View Full Version : Campaigns Not Cross-Era? No Big Deal.
It seems that the devs made it a priority to have every campaign with the potential to encompass all eras in a reasonably timely fashion.
Well, I am just here to say, that for me, this is not so important. It would be nice to have a sped-up game in which I could run up the tech-tree from Early to Late, but frankly it sounds very appealing to slow things down a bit and only get through a single era.
Think about this guys, making options for speed of play. It would greatly enrich the game.
I believe it was Tosa-san who brought this to my attention and suggested the solution? Well I'm just putting my 2 cents in anyway.
Matt
LittleGrizzly
07-08-2002, 09:53
ehh?
Papewaio
07-09-2002, 09:07
How long is a turn?
One year or one season?
If it is now one year then a hundred MTW years is only equivalent to twenty five shogun years which would be on par with a fast game.
One turn currently is 1 year. I'd like to see an option to retain the Shogun system.
Konnichiwa,
At least 3 months like STW, but more preferrably 1 month. A perfect thing for a slider/edit of textfiles: player decides 1-12 months.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-09-2002, 17:32
One year (one move) took me 37 minutes last night! Then i had to do 3 battles - then it was "gaming session over for today".
I'd dread to see it at 3 months let alone 1 month - 6 maybe but even then...
(and i even turn off "show ai moves" in the later game when a lot of the map is uncovered - which i hate doing but...)
Darkmoor
How is the weather done when 1 year is 1 turn?
Is it always raining in England and always sunshine everywhere else?
Konnichiwa Darkmoor_Dragon san,
You might miss the point: I want to be able to do that if I wish so. I rather spend 10 hours to resolve 1 turn of a good game than 20 minutes of a bad one. It also doesn't matter whether 1 turn/year is resolved in 10 hours or 5 minutes, 1 year is 1 year, it removes stategic depth (my english is too bad to explain this, but I'm sure that you'll understand what I mean). I rather skip 6 turns a year because there's nothing to do, than raging through history like a mad idiot. A touring bus that is doing a sight seeing tour through London doesn't travel 200 mph because some might not like the view of the Big Ben.
Mind you, there are players who need a lot of time to resolve the real-time battles, but anyone who plays online, but also has interest in doing the strategic part, resolves any AI battle within 10 minutes. I do, and it doesn't matter whether there are 10 enemies or 10,000. This is no bragging, just a fact.
And even if the AI has improved so much that it will cost me 2 hours to complete one battle (is there an option to save a battle? I might need 2 hours to complete it but only have 1 hour left), I still want to play at a slower pace.
It's not about bitching, nor just about demanding more realism, but it's about adding more strategy to this game for those who want it.
It is impossible to make 'fixed software' that covers the needs of more than 1 person.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-09-2002, 23:46
Ah i see what you mean - didn't quite get it before.
Hmm - yeah i know what you mean and i'm a little unsure on the " 1 year = 1 move" (add to this the Drs point on weather which i'll come back too) because it removes exactly that strategic option.
What they've done is put in a random weather "thingy" thats partly based on the province - and then upped the number of chances you get too choose the "day" of the attack.
I dont really like this, even if you dont get seasons in the campaign game i think there should be the option to choose the season for "attack" and then the "day of battle" weather is balanced against the season you have chosen (rather than just random)
Going to have to wait and see what happens in this - nothing in the version i've got is final so... who knows.
The way its done (on my version) though seems a step back from STW and i agree - its a removal of a strategic option (Ok - so CA would say "But if you fight in the desert provinces you'l "always" go for winter" - of course and the AI should "always" go for summer - its swings and roundabout in my mind - and that's not to say that just because you chose to attack in winter you "will" get a nice cool day with rain)
Need to wait and see - but I think it will be a shame if this area isn't improved a little.
- - -
They had (for my version) just added in some atuo-management features (auto-tax, atuo-build, auto-title) to help those who want to "manage" the least amount of stuff - tbh i havent looked at this as i "never" let ai do things for me when i can help it.
But for "anymore" detail - the way the game builds stuff (the tech tree) is all annually based - so having seasons or months wouldn't actually do anything in strategic terms other than allow more freedom in moving army and "special" units around the map... BUT, there's no system in the TW series for handling "units on the move/between provinces" - so i see no way to handle this sort of thing.
(one has to consider that you can cross the entire map in one move atm by sea - the game would have to handle a range of "this unit is here this season/month" and also be able to represent it - too often it would be "between provinces".. and if you change the move=year to move=month/season - then ALL of the balancing in terms of income and build queues goes out of the window.
Well - that's what i think.
I dont think you're wrong - i just dont think we'll see it "this" TW game.
Konnichiwa,
I even dare not tell CA how they should balance the game at release ;-), I'm arguing for the freedom to tweak the game they ship to my and all other players personal liking.
The files like crusaders_unit_prod11.txt (that's how they're called in the demo) allow editing almost every aspect of units: including turns required to make it. I'ld like to make 1 month a turn (which can result in deeper strategy as you have 4 distinct seasons, even 3 turns each), make producing a peasant take 2 months (so I can use it 10 times in 1 year after producing it) and keep producing buildings about at the default time. The second benefit I see is that I'm allowed to stick with the bow and arrow era for several turns.
CA ships a balanced game, rebalancing is possible but at our own risk.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-10-2002, 03:57
cant remember the thread now - but it was to do with gunpowder spoiling the game - anyway - ive played right up to the "end" and never felt the need to swap longbows for handguns or arquies ya know... im also gettin kinda attached to "pavise arbalasters" - damn slow firing but boy do they pack a punch, hard to use effectively though.
hmm thats a good way to describe the "handguns" - good but hard to use well - whereas archers are so much simpler to use (and the firing rate is so much better, plus you dont need direct los)
Stephen Hummell
07-10-2002, 06:41
Darkmoor, You're one lucky SOB.
Papewaio
07-10-2002, 07:24
One of the strategic joys of SP STW was designing particular armies to take provinces in particular seasons. Design a melee force for the rainy seasons to take a bridge province. Have a light calvary army for high summer where they will be able to run around at max speed.
IMDO seasons and the variety of weather was one area where the AI and player had equal oppourtunity and it was one of the main ways the AI had of defeating me by seasonal effects.
The timer was also shorter in winter so if you were fighting a cowardly AI who had ashi and you had Naginata infantry it would just run around you and hide in the trees stopping a one size fits all solution. It also meant that defence requirements changed according to the seasons. Don't mass use gunners in defence in spring rain season at a bridge, move in the archers.
Take away the seasons and you have taken away the strategic portion of designing your armies. Just design on a tactical need one size fits all open field battles and another for castle assaults based on the best available troops. Tech up and go for it just like C&C.
This also means castles are no where near as powerful in a seige as initially devulged. 6 years only being equivalent to 6 seasons. And if the enemy are continually dieing on the inside while we can camp on the outside and frolic without any attrition then it has not improved. Instead we are given super anti castle seige weapons that make the castle a deadly box to confine the defender with shrapnel falling on them from their rapidly crumbling walls.
If 6 years had equaled 24 STW game turns then the length would have been most impressive. Why? Because that is how long we can finish an entire game in STW. Add some fortresses of that capactiy in STW and it would change the game dynamics quite a lot. Instead we have a game set in a period when castles ruled supreme and we can see them becoming a tactical hinderance to the defender rather then a tactical nightmare for the attacker.
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-10-2002, 07:32
except that the size of your castle helps determine how many buildings/upgrades you loose if your province is captured (and they cant earn from it if you still have the castle)
[note: i've held a castle for 17 years under seige btw]
PLUS the likelyhood of a friendly revolt is determined by how long you've had the province AND what you did with it (ie build lots) [as well as how much they love or loathe you]
As to strategic choices in armies and seasonal weather - i agree.
Its a step back/loss imo but it just doesnt meld with the size of the game either...
its hard to explain but, honestly, the game is almost in danger of being "sprawling" in Campaign mode as it stands now, with seasons it would be simply too big for most people.
Which is why, on the slower modes, the campaign should be focused on just one of the 3 or 4 eras.
This is what I was saying.
Slow it down times four? Reduce the timespan by four.
Matt
Papewaio
07-10-2002, 09:03
Quote Originally posted by Darkmoor_Dragon:
too big for most people[/QUOTE]
Oops, zip
[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 07-10-2002).]
Hirosito
07-10-2002, 17:26
by allowing something like 6 turns per year the turns would be shorter because not a years woth of crap has been building up
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
But that suggests that buildings still work on a season base. For example, a archery dojo (or whatever it's called) would take 4 seasons to build and thus after one turn it would be finished.
However, I assume that because the turns are now in increments of one year buildings will take longer and be in measurements of years. Thus, an archery dojo would take 4 years and not be done right away.
Does that make any sense?
I see construction in an abstract sense. It represents the time it takes to introduce a new fighting style, weapons or armor to a region and the industry to support it. Even the castle represents fortifications region wide.
Well buildingtime MUST have been shortened. 4 years for a simple building? And now we need to build even more buildings...
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-10-2002, 20:12
ah i see the confusion - Yes, it takes longer to build things. A spearcrafter is 2 years, shortest buildtime is a watchtower (1 year), port = 4 years, church 4 years, fortress 20 years, blacksmith 6 etc etc.
IF i play my cards "just" right atm i can get the necessary buildings built "just in time" to be able to produce the simplest cannon by the time gunpowder is "discovered".. hmm maybe thats not such a great example.
hmm - ok lets take an early era game where you need to crusdae to x province as part of your GA's... there's no way you can have built cannons or advanced troops in the time you have to complete that GA - so the game "forces" you to do it with "earlier troops".
Which i like as its not a "technology rush" but more in how you use your crusading army and play out the battles than "what" theya re comprised of.
Konnichiwa,
Choosing season and then weather only effects the tactic element, not the strategic.
I do understand that there are people who don't want to be bothered with 4,800 turns of 5 hours each. Maybe I do.
It's more likely that I'ld choose to play only say 40 years of the 400 (so that would make 12 turns a year*40= 480), and not need 5 hours to complete each turn.
We're talking about choices and freedom to tweak the game to personal liking, not telling CA do this and everyone has to stick with that.
We're talking about Europe here, 1 month to travel from Denmark to France by ship isn't that unrealistic. A full year to cross the canal from The Netherlands to England is.
At the very least, make 4 turns a year with seasons and allow updating of maps in case a castlewall is destroyed. This will give close integration of 'strategic' and tactical issues of sieging. Skip the repair of castlewalls when under siege. A season will also be an acceptable time to train a peasant, while a full year (4 turns) will better suit a professional footsoldier. 4 Seasons will clearly distinct between offensive and defensive turns (although nothing will prevent the AI or the player from being nasty :-) ).
If you express building/construction times in months and multiply any value smaller than 12, with 12, if the user wants to play in years, you can have both a seasonal and a yearly game in one box without the need to rebalance.
Example:
Stats.
peasant 1 month.
footsoldier 3 months.
Knight 11 months (I know, it takes years)
tower 15 months
castle 60 months.
1 month/turn, no modifier, elapsed time calculated in months.
peasant 1 turn (1 month)
footsoldier 3 turns (3 months)
Knight 11 turns (11 months, almost a year)
tower 15 turns (15 months)
castle 60 turns (60 months, 5 years)
1 season/turn, values smaller than 12 (**19) multiplied by 3, elapsed time calculated in months.
peasant 1 turn (1 month * 3, one season)
footsoldier 3 turns (3 months * 3, almost a year)
Knight 11 turns (11 months *3, almost 3 years)
tower 15 turns (15 months * 3, more than 3 years)
castle 20 turns (60 months no modifier)
** In this case, 19 turns is the value that precedes 20 turns. So any stat value between 19 months and 60 months require a special treatment -> 57 months --> 19 turns.
1 year/turn, values smaller than 12 multiplied by 12, elapsed time calculated in months.
peasant 1 turn (1 month * 12, 1 year)
footsoldier 3 turns (3 months * 12, 3 years) That resolution is already how the situation is now, don't blame me please.
Knight 11 turns !!! (11 months * 12) --> 4 turns, 4 years ***
tower
castle 5 turns (60 months, 5 years).
***It can be seen that this system isn't enough, unless other actions can be taken it seems safest/easiest to go with 1month/turn, 3 month/turn and 12 month/turn. That looks like an acceptable choice, to me. The fix for 1year/turn would be that any value between 4 and 60 months in the stat, results in 4 turns (48 months). The monthly and 3 monthly options can then use any resolution of training/construction time. This shows how rough 1 turn/year is.
As the stats are user editable, one can decide to change some values that don't seem to fit (like 11 months training for a knight in the monthly situation) to a more appropriate value.
With a minimum of effort for CA, the game can be made suitable and balanced for both 1 year/turn and 3 months/turn, ihmo the 2 options that will used by most. The 3th option is for the rare player, who also can't be stopped from messing around with values himself.
The latter example describes how the situation is now, the former 2 show the finer resolutions which add strategical depth to the game.
You could say that there is a disbalance because you can build 12 peasants in the first case and only 1 in the 3th. But that is not completely true as you'll receive only income once in 12 months. You can't really buy more, but you get more freedom in when you buy it.
For buildings becoming available at a certain year: nothing changes here, as the possibilty to construct such a building depends on the year. It doesn't matter how that year is reached.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Wavesword
07-11-2002, 00:31
I dislike immense sweeps of time because it dilutes things. I want to control one guy and perhaps one squalling unworthy brat. Perhaps if there are hereditary qualities (like arthiritis, -1 move in the wet weather!) the link will remain strong over a dynasty but I have some pessimism about engagement levels. Perhaps if the AI factions have continuity and variety they'll form a real mosaic of historical complexity, with some imagination.
Papewaio
07-11-2002, 08:55
Not good, not good at all http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
So in that time period people lived to say 50ish. That is 40 turns max of mayhem. It took me 80 turns, twenty years to finish STW with Takeda Shingen and get him exactly to Rank 7 or 36 winning battles in 80 turns!
So a heir or general could be expected to be good for maybe half that or 18 battles max.
And how long is it going to take to get you 16 year old heir depart England and then to march from France to the Holy Land? Is it 5 or 10 odd years just to walk there?
It effectively means you get 1/4 a bang for your buck out of generals and heirs etc. Combine this with a faster honour gain it puts the emphasis off the new and improved RPG element onto D&Dish hack and slash experience rampaging units who go up ranks of honour faster then a kensai in the middle of a Hojo Horde.
Also with honour rising faster it would seem that unit balancing gets out of tilt if you have managed to get some easy early on defeats under your belt. The units valour will out weigh the units type and the army general faster as honour rises quicker as well.
Combine this with effectively a quarter life span general and I can see peasant horde problems in MTW. Maybe not peasant hordes but the cheapest unit that levels the quickest. Which will probably be the woodsman and spearmen (for generic access).
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-11-2002, 15:26
Where did this "50 years lifespan" thing come from?
Papewaio
07-11-2002, 17:11
A guess... It is Mediveal times so I don't think the human lifespan is above that. It should not rival that of the japanese Daimyo who lived in much cleaner conditions. Even then having a 90 year old charging into battle is a bit much.
So do generals have a lifespan now? Princesses do get to old to marry off?
Konnichiwa,
Wasn't it Oda Nobunaga that said something about a man living 50 years under the sky?
A 50 year lifespan is indeed normal for those days, of course you'ld meet older people.
1 year a turn is sad, it removes strategic and tactic depth (no seasons), and it's just rushing through history.
I understand that many of the people who want to play the full 400 years of the campaign wouldn't like 1,600 turns. I don't like to rush through 50 years in 50 turns. Make it user definable.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Wavesword
07-11-2002, 23:02
Ooops, this was a nonsense post
[This message has been edited by Wavesword (edited 07-11-2002).]
Yes it is truly sad.
They tease us with greatly improved character development, but they cut their time available back to 1/4... You need good and well around 60-100 turns to develop a good general in STW (just as said before), now that is practically impossible.
It is never a good choice to downscale something defining from a previous version... Actually this is the first time I have heard about something like that in a game.
The Civ games have become so imensively popular despite their nearly unmanageable timespan...
It is like they have taken one step forward (the character development) and two backwards (shortened time to use that character development).
[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 07-11-2002).]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.