay two things:
1 - If this isn't a real "wargame", what the heck is it? Because to me it seems like it's exactly that - a wargame. You know, as opposed to an RTS.
2 - Having one bit of "realism" does not necessitate a never-ending stream of realism changes. It IS possible to just fix one thing, like being able to push a catapult around slowly, without going nuts on the realism. The things I've talked about aren't "realism" so much as just common sense or bug fixes.
As for going off into tangent land with supply wagons and such, I'd agree that's getting a bit off base and not necessary. However, I don't think anyone is saying, "This should be the most realistic medieval war simulation EVER!" I think they're just finding one or two things they wish to see in the game.
If CA is at all interested in pleasing their customers they will at least give a half-hearted look at each suggestion. That's the least they can do.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-05-2002).]
I always want the game to be realistic. Whether M:TW is a wargame or not, every wargame ever published made design choices about fidelity. Many avoid detailed logistics because it's not very fun. That doesn't mean they must ignore logistics altogether though, it just means that they should address supply and such in a more abstract manner. To totally dismiss logistics would be a poor choice IMO. CA did the right thing. Supply would be a pain in the ass so instead of letting archers and engines fire constantly, they decided to limit the ammo available during battle.
The siege assault in M:TW is a step up from Shogun. (I'm glad that gates exist now.) Artillery was stationary and required its' own defenders constantly. If any of the engines could move players could use them offensively in open battle in ways that are not compatible with what we know about contemporary medieval warfare. That's the kind of unreality that would bother me.
Also if you ran out of stones you could always use the nearest dead animal. Even some games allow you to do that (Stronghold, one of the Age of Empires cheat codes too I think).
Orda Khan
07-05-2002, 20:43
What bothers me is the fact that anyone mentioning realism is being ridiculed. People have different wants and needs they post their ideas and then come the clever remarks. Judging by the posts on various subjects such as weapons, cultures etc it would seem there are people with a lot of interest in historical facts. Is it a coincidence they play STW or MTW for that case? I think realism (and I'm not stupid enough to think every eventuality can be covered) is an important factor and I'm sure a lot more in the community feel the same
.....Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Hirosito
07-05-2002, 21:01
hear, hear
Emp. Conralius
07-05-2002, 21:13
Thanx Huelgo, nobody really is comparing the castle sieges of MTW to Stronghold. AOE2 had pretty dull "sieges."
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-05-2002, 21:57
it isnt a wargame though is it? not in how that genre is defined, neither is it a simulation (which is where you go to match realism and gameplay).
Orda - it isnt a case of "ridiculing" realism - its placing it in its due catagory. It isnt a simulation, realism isnt the priority or key driving motivation, but a setting or a "adjustable" framework.
Wargames simulate warfare at a certain (and sometimes multiple) level of interaction (soldier to army, even country) and realism, supply, attention to very intimate and specific detail and all "required" by the Gorgnards who play them... "fun wargames" such as Panzer General 2 aren't even classed as "proper" strategy wargames by such people as they are simply "unrealistic" in their design.
Quote If CA is at all interested in pleasing their customers they will at least give a half-hearted look at each suggestion. That's the least they can do.[/QUOTE]
They have. But who are their customers? They aren't a distinct group with the same interests, indeed a large section of the design of MTW was to broaden the potential market to those frightened off by titles such as "wargame" "Strategy game" and such like.
One has to bear this in mind at all times - wherever a company includes more and more specific content-detail they run the risk of effectively limiting their audience.
And realism has its place in the game - but do you sacrifice (or as a minimum compromise) realism for gameplay when the game is NOT a simulation?
Pretty much every time.
Once agian though I stress something that CA pointed out was behind the ENTIRE concept of the TW series. It was designed to get away from having to manage non-combat forces during battles - that is precisely WHY they split the battle from the campaign map and any mangement of resources etc. The battles are for fighting in, the campaign layer for management, production and resources.
The moment they cross that line they start making "just another same-oh RTS" - where you find yourself having to stop General-ing the fight to go make sure your pig farms are working properly (or your supply wagons are going to the right spot).
When you ask CA/Activision what is special about TW, what defines it, it is this very split between management and fighting that comes out...and i agree with them.
Final words:
Now this doesn't mean that an RTS is crap, a wargame is crap or that realism is "bad". What it CAN mean though is that it (they) are more suited to a different type of game and that their utilisation ahs to always be weighed against the "philosophy" of the game.. because its that philosophy of the game that made STW a success and the TW series so potentially succesuful..and why games like "Warrior Kings" are just anyold other RTS and remain TW wannabes.
NB: I spoke to activision today on mount/dismount: During DEPLOYMENT you get the opportunity to mount/dismount mounted troops who will then form up as their foot-type equivalent (SO gothic Knights become gothic-foot-knights).
just going to see if its in the build i have now...(and whether or not i need a stable-hand to mind the horses whilst im attacking the castle or need hay&water to be delivered.)
YES!
That is EXACTLY how mount-dismount should work. Hot damn!
Emp. Conralius
07-05-2002, 22:36
In the demo, at the Battle of Jaffa, before the battle starts, if you right click, that option will come up. Though, in the demo it can't be used.
Emp. Conralius
07-05-2002, 22:38
Has anyone noticed that the Khwarazmian Cavalry have to weapons?
Orda Khan
07-06-2002, 02:56
Quote
just going to see if its in the build i have now...(and whether or not i need a stable-hand to mind the horses whilst im attacking the castle or need hay&water to be delivered.)[/B][/QUOTE]
...See what I mean
....Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-06-2002, 04:10
yeah - now that was ridicule admitedly ;-/
but it is also somewhat relevant.
Hirosito
07-06-2002, 14:20
cool the dismount is great CA is really doing a great job
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.