So did they fix that siege units issue yet?

[JRock]

Hey gang, I haven't been reading the boards for a couple weeks.

Still curious to know if CA ever acknowledged fixing the siege units issue where once a siege unit is out of ammo on their weapon, they can be moved over to help out at another weapon, for example one that doesn't have enough siege troops left to fire.

It's a very basic request we have been asking for since the demo was released.

Here's hoping this is fixed in the full game! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[LittleGrizzly]

i think this is a yes as troops can move to help in action and think (hopefully) that they can move to help another seige crew)

[Vanya]

Quote Originally posted by LittleGrizzly:
i think this is a yes as troops can move to help in action and think (hopefully) that they can move to help another seige crew)[/QUOTE]

So... if your bovine chukka has carcasses left but its crew it all dead... you can send your King and his Royal Knights for launch the cows?

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

GAH!

[Erado San]

Since units on the screen are totally separated in the code I don't think this will be possible. Merging units is not an option. Maybe they will surprise us, butdon't count on it.

[JRock]

But the siege soldiers are separate from the siege weapon, so they should be able to fix this.

It's such a basic common-sense thing to have, how could they forget to do this? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

[Erado San]

Units, JRock, units. There are 16 units in an army. They contain a number of soldiers, but these soldiers don't run around individually. And like I said, merging two units into one is not an option. And I am convinced the siege engine and the soldiers are both fixed objects in the unit. It's not as easy as you think.

[Catiline]

As Erado says it's likely to be a big coding issue. I don't personally see the problem anyhow. If one crew has been slaughtered you've not protected it properly, or deployed it in a poor position. It's no different to archers running out of ammo. If archers get run down with cavalry without firing a shot you don't say I want to use their arrows when another unit runs out. The two are basically hte same. Besides I've yet to suffer enough casualties in the demo to catapult crews to make this an issue, they always run out of ammo first.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

[chilliwilli]

I don't think its a problem either if you leave something as valuable as a siege weapon unguarded you should pay.

[JRock]

Quote If one crew has been slaughtered you've not protected it properly, or deployed it in a poor position. [/QUOTE]

Quote I don't think its a problem either if you leave something as valuable as a siege weapon unguarded you should pay.[/QUOTE]

So I guess you guys never played the demo where the siege units were placed for us, without any say on our part where they were placed in the siege.


I think you would be hard-pressed to deny this should have been something that was coded into the game from the start.
If there's two catapults and one has run out of ammo, while the other one doesn't have enough men to fire, it's quite natural that the men who are now doing nothing except standing around would be ordered to help out at the under-manned catapult.

Seems like if CA didn't put enough thought and playtesting into the game to catch these things earlier, they might be half-assing other aspects of the game as well.


Besides, you talk so much about how units are so individual and yet look how easy it is to Group them and get them to perform as one. Aha! It's not as hard as you make it out to be. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

But yes, it is probably too late now. I'm just speechless they would forget or overlook something so basic while creating the siege units the first time around. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/mad.gif

[Kraxis]

JRock, come on... it is a demo!

It places the catapults there for you in the demo, but in the real game you get to do it yourself. So if that happens again then you are the only one to blame.

[Erado San]

Hard pressed? Not at all. Instead of spending valuable time on this rather trivial matter they spent it on something serious I expect.

And sorry for pointing this out, but look at your post. The way you put it, will they take you seriously, you think?

[Papewaio]

It would be interesting if various units had a flag in their stats that allowed them to man catapults et al.

Out of men, no worries march across your foot knights who are well trained in general warfare and they can operate the equipment. Could have different rates of fire depending on the training of the units in charge of the equipment. And it makes the catapults useless unless their is an unengaged (by melee) unit to operate them.

----EDIT---
Oh bother my impetous knights have charged the castle walls again before firing the catapult. Too many knocks to the head in jousting tourneys.

[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 07-26-2002).]

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Erado San:
Hard pressed? Not at all. Instead of spending valuable time on this rather trivial matter they spent it on something serious I expect.[/QUOTE]

It's something very simple they should have written into the unit's code from the beginning.

Quote
And sorry for pointing this out, but look at your post. The way you put it, will they take you seriously, you think?[/QUOTE]

Has nothing to do with taking me seriously:

First of all this topic has been mentioned NUMEROUS times throughout the past two months.

Second, they don't read these forums anyway, so who cares. I was just hoping someone who knows CA could tell us if they've fixed this or not.

[Dark Phoenix]

Of course they never took it into consideration when designing the engine as Shogun as far as I know never had seige engines so know need to put it in. I agree with the others here that you just have to look after the crew better.

------------------
"DP is correct" - Shiro

-----------------------
We may have years, we may have hours,
but sooner or later, we push up flowers

[Erado San]

Quote It's something very simple they should have written into the unit's code from the beginning.[/QUOTE]
Only shows how you fail to understand underlying difficulties. The fact that you don't say anything about that little problem I mentioned says it all.

Quote this topic has been mentioned NUMEROUS times throughout the past two months[/QUOTE]
Correction:
This topic has been mentioned NUMEROUS times over the past three weeks by you and maybe 4 or 5 people posting in your threads.

Quote It's such a basic common-sense thing to have, how could they forget to do this?

Seems like if CA didn't put enough thought and playtesting into the game to catch these things earlier, they might be half-assing other aspects of the game as well.[/QUOTE]
You don't know anything about CA. You have been around here for about 4 weeks. You don't know an iota about the inner mechanics of the game.

Yet you think you can decide what's wasy or not. You think you can tell how stupid they are to forget this, You think you can tell that because they don't include something that YOU would like but hardly anybody else cares about, that they might be half assing other aspects of the game.

There are nice discussions going on about newbies and their behaviour, and vets and their behaviour.

You are neither a vet nor a newbie. You are just an arrogant little git. Yuk!

[Erado San]

In case anybody is interested, that post is not made as admin of this forum. It's a personal opinion.

[turken00]

Erado I don't get why you're insulting the guy. He's made a reasonable point, and I agree with him. It's a simple thing to put in... He said nothing bad to you or anyone else so why are you all ganging up on him like he was cussing at you or something. How would you know if he knows anything about CA or not? How long he has been around here has nothing to do with what he knows about the game. I think YOU are the arrogant one as from what I can see you are just insulting someone because he has views which contrast your own.

[This message has been edited by turken00 (edited 07-26-2002).]

[JRock]

Yes, thank you, you are correct. To assume something just by how long someone has been a registered member of a forum is quite a bold step to take.

I hope his hubris is not so apparent on the battlefield. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

I have no need to mention how long I've been playing Shogun, how long I've lurked at forums without being a member, or anything else. It's all beside the point that the feature I asked about is a simple one that could have, and probably should have, been included all along.

[Bishamonten]

"You are just an arrogant little git. Yuk!"
Erado as admin or not, there is no reason for name calling.
You should know that.Tsk. Tsk. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif



------------------
Isitoutyet?Isitoutyet?Isitoutyet?Isitoutyet?Isitoutyet?Isitoutyet?

[Erado San]

Funny.

JRock states a point he is missing in the game. Fair enough. The way he points it is awful. No reaction from anybody.

I give arguments why this is not easy. Because this is not easy. No reaction. More of the same actually.

Then I insult him. True, not fair. But that you do listen to. That you can respond to. You only read what you want to read.

During the time I have been around here and played this game I have seen a lot of things. I also do have some insight into the innards of the game. And because of that I know that this is not an easy thing to implement in the game. I have given one example of that but you can't respond to that.

I have seen numerous threads on whether CA looks at this forum or not. Very often people have the idea that they don't. Yet with every patch they have made, with the expansion and with the upcoming MTW they show every time that a lot of the things that we want and post in this forum finds its way into what they make. So the assumptions of JRock are very unfair.

In three posts before the one in which I made the insult I have given reasons why this is not easy. No response. Only repetition of his previous arguments. But oooohhhh, now I call that arrogant and suddenly he can respond. If you can respond to that, why not to the arguments made against your point?

No TurkenOO, it's not the fact that I don't agree with him. I never even said if I agree or not. I think if such features could be easily implemented into the game that it might enhance realism and gameplay. But they can't, and that is my point.

JRock, in the last line of your last post you say it all. Just a repetition of the fact that it is easy. You don't need responses to your posts. Whatever people say, you keep stating the same without reading what others have to say.

And yes, I am arrogant. Very well known fact. I am even so arrogant to think that until anybody can prove my arguments wrong that I might be right.

So, prove me wrong and show me where my arguments ar mistaken. Discuss things instead of repeating the same all over again.

But I do apologise. Not for calling you arrogant, because I think the way you post in this thread is just that. But I shouldn't have called you a git. That is uncalled for and totally needless. Sorry for that.

[Puzz3D]

JRock,

I'm surprised to even see a crew on the seige weapons. Having a crew is a very nice touch because that allows arrows to counter the seige weapon which provides an anti-unit to the seige weapon. I think it's good that you can't re-man the weapon and thus neutralize the anti-unit. You have to be extra careful where you place it during deployment. Consider that the way it's done my not be a mistake at all.

[Erado the Black]

Hmmm... hadn't thought of it that way, but that's a good point, Puzz. How else could we counter the siege engines otherwise?

Yes, I'm Erado San. Decided to ditch the name... time for a change.

[Gothmog]

Erado San:

I am getting a bit uncomfortable the way you replied JRock.

I know sometimes it's very easy to lose control in a heated debate, but being a moderator has responsibilities, and should refrain oneself from making too harsh statements.

When I act as moderator in other forums (nothing to do with shogun), I just use a dedicated penname for moderating duties, and my regular name to post my personal opinions. That way, nobody gets confused.

Nothing personal.

------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://www.grahamday.dial.pipex.com/rose-knight1.gif

[Gothmog]

Bingo! we think alike. Welcome, the dark twin.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Transferring 2 men from one catapult crew to another seems tricky (on the fly unit merging).

Also note that the game seem to differentiate between catapult and trebuchet crew.

I don't think crew + catapult are considered 1 unit. The crew is a unit, the catapult is just an object they operate. What seems doable is to allow the entire crew to leave their own engine after ammo is exhausted and manning the other. The crew can already leave their engine, it's a small step to man another (just another instance of the same class).

This is still not what JRock means, but I guess it comes close.

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[JRock]

Even that would be an acceptable fix for the current system.


Also:

Quote . How else could we counter the siege engines otherwise?[/QUOTE]

Uhm, same way you do now - shoot at it and the men will die. It'd just be nice to be able to move the (fairly useless) siege troops who are standing around after running out of ammo to a more useful job like manning another siege engine whose crew died.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp, and definitely not something worth the giant debate you've created. Relax.

[Reetard]

STOP FLAMING JROCK STOP FLAMING

[PenguinBob]

Honestly, I think it's a perfectly good suggestion. If you can move siege crews into melee battle, why can't you move them between weapons (code-wise)? Anyone whining about how that would make the siege engine invincible needs to think more. You've still only got half as many siege weapons to fight against and they're still just as easy to kill.

[Papewaio]

Patrons in this forum I AM THE CATAPULT so please refrain from slinging stones at each other and debate the concept. Or I will be even nastier to one and all, close said topic, delete all insults, or just delete the whole thread.

[JRock]

Thank you, Papewaio.

[Papewaio]

No worries mate http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Just watch out some of the patrons young and old, newbie and vet are more thinned skinned then others.

I agree with you about the seige units not going between each other. I would like to see the ammo being pooled together if the units are close enough together without intervening enemies or the ability for the crews to lug ammo from one position to another. The ability to bring a unit that lugs ammo for any other unit ie a wagon that can replenish an entire longbow unit or catapult once per battle. Maybe even have it as a strategic piece which has a per turn cost based on the armies in the province... Giving all units an increase in ammo.

Although these are things I wish for I don't know if it is feasible in the battlefield code to do it. And even if it can be done will the AI use it properly... otherwise it will become an advantage only for the human player making AI even easier to defeat and the long term satisfaction of the game even less.

Also if it is coded in will it raise the specs of the PC needed to handle the seige weapons.

So we are looking at something that may not be possible. That even if it is possible may only work well when controlled by a human. And its implementation may require a far faster machine to handle seige weapon management.

[Puzz3D]

"Anyone whining about how that would make the siege engine invincible needs to think more."

I have thought more, and I haven't changed my opinion. All you have to do is increase the number of men in the crew to reduce the ability of arrows to incapacitate the siege weapon. I don't see the need to recrew the weapon.



[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 07-27-2002).]

[DarknScaly]

Is it an issue at all?

The assertation is "This thing is broken". Is it?

Well we all know by now that you CAN place seige units at will during deployment. So that isnt an issue at all. The immobility of seige units being a gameplay decision and not an option. (Some may DESIRE it as an option but the game is being produced without it). So that is easily dealt with.


The second issue is esentially a simple one at first but gets more complex as you look into it:

The Catapult (as an example) is an object that CAN be destroyed, either in mellee or at range (Arrows will do the job). The Crew are easier to kill at range however.

The "idea" here (as its not a bug that needs fixing at all, its an idea of a different means of implementation) is:

"Should a seige engine be unuseable due to lack of crew or no ammo, why couldn't we swap in a full crew from another, merge a crew together, or share the catapult resources in terms of ammo"

Seems like a reasoanble idea on the face of things. But is it either reasoanble, would it actually benefit gameplay and do we understand the technical difficulties in doing it - and, finally, when all put together is the effort worth it?


How did my crew die?

1) They were killed in mellee but the catapult wasnt destroyed.

2) The catapult was destroyed but the crew ran away to safety

3) The catapult or crew were killed by ranged units.

4) some of crew A were killed and some of crew B were killed. Combined they could man a working engine, individually they are not enough.

5) some form of supply wagon would be a good idea so that "any" unit can be re-supplied with ammo.


1) If your unit was mellee'd to death it appears unlikely that you'd get another crew near it again or suffer the same fate, not to mention "silly attacker" for not destroying the actual catapult (engine). It appears unlikely that in the event of a seige engine being overun by the enemy that another opportunity will arise for that engine to be used again.

2) Catapult A is destroyed but crew fine. We want to move them to catapult B with no crew.

This assumes that the crew "carry" the ammo (technically that is - not talking about realism here). Looks fine so far.
This also assumes the crew carry the morale and valour. That also looks fine so far.
The catapult is a "useable object" and only holds its own status in terms of "destroyed/useable" - IF so also looks fine.
The game "simply" needs to know that Catapult Crew A are now using Catapult B, walk over to it and start using it.

Issues:
it IS the catapult that holds the ammo and not the crew?
(We know the crew hold the valour etc as you can destroy an engine without affecting valour etc - this remains on the crew as you can use the unit for normal fighting also)

3) Similar to 1 other than it is less likely the engine itself is destroyed. Any crew returning to the engine however (original or not) will generally also be in range and likewise killed. Thus: In a seige environment moving a fresh crew to a crewless engine wouldn't, on the face of things, probably do a lot for the "overall" gameplay - other than make placement of seige engines beyond enemy ranged units less risky (marginally). In open battles it would, of course, allow you to bring in a reinforcement unit of seige crew to "re-man" an engine. Except that seige engines and crew do not appear in the reinforcement lists. The GAMEPLAY has been decided so that the player MUST position all engines during deployment and take the risk, in either seige or open battle, that they place them in danger of being overun or shot at from "the off". This GAMEPLAY decision is backed by being unable to reinforce seige engines.

4) Melding of units is the remaining issue and seems, once again straightforwar. Except that we allready know that the crew carry morale and valour - so this "melding" also involves a calculation of new valour and morale levels. This is currently only done on the strategic map AFTER a battle (and their is an option for this to be automatic or not "M" will meld units at any point in an army selected in the campaign map btw)
Thus "on the fly" melding of units is not part of the current battle engine. This would have to be a new feature. One can argue the case either way as to whether this would enhance or detract from GAMEPLAY. It would, inevitably, also open up the arguement for such "battle melding" of all same-same units and obviously, as not all such melding would be "exact" would also have to allow for overspill of units etc etc. Even in an "exact meld" it opens up the GAMEPLAY issue that this would of course allow then for a reinforcement unit to be called in - as you now have "1 less overal unit" - so this would have to be tied in to reinforcement code also.
A far more complex issue than at first appearence.

5) This hits once again at GAMEPLAY - TW currently being focused on a strict split between ANY resource amangement and what occurs "in battle". This aspect lies at the heart of the success of the TW series, in most ways it defines it.

Fast firing units (longbows) are tactically defined in battle by their range and power but short-lived ammo supplies. This makes slower firing units "more valuable" in lengthy battles in certain situations. Removing this restriction via either using the "unlimited ammo" option or introducing a "battle supply" (wagon etc) radically changes the entire gameplay and balance of units in the game. Indeed it harkens back to the "core RTS" approach of game which is what the TW series intendd to split away from. "When you fight a battle all you worry about is fighting, not farming pigs or resource mamagement"

Thus:

In both open and seige battles the careful placement of seige engines is a key GAMEPLAY factor, reinforced by the GAMEPLAY decision to not allow the reinforcement or melding of seige units.

The coding/technical issues of melding similar units is not part of the current battle engine and would need to be both developed and tied in to existing reinforcement code, as well as subtly changing overall GAMEPLAY. Changes to gameplay in this fashion are a far more general issue than at first sight.

The actuall situations where such a melding of a unit, or use of a scondary abandoned or "out of ammo" seige engine, appear likely to be limited in their occurence.
Persons wishing for unlimited ammo allready ahve the "unlimited ammo" option in the game controls and the implmentation and useage of supply-lines would radically alter both gameplay AND the way in which different unit types are both useful and utilised.

Note once again this is a matter of perspective and desire not a declaration of "this is good/bad". Some will think it good, some bad - either way its a big change and a lot of work.

Returning to the initial point:

On rare occaisions a player may find themselves with a seige engine without ammo or an engine with ammo but now crew. They may also have another crew nearby who "could" man the weapon or have ammo but a destroyed engine. It "seems silly" that they cannot be combined and an "obvious bug".

1) Clearly this is NOT a bug.
2) Clearly it is not "silly" when looked at in detail.
3) As an idea it may be desireable but it DOES alter gameplay and gameplay intent.
4) It has repurcusions in both gamelay and coding and development. Considerable time and effort would need to be spent in achieving it - and as seen, both the likelyhood of it occuring and its potential "usefullness" seem less than widespread.
5) expansion of the idea raises further issues as does the theme of "supply" - this impinges into the typical RTS arena that the TW series is designed from the base up, to avoid.

Personal opinion:

It isn't a bad idea "per se" - but its certainly not a bug or something "stupid" that is ever likely to be addressed by ranting about it and not considering the repurcussions around it.

It "may or may not" be a good idea, and the same for "supply wagons", it certainly is more complex than a 5 minute job.

There's a lot of things in MTW that could be done differently, many are done the way they are for gameplay reasons. They want US to play the game in "this fashion" - that's a designers perogative and the simply success of the TW series points at this being one that many gamers agree with.

I've never played in a situation where this "idea" would have been useful/possible, I am sure that if I do I will also be a tad miffed in some way.

"oi! you lot! get over there and help THAT crew!" seems easy and it seems sensible.

Im not at all convinced its that easy though - but im not saying its a bad idea either. Shouting about it, saying "its easy" and calling it a bug though... seems a bit "odd".

[Funky Phantom]

I dont think the crew of say a cannon should be able to run over to a trebuchet and start using at, as they are two very different pieces of siege equipment and would require very different training to use, however it seems fair that the crew of one cannon should be able to run over to a cannon of the same type and operate it if the original crew had been killed.

I would hope that you would be able to use a siege weapon crew on other siege weapons of the same type, but its not a disaster if it doesnt get put into the game.

I think that the amount of ammo a siege weapon has should be tied to either the weapon itself, or to some sort of wagon that comes with the weapon, not to the people that operate it, after all, its stupid to think that a couple of little guys could lug around tens or even hundreds of cannonballs.

[DrNo]

Jrock raised a very good discussion point and I think DarknScaly discussed this well.
Not sure about one or two of the other posts though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
This may or may not be such a big issue when we get playing the campaign but only time will tell. We shall have to see if they made any changes and exactly how siege engines perform.

A couple of other points to raise are:

If you take a siege unit into battle, the crew survives mostly but the engine is destroyed, what happens next time they go into battle?
Is the siege engine replaced automatically?
What happens if you lose the battle and are routed off the field, do you lose all your siege engines even if crews survived and enemy didn't destroy the siege equipment during the battle?

I am sure siege engines will have lots of quirks that will crop up once the game hits the real testers, i.e. us the general public.

[Papewaio]

Actually when I was thinking of a supply wagon I was thinking about the longbows and Agincourt where they had stacks and stacks of arrows for the battle. The King had planned to bring along extra ammo for the battle... a case of accumen helping win a battle.

And I was not thinking of an unlimited supply but something like a farmland improvement ie 20/40/60/100% increase in ammo capacity. Since we can manually change the number of arrows it must be possible to have it be multiplied... not easy or feasible, just possible.

And for this increase in ammo capacity I would increase the maintenance of the missile units by a factor as well.

Strategic pieces which have influence on the battlefield are not neccessarily a bad thing. If it comes at high expense then you have to think...ie hmmm either I can afford to field twice as many longbows or have 60% more arrows.

[EDIT So the supply wagon could either be a Strategic piece like a priest (my preferred version), a castle upgrade... why not have more arrows when defending, if it was to be on the map I would have them non mobile like a seige piece and dedicated to one or two ammunition types and having a radius of effect].

[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 07-27-2002).]

[JRock]

One note of clarification:

Quote 2) Catapult A is destroyed but crew fine. We want to move them to catapult B with no crew.

This assumes that the crew "carry" the ammo
[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. They don't have to bring ammo with them for what I'm asking - I simply just want them to be able to walk over to another catapult to help out an undermanned crew since their own catapult was out of ammo and they were just standing around.

And no, it's not a bug, but it's such an obvious thing I still am confused how CA did not think to implement this from the start. I guess since they are so busy making games they don't get a chance to play other games and borrow ideas from them or anything. hehe oh well.

[DrNo]

JRock, I am sure they have looked at this issue as they seem to have made changes that other people have mentioned.
And in latest screenies I saw showed Trebs with 20 men in unit, not the 12 from demo. So I think that should solve the problem of not enough men to operate the weapon. So that's probably their compromise solution.

I think there are probably a few technical reasons why they couldn't implement men moving between siege weapons.
Firstly I see a problem with keeping track of ammo as it's part of unit stats.
They keep track of weapon damage seperate from men but this is treated as an object not a unit.
Then there are issues such as what happens at end of battles etc.. do they keep their oringal cat or the one they were using last?
Could get very messy to implement and take quite alot of coding and testing.

So suggest it's left until game is released and we see how much of an issue it is.

If it is a problem JRock I'll be right there with you asking for changes http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[JRock]

I agree.

One small note:

Quote Originally posted by DrNo:
So suggest it's left until game is released and we see how much of an issue it is. [/QUOTE]

Having been around the PC game industry for 7 years now I know that is the least successful method for resolving an issue. It has proven best to complain loudly and often about something BEFORE the game is released because once it is released most companies tend to forget about it and move on. Of the few that patch their games, 90% of patches are only to fix hardware issues or fatal bugs that crash the game.

It is very rare to get something so intertwined with the game's code changed after it is released.

Hence why I ask about it often here. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[SattP]

JRock, did you see some of those new screenshots? The trebuchet crew is up to twenty now.

[Puzz3D]

We are not in a window of opportunity for player suggestions to make it into the game. That happened many months ago, and we now await to see how many of those suggestions were incorporated into MTW. This company did accept post release player suggestions on the last two games and incorporated some of the ones that were relatively easy to implement. Then they closed the door and put all resources into the next project.

[Erado the Black]

No, even when the demo arrived it would be to short a time to change something that would require digging into many areas of the code. The changes in the code would also have to be verified with other related issues etc. And however important you feel this is, it remains a detail, not a substantial element of gameplay.

Puzz is right. After the releases of the previous games CA have released one or two patches to improve some technical issues and some gameplay issues requested by the community. After that they pulled all resources together on the next title. We as a community have always wanted more (there's a surprise...) but as CA is only a small company they never had the resources to provide more patches. And like it or not, that won't change with MTW I think. Common sense dictates that they already have a wishlist for a possible patch. And as they review these boards regularly, no doubt this issue is on it. Then it's up to a meeting where they go through the list and decide what goes into the patch and whatnot.

Some people think petitions and such help. Well they hardly ever do. They are extremely busy, and when something's already on their list a flurry of mails would only make them a bit cranky http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

And I send them regular mails with information on what goes on in the community as well, and believe it or not, I will incorporate this issue in my next mail, even though I don't really believe in it. Because, contrary to popular belief, in reality I a quite a nice guy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Bishamonten]

Ok , then I want the ability to launch
captured peasents over the castle walls..
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Erado the Black]

And the next thing people will be begging for is no doubt the famous medieval Cow Chukka, yeah yeah... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Funky Phantom]

They should make a catapault where the animals you get to put in your catapault change depending on what part of the world youre in, e.g. camels in the middle east, sheep in Wales etc. :P

[JRock]

Quote We are not in a window of opportunity for player suggestions to make it into the game. That happened many months ago, [/QUOTE]

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
Alas, we had no demo back then and so we could not offer corrective help, only list things we'd want to see in the game - we couldn't have known they wouldn't make crews reinforceable from other siege crews, etc.

It's really not asking too much to release a demo and take feedback from it - that is half the reason for a demo to be released at all (the other reason being to get people interested in the game).

Yes, it's too late now, but it shouldn't have been done this way. Maybe they'll take a clue from other companies that release demos so they can get user feedback on gameplay, etc. Whatever, it's all good.

Quote JRock, did you see some of those new screenshots? The trebuchet crew is up to twenty now.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but did they also raise the number of crew needed to fire it? See, you gotta think about it more - they may have raised the crew to 20 but what else did they change too? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif

Just some food for thought.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-30-2002).]

[DrNo]

Erado & Puzz there is evidence that CA have taken note of the feedback on this board and made changes to the game.
2 things show this:

1 - Housecarls have been replaced by Vikings.

2- Siegecrew upped from 12 to 20.

These changes however would not have required code changes though, simply unit stats editing and a couple of graphics files for the Viking unit.
So yes I agree we are too close to release to get functional code changes but bugs and anything they can change quickly they will try do to make the game better.

So JRock I believe the 20 men siege crew is the concession they have made to your point.
And no they havn't upped the men needed to operate the siege weapon. You can change the base number of men in the unit stats file to suit your own requirements. I put 40 men on my cats in demo when I modded the siege battle to find out where the arrows came from.

I think they will look at the siege crew issues for first patch, will of course depend on what else comes up when game is released.

[Nelson]

We have no way of knowing if suggestions here cause action. Could they? Very slim chance, perhaps, but merely discussing something doesn't mean CA hadn't thought to do it with or without us. I suggested months ago that cavalry should be able to dismount at the start of a battle and lo and behold it looks like they can. Had they thought to do this before I brought it up in the forum? Sure they did.

If and when the devs read our posts, I think it's mostly out of curiosity and for their amusement. They're not looking for new ideas. They have plenty to do already.

------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO

[Funky Phantom]

If they make a viking unit then they damn well better have beards, or there'll be trouble :P

[Loras]

red beards, with big axes, or even more trouble. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
-All knowledge is worth having-

[Stephen Hummell]

Berserkers, Should be the dane unit. (Don't know what I'm talking about, watch the 13th warrior, the dudes with the bearskins).

[Kraxis]

Berserkers are outdated in the time set in the game, they were Vikings that drank a potion made of the red mushroom with white dots (in Danish it is called Red Flymushroom). Actually Vikings are outdated. I would prefer a unit such as the Twohander or Royal Twohander, it would fit nicely in the time.

[GilJaysmith]

>their amusement. They're not looking for
>new ideas. They have plenty to do
>already.

Too true http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

We thought a lot about how artillery should work, and that included what to do with under-strength and 'spare' crews. But there were always more important features to address on the battlemap than the easy-sounding but trust-me-actually-comparatively-tricky moving of crew between artillery units.

Very little is impossible, but everything has a priority. It's not easy knowing in advance whether a difficult-to-implement feature will be useful. In this case we decided it wouldn't.

My feeling is that if you start losing artillery pieces in a real battle, you've got bigger problems on your hands than having a few spare crew with no way to use them.

However, the ability to make a craven U-turn in the face of public pressure is a hallmark of great maturity - in my opinion http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif By which I mean that if there's a huge outcry about this feature after the game's release, then no doubt we'll look at it again.

Relating to an earlier comment: there is a 'catapult camera' option which lets you follow the trajectory of an artillery piece's projectiles. But we don't remove one man from the crew, or the nearest peasant unit, each time you use it... perhaps we should...

Gil Jaysmith
Creative Assembly

[JRock]

Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated!

I do hope more usefulness is built into the siege weapon crews eventually, but as long as you're aware of it that is all that matters.

ps - If you're still reading this thread, I'm also curious to know if there will be a way to create/join a multiplayer game directly via IP through the game's own software instead of having to go through GameSpy Arcade for evvvverything.

[GilJaysmith]

Quote Originally posted by JRock:
Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated!
[/QUOTE]

No problem...
See multiplayer thread re hosting and Arcade.

Gil @ CA

[Nuuance Evaance]

I just registered to this forum for one reason. Simply put, if the admins here behave like this, I won't waste my time either.

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by Nuuance Evaance:
I just registered to this forum for one reason. Simply put, if the admins here behave like this, I won't waste my time either.[/QUOTE]

Would you care to elaborate on that comment it is a bit light on direction.

You won't waste your time on?: MTW, this site, on earth etc

[Nuuance Evaance]

Decided to make one more point before I leave (and I just got here!)...

Don't ever say "can't".

I'm not a game programmer and personally don't profess to know what is going on. I do know what I read though, and I give consideration to the source.

I have been a hardcore gamer for a long time, and I have seen several times where the gaming companies state (paraphrased), "It's not that we can't do it. You can code just about anything. It's a matter of many things of whether we choose to or not. Lots of things factor in as to whether something is worth or not and whether issues such as lag, engine, console, etc. make it worthwhile, and sometimes even realistic, to do so. There are obviously limitations that keep us from going crazy and making every little nuance and dream just how we like it. We pick some, and we leave others alone. And sometimes, changing it after the engine, console, game mechanics are in place, make it even more difficult. But the point is, you can code just about anything."

[Nuuance Evaance]

Good point Pap. I should have been more clear. I am referring to how the admin Erado the Black handled the conversation. I liked your comments on it though. I know he apologized (sort of), but I get turned off in a hurry when admins "rule the site" and forget to allow people their comments and opinions on non-OT subjects, and after people don't bow and agree, they of all people start to flame as opposed to "being the bigger man" and just walking away.

Anyway, that's my personal opinion. I was enjoying the site until I saw that. I know I shouldn't be so quick in my judgement, but I feel if they admins "don't have time", but obviously have time to get in a schoolyard pushing match, then I don't have time to wade through the posts either.

[Erado the Black]

Lighten up, Nuuance.

If you decide to leave, you're very welcome at the .com forum. Guess who's moderating that http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[youssof_Toda]

If ur oversensitive maybe it's better u leave...

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by Nuuance Evaance:

Anyway, that's my personal opinion. I was enjoying the site until I saw that. I know I shouldn't be so quick in my judgement, but I feel if they admins "don't have time", but obviously have time to get in a schoolyard pushing match, then I don't have time to wade through the posts either.[/QUOTE]

We all have our bad days here. And Erado took the black to show that he is focusing primarily on Tech Support issues. He is a genius at that and a few other things. But like all of us he does get narky.

I would say stay around. But all patrons do need a thick skin when it comes to teasing. Now as for insults we don't like that, but there is some history with some patrons. So do measure it on what happens.

Watch out for Monsta/Rage they do roleplay their style on the board. Watch out for the Mods outside of their specific forum they like to unwind so they tend to tease a lot more then average. Oh and if you do continue posting watch out for the Aussies they really do get under other peoples skin http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

BTW Where does a name like Nuuance Evaance come from?

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa Nuuance Evaance,

Feel free to discuss TW games in this forum.

The Rules just demand that you behave, they don't say anything about agreeing with viewpoints of Admins/Moderators/Vets/CA.

It's indifferent whether you support your opinion by 'feeling' (no foul language please), calculation, reasoning or 'knowledge'.

This is an independent fansite. Surpressing 'critics' about TW games to make CA feel comfy here, is not only pathetic and in conflict with independent, it also routs patrons and harms the interest of CA and this entire community in the long run.



------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Nuuance Evaance]

Nice response Erado, LOL!, ya gonna get me at recess too big guy? neener neener

Same goes for the rest responses, except for Paps. His I respect.

I rest my case.

Enjoy your board!

[youssof_Toda]

We didn't judge you so what makes you think you can judge us? Bye bye wont miss you...

[Bishamonten]

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif This game better get here quick!
The natives are getting restless ...
*BOOM-da-da-BOOM-da-da-BOOM...drums in the distance*

Man, I feel sorry for people who get all
wound up over comments on forums.
How the heck are they ever going to get through the "Real" world.
Maybe if they get out of thier dark bedrooms
and go outside once in a while, they might unwind a bit.

[Erado the Black]

Is it me or has this thread passed its sell by date?

The answer to the original question has been given, and all that is bound to come from this is nitpicking. Just my opinion.

[JRock]

Yup this was done with like ten posts ago.