View Full Version : Interesting thread at the .com forums...
http://pub24.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm5.showMessage?topicID=667.topic
At least it's interesting to me. What do I know. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Well, since I'm Tarrak I agree with him http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Hrmm, looks like the thread was deleted? Link doesn't work anymore.
rageXghost
07-13-2002, 11:39
Link doesn't work anymore. please post new link so we might see,
the waiting his killing me,{ Bankhead on Wall Bankhead on wall }
http://www.gdarkness.com/4degrees/skullani.gif
Ghost
Keeper Of the Crypt
Ok since it is killing you I might as well drop the bomb....
BOOOOOM!!!!
JRock said he would not buy the game if this and that wasn't changed and I said "See you next time then."
http://pub24.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm4.showMessage?topicID=64.topic
I'm with JRock. I'm holding off on buying it. The developer made the decision to go with years for the turns without asking any opinions from the players here. They say that they scan these boards for ideas, but no one ever posted to keep the seasonal turns because no one expected something that works well to be changed. The game has been dumbed down to appeal to a larger audience. The move to yearly turns was a business decision, not a gameplay decision. It smacks of micromanagement by DePlatter. I'm sure the programmers know how great the game could be. Look how DePlatter ducked the community by not announcing the chat early enough for people here to participate in it. You people are all wasting your time posting suggestions here. Also, how do you know it's $40? I'm thinking it might be $50 USA.
Konnichiwa,
A timely announcement here and at com would have resulted in a massive particpation of real fans in the chat. A lot of hard questions to answer.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Ok since it is killing you I might as well drop the bomb....
BOOOOOM!!!!
JRock said he would not buy the game if this and that wasn't changed and I said "See you next time then."[/QUOTE]
What are you a politician? That's quite a spin you put on that thread description!
Naw I'm a simple man... can't bother with politicians. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
But if you look there was a few requests for the thread... So I just spiced it up a bit.
Tosa... Yeah that would be bad! Real fans turning up with evil questions. They should learn from Blizzard about listening to the fans.
[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 07-13-2002).]
Here, enjoy this thread:
http://pub24.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm5.showMessage?topicID=683.topic
Does CA run that forum or is it just another fan site? Because CA never posts there either.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-13-2002).]
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 21:05
Jrock - i think you ahve some very strange sources of information on MTW - as many of your, erm, "points" are just plain wrong.
[This message has been edited by Darkmoor_Dragon (edited 07-13-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Darkmoor_Dragon (edited 07-13-2002).]
JRock,
That's their official site, and they almost never post there. You are a consumer of their product. Once they have your money, they would just as soon that you go away.
Wow! Monsta was right about Darkmoor_Dragon after all. Very insightfull Monsta.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 07-13-2002).]
Erado San
07-13-2002, 21:27
hmmm... some observations... feel free to flame me for them...
1 - Puzz, it is a gameplay decision. And it's very easy to figure out the reasons for it.
How long did your longest campaign in STW last? Mine was 65 to 70 years, and that was because I had to deal with a huge Hojo Horde. Let's say 75 years. In turns that is 300.
Now suppose that in MTW you have seasonal turns. A campaign lasts 75 years then. How would you ever get a campaign to last the timespan of 400 years? 1600 turns... how long is that going to take you to finish?
2 - Then why not have the option to choose the season before you attack?
Just my guess here, but this would make the campaign much too easy. The attacker would have way too much influence over the weather situation and that would make it too easy I'm afraid.
3 - I don't think this is such a big problem in the SP campaign. What's more interesting is whether we have the option to choose the season for Multiplayer. We all know how important it is there. So on that point I agree with everybody... this option, if not available in the game, should return asap.
4 - Why don't they post these things so we can discuss them before they make a decision?
They run a business. Do you want them to ask us first for all the maybe 3000 decisions they had to make for this game? I don't think so. Plus, as stated above, mostly this decision makes sense.
5 - The .com forum is their official forum. They never show there because of the treatment they got here in this forum before they even made their own forum. With every decision they took or every thing they posted here they got heavily criticised, and not in a constructive manner. So they more or less decided against posting alltogether.
Look at the mature arguments here... They release a new game that has tons of improvements, many we have requested ourselves (and still you thnk they never listen to us... sigh...). But there are a few things we don't like and whammo, the sensible 'If they are not going to change this then I won't buy it!!!' pops up again. Great discussion skills...
You think that is really inviting to them? Really? If you ask a friend for a drink you also invite him by 'If you don't change those shoes I'm never going to talk to you again!!!' ?
[This message has been edited by Erado San (edited 07-13-2002).]
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 21:31
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
[b]JRock,
Wow! Monsta was right about Darkmoor_Dragon after all. Very insightfull Monsta.
[b][/QUOTE]
?please explain?
Lil old me doesn't understand.
[This message has been edited by Darkmoor_Dragon (edited 07-13-2002).]
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 21:37
Quote Originally posted by Erado San:
What's more interesting is whether we have the option to choose the season for Multiplayer.[/QUOTE]
Already in there - yup. (As is Era of units [so you can decide what units to allow by Era])
[This message has been edited by Darkmoor_Dragon (edited 07-13-2002).]
Erado San
07-13-2002, 21:46
Cool D_D, takes away the most important issue, doesn't it.
Furthermore, I don't think people really get the idea that because of all the changes in the strategy part it is going to play very much differently than in STW.
Personally, I can see the point of making this optional for the players. But I wouldn't be surprised that if they gave us that option, that in maybe one or two months we'd see a thread called 'why did they put this stupid option in?!? Nobody ever uses it...'
(talking about the year/turn or season/turn option of course).
Erado,
The MTW campaign is broken down into 3 periods of 125 years each. That's equivalent to a Shogun game lasting 32 turns. A 75 year Shogun game is 300 turns. Yes they went to 400 years, but they didn't make the game 4 times longer like everyone thought. They knew exactly what players were going to think when they advertised 400 years. How do you know that players don't want a game of 1600 turns. I can save the game and continue it later. You don't want 1600 turns, so I'm not supposed to want it either?
If it was a gameplay decision, then it was a unilateral decision because they never asked what players would prefer. They could have conducted a poll. The thing that gets me is that players post here as though they are communication with the developer. It's ludicrous. From what I can see so far, very few player suggestions have been implemented in MTW.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 07-13-2002).]
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 22:14
No MTW is NOT broken down into 3 games of 125 years - WRONG.
The Era dictates your starting tech position and a variety of different starting provinces by faction.
Early runs into middle into high - there is no "start here - end there" option other than start 1086, end 1453... even in Glorious Achievement mode you don't "end game" but carry on if you want to, accruing more and more points or conquering everything.
This has been posted on here at .com and in numerous previews inclduing my own at gamesdomain.
Erado San
07-13-2002, 22:17
Puzz, You would have to be a really bad or slow player to make it last for 1600 turns. Or do nothing for a lot of turns. It just doesn't work that way.
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 22:26
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
Erado,
Besides, how do you know that players don't want a game of 1600 turns. I can save the game and continue it later.[/QUOTE]
How do know they do?
How long does the average computer game last you? 50 hours? 60 hours? 100 hours?
Well you can get that out of one faction playing from 1086 (early Era) - start at High Era and its a different set of challenges. Smae at Late Era, Same with playing each Era not to conquer but to win the points in GA mode.
And you have 11 factions to play - so you've got 6 different challenges per faction and 11 factions - 66 x 30-100 hours of gameplay.
The game is HUGE as it stands now and was on the verge of becoming so sprawling that people wouldn't finish it and just grow bored with campaigns.
Which is why there are the GA's for starters... it needed something to break up the potential for monotony.
"hard core" micro-managers and grognards do not comprise the core market. The Campaign game provides a game setting and a challenge framework for the battle section of the game.
It isnt a simulation and it isnt a grognards wargame.
Konnichiwa,
2 - Then why not have the option to choose the season before you attack?
Just my guess here, but this would make the campaign much too easy. The attacker would have way too much influence over the weather situation and that would make it too easy I'm afraid.
Not precisely what's asked, but something like this was in shogun. Shogun had seasons, ever heard anyone complaining about it?
The problem is that you'ld have to program a strategic AI (should also know about the cons and pros of a certain season). Now, you throw all these things into a dice. Human AI vs Computer AI.
As far as I remember I've never threatened: 'I go warez, I won't buy'.
Now I use my right as customer to say: 'I won't play this'. It's up to De Plater/CA to decide about whether they fix this or not.
I agree about the developers being flamed for anything, but then, why organise a chat at gameSpy? I recently was there, sigh.
And to counter your argument about bitching about options: no one, really no one ever plays 'halve the enemy'. Ever found a topic at org or com bitching CA about this?
Personally, I can see the point of making this optional for the players. But I wouldn't be surprised that if they gave us that option, that in maybe one or two months we'd see a thread called 'why did they put this stupid option in?!? Nobody ever uses it...'
I expect a topic like this: 'why did they put the option to play years? No one ever uses that'.
You think that is really inviting to them? Really? If you ask a friend for a drink you also invite him by 'If you don't change those shoes I'm never going to talk to you again!!!' ?
Turn it the other way around, do you really think that this is inviting to us?
Let's start again: De Plater decided about something, fans did not know anything about it. Now they do and say that they don't like it. Not just 1 or 2, many. Do you really think all these fans just argue to have 'fun'? Are you really thinking we just want to bitch CA? Aren't we the ones who are supposed to buy this game? Don't we have the right to say what we like? Is it our fault that this happened? Seasons were always a part of TW? Did we tell CA to make an impossible epic game so that the basics had to be neglected? Did we?
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Quote Originally posted by Darkmoor_Dragon:
How do know they do?[/QUOTE]
Simple - many of us have voiced our opinion that we would at least like the option to play a longer game.
Once again the whole issue is solved by CA allowing the player to choose between Seasonal and Yearly play varieties.
But they won't do that...
Quote Personally, I can see the point of making this optional for the players. But I wouldn't be surprised that if they gave us that option, that in maybe one or two months we'd see a thread called 'why did they put this stupid option in?!? Nobody ever uses it...'[/QUOTE]
Okay see now you're just talking out of your butt - no gamer has EVER EVER EVER complained about having CHOICES. Get real! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard! Gamers LOVE choices and options so they can create some variety and help shape the game to their preferred playing style.
hard core" micro-managers and grognards do not comprise the core market. The Campaign game provides a game setting and a challenge framework for the battle section of the game.
A simple option, or just scaling down the scope of this entire project (northern europe 1200), would serve both this core market and the hard core gamer. Games, nay even any piece of software, is about options. Software that can't be adjusted to personal taste can never reach Nirvana.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Well my point is that everyone thought they were making the game longer with the 400 year statment. It's the usual marketing spin that gets put on stuff. I wonder what else about MTW is not what it seems to be. Are we being duped into thinking this game is something that's it's not?
I'll tell you one thing, I'm not rushing out an buying it on the day it's released and I would advise others not to either unless you have the money to burn or don't have a particularly high standard for the games you purchase. You know the game will have bugs when it's released. The company has to do better with its support and patches or we're just going to see a repeat of the Shogun experience. I'm not going to put myself through that again.
Konnichiwa,
It isnt a simulation and it isnt a grognards wargame.
Mind you that the average age here at the org is about 27 years. Not really an AOE audience.
I'm here since jan 2,000 and I may be considered fan since I heard about STW somewhere '98 (?).
I know this is not a 100% hardcore simulation, and I'ld do concessions to enhance playability. In fact, we've gone through a lot of sad stuff and we still do. This is the very limit for me, if MTW will not allow optional seasons, I won't play it.
Good luck with the core market.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 22:53
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
Simple - many of us have voiced our opinion that we would at least like the option to play a longer game.
Once again the whole issue is solved by CA allowing the player to choose between Seasonal and Yearly play varieties.
But they won't do that...[/QUOTE]
1,2,3 lots, many.
3 or 4 people shouting largely erroneous information across two websites is not the defninition of "Many of us" - oldest trick in the book is to use "we" when you mean "i".
You also have no real idea what " a longer game" is as you don't know how long the game is now in terms of playtime.
This is what baffles me - if you were posting these opinions based on playing it I'd understand - but on a general assumption its crazy... and especially when its added to rants like yours on .com where a lot of your points were just plain wrong or already included in the game (MP options and era's for starters).
TW has always been about turns - in STW they were called "seasons" in MTW it looks like they are to be called "years".
It's still "turns" though.
You say you want 1600 turns to make a "Longer game" but a) no experience how long 400 turns is and b) fail to realise how many changes would be needed to accomaodate game balance onto 1600 turns (and every variation therein and thereof)
Honestly - its an overly simplistic attitude to take and the "rabid "CA hates us and we ahte CA" attitude that's in those posts is exactly why such companies don't respond directly to such boards.
Informed and considered opinions get results: half-assed (to use your phrase JR) rants, don't.
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 22:57
Quote Originally posted by TosaInu:
Konnichiwa,
It isnt a simulation and it isnt a grognards wargame.
Mind you that the average age here at the org is about 27 years. Not really an AOE audience.
I'm here since jan 2,000 and I may be considered fan since I heard about STW somewhere '98 (?).
I know this is not a 100% hardcore simulation, and I'ld do concessions to enhance playability. In fact, we've gone through a lot of sad stuff and we still do. This is the very limit for me, if MTW will not allow optional seasons, I won't play it.
Good luck with the core market.
[/QUOTE]
and .org is regarded as THE site that represents the hardccore of TW players Tosa.
If MTW doesn't include seasonal weather options on the battle map i'll be dissapointed and count it as a mistake.
If you don't play it because they called the turns years and not seasons i'd actually also count that as a mistake - but i suspect you will play it anyway... because its a good game.
One that can be improved on, expanded on and added to, for sure - but that's going to be TW3.
Darkmoor,
I didn't say I knew players wanted a game of 1600 turns. You don't and I do. Since no poll was conducted, we don't know what the average player wants. I can do a lot more within a period if I have more turns. I should be able to finish the game and not spill over into the next period. You would have 3 separate games this way. If I start in the "late" period, can I play for 400 years from that point? Won't all my leaders die off?
I'm aware of the rebalance that would be necessary to accomodate seasonal turns, and you can bet that we'll never see it now no matter how many players would prefer it. MTW is basically the same length as a game of Shogun. If they made it cover 4000 years but made the turns 10 year intervals, it's still the same length in turns. So, this game is about the same length as a game of Shogun, but it has 12 playable factions rather than 7. However, by dropping the seasons a strategic aspect of the game has been lost. You would have a better game if it covered only 125 years and retained the seasons.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 07-13-2002).]
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 23:01
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
Okay see now you're just talking out of your butt - no gamer has EVER EVER EVER complained about having CHOICES. Get real! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard! Gamers LOVE choices and options so they can create some variety and help shape the game to their preferred playing style.[/QUOTE]
Actually both gamers and reviewers regularly complain about choices and options - the simplification of games in making them into computer games is a key process on opening them up to wider audiences.
Indeed the TW series is a direct result of "simplification" - the removal on in-battle micromanagement in the RTS genre approach to breaking it out onto the campaign map.
Complaints by gamers over too many choices "manage the pigs or run the battle bob?" is why the TW series appeared.
Now that is irony JRock... you do not do yourself service.
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 23:09
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
Darkmoor,
I didn't say I knew players wanted a game of 1600 turns. You don't and I do. Erado also doesn't want seasonal turns. Since no poll was conducted, we don't know what the average player wants. I can do a lot more within a period if I have more turns. I should be able to finish the game and not spill over into the next period. You would have 3 separate games this way. If I start in the "late" period, can I play for 400 years from that point? Won't all my leaders die off?
[/QUOTE]
This is a point of perspective to some degree and "understanding" from another.
Firstly - what the average gamer "wants" can't be found by running a poll when the average gmer doesn't know how the changes have affected the game. It's just a WAG. (Wild Ass Guess)
Secondly and perhaps most importantly:
Quote I can do a lot more within a period if I have more turns[/QUOTE]
Precisely - and the game challenge is to do X in Y turns.
What you are asking for is to do X in Y + Y + Y + Y turns.
Don't you see that all this is, is asking for the game to made easier? The challenge is defined by the time in which to do it.
Now - if you're saying you want ONLY to play a game fixed entirely in the Early Period that last 400 turns, that doesn't run on into High or Late, that has different time-based Glorious Achievements (because you're now running using a different move-frame) that is, (as you should now be able to see) quite different to wanting 1move=1month for the whole game.
You're asking for an entire sub-game, and one, admitedly, that sounds good fun...but IS another game.
(im off out to dinner so wont be around for anymore qs for a while - have fun in the meantime)
Konnichiwa,
1,2,3 lots, many.
3 or 4 people shouting largely erroneous information across two websites is not the defninition of "Many of us" - oldest trick in the book is to use "we" when you mean "i".
I have 1 name for all forums, that's TosaInu.
As I do participate in the discussions, both at org and com and all the other nicks there are not mine, your statement is not correct.
How about a poll? A real one where people can only vote once? I'ld say that 75% votes for seasons back. And then, we never asked for a hardcoded season or year, but an option. To start with, no one ever asked to change the seasons from STW.
You make a 2nd wrong assumption: yes MTW clearly offers more than STW. But this season stuff, and anything that is related to that, makes it 1 step forward and 2 back. Enough reason for me not to touch it.
A turn isn't a turn.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Darkmoor_Dragon
07-13-2002, 23:29
Hmm you assumed i was replying just to you Tosa - I wasn't, should have made that clearer - sorry about that.
Im not talking about your nicks Tosa - (so pls dont get paranoid) - im talking about a few folks being heralded as a mass revolution.
As i said earlier how can you vote on something you haven't tried? All you're doing is voting on a vague concept - not a game specific element.
One can easily differentiate between battle options for seasons and campaign options on "moves" per era.
Two quite different issues.
Voting on season for battle options should be massively in favour of seasons (as suggested by responses just about everywhere) - for moves per era you have no grounding for opinion unless you've played it... any vote is just a big WAG and is a different issue.
Sorry, no way around that.
Wavesword
07-13-2002, 23:29
From what I've heard CA have made MTW troops extremely moddable. Since thus far this has been a MP concern more than a SP concern they clearly weren't terribly bothered about making the strategy map extremely moddable until MP campaigns come along. Unless the AI has come on in leaps and bounds CA probably expect all the hardcore players to be back on MP shortly. Therefore it isn't a massive issue for them to do lots of work on strat map moddability that half the mainstream audience would just use to give themselves infinite gold and half the world from the beginning. I want choices but choices cost money, just like AI.
Erado San
07-13-2002, 23:38
JRock, In the past two years many things have been flames, including options. And I have a cute butt, so...
Tosa, you can't compare STW and MTW on this issue. Since there are no seasons you say leave the option to the players. But leaving the choice to select the season would make it too easy. Strategic AI to choose weather and season... yes, would take some thinking, true.
I know you never threatened that. Others have, and do so on every occasion, including this one.
Yes, some fans (1, 2 many??? a handful are posting so far.) are complaining. But they are complaining about something they can't judge at the moment. I know the influence of the season, that is not the issue. The issue is whether having seasonal turns would be playable, and because of the timespan and scope I think it would not work at all. You can't just say 'Oh I wouldn't mind a campaign lasting 1500 turns'
That would be 4 times as long as a long STW campaign, waiting most of the time for buildings and units to finish, as their building and training rates would have to be divided by four too. Otherwise units would appear way too soon and the whole tech development would be speeded up by 4.
Puzz, you can't do that poll now. You can't say yourself that you want seasonal turns or not, for that you must have played it. You may think you want seasonal turns. What you really want is seasonal influence on battle. In the yearly turn you don't have control over it. So you want an option to choose it before the battle. Now as soon as it's been released you can argue about that. Not yet, although the option to choose the season will never hurt, I agree on that point.
To say that I don't want seasonal turns is a premature statement. I never said that. I only said I guessed that that would make the game too easy. Before I could make that kind of statement I would have to see the campaign first myself.
So my idea is this: In the time given until the release of the game this will not get changed. So that means goodbye to some looking at some of the statements made above.
But after the release we will know, won't we? And if we need it we can still get the message across to CA whatever we want. Again, I really don't think the seasonal turns will be a reasonable option. The option to choose season might be another matter though.
Upon reading this thread, and reading what all of the respectable personages have here said, I am forced to chuckle at MY reputation as an asshole and a rabble-rouser.
hehehe..
Matt
Darkmoor,
X = A + B + C + D does not make the game easier. It makes it harder because A, B, C and D are not identical turns. You get your income in D after the harvest. You have different weather to consider in the 4 different seasons. You have to budget your money over 4 turns. You could have startegic penalties for conducting military operations in the winter. With the simple X yearly turns, the seasons are in a randomizer now, so they are removed from your strategic planning.
What I think is going on with the decisions on MTW is that bigger tech tree, more factions, more territories and more units are seen by the developer as making for a better game. Those things could make for a better game, if well done. However, the removal of temporal resolution in the turns simplifies that aspect. Of course, from a marketing viewpoint the company will try to downplay that loss to the strategic game. I can see where it probably looks like a reasonable trade off to them so the game can span a longer technological era. However, you could have a big tech tree over a shorter time peroid if you had a whole series of improvement to a particular weapon type. It's not as glamorous as getting a whole new weapon type or a whole new unit type.
I'm just concerned now that other deficiencies are being covered up since that seems to be the company policy. It's like so many other games that are not what they claim to be. I'm not surprised. When Shogun made the transistion from STW to WE/MI we got more units, a little better strategic single player game, a silly 1v1 Mongol campaign, a hugely degraded online game and no multiplayer campaign which had been repeatedly promissed, and no compatibility patch for STW with the result that the online community was split between two servers. It never recovered from that split. Where was the refinement in unit balance that could have been made with the benefit of a year of community playing experience. All they had to do was refine the balance of the units in STW, but instead we got something that was so bad I couldn't believe it. There is no doubt that the community is almost 100% ignored.
That's why it's silly for us to be having this discussion because it's not going to make one bit of difference. Why are you so concerned with what JRock has to say? Why should you give a damn to go so far as to call his ideas "crazy" You sound like you're trying to shut the guy down.
Erado,
You are correct. The seasonal turns are not an option now. The whole tech developement would be too slow because you wouldn't divide build times and training by 4. It would still be whatever it is now, and things would move along too slowly. I don't see this as a thread asking for a change. It's not going to be changed now. This is a thread expressing dissappointment. It was too good to be true that we were getting a game 4x longer than Shogun. I was truely impressed that Creative Assemble could carry that off, but now I see that they didn't do that at all.
I did remove your name from that previous post because you didn't actually say you didn't want 1600 moves. That is a huge game. If the argument is cast as one of 1600 seasonal moves or 400 yearly moves, then I would want the 1600. However, if MTW had 400 seasonal moves and covered 100 years, that would be fine with me. You could still have the various periods, but they probably wouldn't overlap.
Quote 3 or 4 people shouting largely erroneous information across two websites is not the defninition of "Many of us" - oldest trick in the book is to use "we" when you mean "i".[/QUOTE]
Hey smart guy, there is a thread over 50 posts long at each forum full of people saying they would prefer seasons.
Quote Actually both gamers and reviewers regularly complain about choices and options - the simplification of games in making them into computer games is a key process on opening them up to wider audiences.
[/QUOTE]
Uhm, I'm not talking about wargames, I'm talking specifically about computer games. When it comes to computer strategy games (RTS games) the more options the players have to select and choose from when creating a skirmish or multiplayer game THE BETTER. It offers more variety, more preference, and more replayability. There is nothing for you to argue there, it is simply fact.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-13-2002).]
Erado San
07-14-2002, 02:10
JRock,
The option to choose yearly or seasonal turns is not an option. The difference this would make to the timing, building, training and the tech tree are too immense to make that option possible.
The option to choose the season before battle might be possible. There are some intricacies here as well, but they could be overcome.
More options don't necessarily make for a better game. In this situation, the option to choose 1 season per turn is a non-option. The option to choose season might be good.
Gregoshi
07-14-2002, 02:17
Without being privy to the development of MTW and the design decisions made, this discussion is rather futile. For example, since STW had seasons, maybe MTW started off with seasons too, but CA found problems with seasonal turns. Maybe. We will never know unless a MTW programmer shows up here and tells us.
Having been in software development for nearly 20 years, I can tell you that many times a "good idea" turns out not to be such a "good" idea - for many different reasons. Once you start putting the sofware together, unexpected and undesirable effects of said "good idea" on the product often become apparent after you begin testing the code.
Most developers and programmer (the individuals) want people to like and enjoy the fruits of their labour. They don't set out to create a lousy product - although at times it seems like the company might not care http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. Often the final product is quite a bit different than the initial vision. The multiplayer campaign for STW is one example near and dear to us here. The just released Warcraft III underwent a major change in gameplay direction well into its development.
The folks at CA did a fantastic job with STW/MI despite a few stumbles (Hojo Horde, etc). I'm looking forward to what they have in store for us with MTW.
------------------
Gregoshi
A Member of Clan Doragon
Look... it's clearly too late for them to do something as major as increase the number of turns four fold. That would require extensive rebalancing. Now I'm certainly not happy with the one turn = one year, but it's too late to do anything other than express your disapointment, and accept that no game is going to be everything you've hoped for. Buy it or don't but none of us can really tell how it will play as yet.
[This message has been edited by Action (edited 07-13-2002).]
I think it's clear that we are just discussing our concerns with the demo and the changes made. I'm sure CA is at least doing a somewhat decent job.
If seasons is too difficult to make an option, so be it.
I'm more concerned with the niggling little details like the siege troops issue. The issues that can DEFINITELY be fixed before release.
Gregoshi,
I'll go further than that. It's futile to have any discussion here with the expectation that it might influence a design decision.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 07-14-2002).]
Well JRock that might actually happen, though I'm quite sure it won't! Not since the release date is set. We can hope...
That small thing (and don't say it isn't small) will most likely be corrected in a patch, which I fear is far out (from the history of patches to STW).
Papewaio
07-15-2002, 12:27
Well I'm not to happy as I have already stated this is like a game on speed. The castles crumble so quickly they are death traps for the defender not the attacker.
If you start play in the Late era you will have what 120 years or 30! STW years on a map 4 times as large with 4 times the things to balance that effectively gives you 15 STW years (assuming doubling expansion rates if linear you have effectively 8 years).
These are the obvious step backs what else has happened that we are not aware of.
Have we got a AoE clone or a EU wannabe instead of STW on steriods?
I don't know.
And as the responses have been 'You havn't played it so you don't know what you are talking about', 'Play it! Buy it! Then decide'(Bit bloody late by then ain't it) and you can't return a game based on 'Its a dumbed down version for eight year olds' I will wait to I here the opinions of my fellow long term posters as to how good MTW is.
In other words until I see them say it rocks I am not buying MTW.
-------
You can never step in the same river twice, so sometimes it is best not to try and relive past triumphs.
Hi folks,
Interesting to see such an array of opinions on this. However, i have to lean with the opinions of D_D and Erado on this for a number of reasons...
1.
Only D_D has actually played the game and therefore his judgement on how the whole seasonal or yearly turns debate affects MTW would seem to have the sounder basis for argument.
2.
Converesly, non of us have played the game other than the demo, and therefore have no sound basis regarding how turn time should or should not be implemented. Once you play the game or read reviews, you might look back and think how pointless all our grumbles and rambling about the yearly turn times were....
On the other hand, once you've played the game you might look back and think how right you were to complain or be disappointed...?! I just can't fathom out why there is so much hot-headedness over this issue right now?!
3.
Playing all the eras (400 turns) i can assure you will be more than enough for me, especially with the increased depth and D_D's constant supply of information... STW was already slightly on the longish side and my girlfriend hated it as a consequence. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
4. As much as the strategic side of picking the season to attack seemed a useful and important strategy in STW, i had some major reservations against it...
The Ai never used this option effectively and therefore it became a vital advantage to the human player, especially as guns played such an important role in the late-game period. Anything that aids the human over the Ai essentially becomes more of an exploit than a strategic option...even if it is not intended to be that way. If they could've made the Ai chose the appropriate weather when attacking certain armies types then this option would've been a great addition.
Furthermore, i didn't like the way we gained our koku at the end of a 4 season spell in STW. It made it very difficult to predict expenditure what with all the building queues of various regions being almost impossible to keep tabs on. Plus this offered another easy exploit to the human player: that being to operate at low taxation throughout the year then switch to high taxation just before pay-day season!
5.
As confirmed by D_D, season selection is still there in MP, which as Erado stated is surely the most important aspect of this whole debate...!?
------------------
=MizuDoc Otomo=
=Clan Takiyama=
Papewaio, I can appreciate concerns over the yearly turns but I see no evidence of "dumbing down" at all. If anything the campaign has become deeper and more complex. With more units, the dismount option and better siege treatment the SP tactical game will be better too. I agree that we could discover new problems however at this time suspecting over-simplification is groundless IMO.
mizuYari
07-16-2002, 02:47
I think there was compromised made when they developped MTW. Game developers resource is limitted. They chose:
1. 400 years istead of 120 years
2. 12 factions and a lot of vareities in troops type -> more resources of editing the graphics;
3. Making it year based would simplify the map making for battle (no need to make snow landscape) -> save some resources.
Anyways, let's treat this game as another game completely.
I wouldn't even invest any effort to modify the game to make it more playable if it has flaws.
MizuYari
I really can't believe some of the posts here. We're gettnig a game with a much deeper strategic overlay, much better than that in Shogun. We're getting deeper charactered generals, rulers, etc., more diplomacy, greater tech tree, more varied factions, more varied units, naval combat/movement, more units on the tactical map, better sieges, better unit graphics - and all people can talk about is the lack of four seasons?!? Geez, how many strategy games even have 4 seasons? A turn is a turn, and anyone who assumed that the game would be 1600 turns long - well, you know what they say about assuming.
I for one am a "hard core" strategy gamer, played both MOOs, all the Civs, both EU's, love wargames like Steel Panthers - and I am looking forward to this game. The deeper strategy part is exactly what I am looking forward to.
Grifman
CeltiberoSkullXIII
07-16-2002, 14:10
*LOL*
------------------
"It's better to let the enemy alive as to kill it ... To TORTURE it!" http://gifanimados.ya.com/terror/calaveras_banderas/flag_wht_blkbns_clr.gif
Quote Originally posted by mizuYari:
I think there was compromised made when they developped MTW. Game developers resource is limitted. They chose:
1. 400 years istead of 120 years
...
3. Making it year based would simplify the map making for battle (no need to make snow landscape) -> save some resources.
[/QUOTE]
Too bad that means 400 years = 400 turns, whereas STW's 120 years = 480 turns (4 turns per year), thus MTW is a technologically shorter game, but one that has a larger world map, more countries, more factions, etc. It seems like they crammed MORE stuff into LESS turns for things to become available. I have a feeling we'll be swamped with options as we play through the campaign.
Whatever, it's all good.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-16-2002).]
JRock, when have you ever played to 1650?
More realistically the game ends at 1620. 90 years.
The devs know exactly what you want.
GAH!
They called the Psychic Hotline... talked with Ms. Cleo and Dion Warwick.
GAH!
They appeared on an episode of "Crossing Over" and had John Edwards talk to dead strategy wargamers to ensure this game met their expectations.
Yes, it is true... they made it so even the dead will like it!
GAH!
In fact, they thought of sending Anthony-Michael Hall to Magy's home to grab something of his to obtain a vision of the future of MTW... that is, until somebody pointed out that he was merely an actor...
GAH!
Let's get the game first. Then play it. Then comment on it. The Demo is not the real enchilada. It's merely the talking gecko.
GAH!
I think I will do the sensible thing and actually PLAY the game and base my views off of that. Not what others say or THINK it
might be like (or heard from a friend of a cousin two towns over ).
I think comparing Shogun to Medieval is like comparing apples to oranges personally.
And you can play the whole game from the start to the finish...dont know where that got started.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.