micromanaging...

[Kocmoc]

with the current speed (demo), i dont think that anyone can control this units...

with this specialized units, some just 20 or 40 mens strong, it will be a "who is the fastest mouseclicker game" look at MI...who used ninjas? and why u dont use it?
who played mongols? and why not?

i already posted about this matter months ago, if the speed is the same like MI, we go closer to an arcade game...less tactic...
in MI i used all hotkeys and some groups but if i did just 10% mistakes i had a terrible good day, i would say mostly i was by 20 or 25% of mistakes.

in STW i would say i did less mistkaes coz it was controllable...

like thunderbomber by mongols ....nice unit but nearly impossible to control with this speed.... i want a tactical-strategic battle and this needs some time to think and to plan but if its to fast u just "rush somewhere with units anf pray that ur faster with ur mouse than ur enemy....

koc

------------------
Grey Wolves (http://www.totalwar.club.tip.nl/)

[Dionysus9]

I totally agree. The battles occur too fast (even in STW). In reality, a battle would last all day, or at least several hours. The commander would (usually) have a lot of time to consider his moves and make important decisions. As the games are right now, you have to make snap decisions constantly, with not much time to think.

I guess it's a trade off- I don't want to play a 12-hour battle. But 30 minutes is, maybe, a little fast for 6,000 men to die in hand to hand combat.

I think the speed slider should be moveable in multi-play, and that you should be able to slow it waaaaay down. Would help w/ lag too.

[Whitey]

I agree, the game goes too fast, but hold up - battles raging all day is fair enough in theory, but with the amount of troops that we can command then most battles shouldn't last more than 2 hours 'game time' (and I am not saying that game time should be real time here http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif )

ever tried waving a sword about for 45 mins, ok, even a wooden stick, then add in the fear, the opponents waving their swords around in your directions, leather or metal armour, etc...etc...

we are not fighting battles here, we are fighting engagements, generally the troops join one bloody brawl, look at the histories of the battles that last all day or more than that, and look at the %age of troops that were fighting at any one moment...

[The Black Ship]

Hmmmm....

Maybe in MTW we'll be looking for host players with high ping rates? Will a group of all cable modem patrons be playing a different feeling game than modem 56kers?

I do like the grouping system they've come up with, it at least is easier than remember all the cntrl-shift-1 stuff we had to in Shogun.

I've noticed that I'm much more defensive in MTW. With the random method they've developed for routing men I seem to be fighting 3-4 little micro-battles after I've created a break, or after I've been broken (for that matter). That Manzikert mod drove me nuts trying to sweep up all those groups of routing cavalry.

[Xiahou]

I dont necessarily agree that things are too fast. However, giving people the option to adjust speed via a slider certainly isnt a bad idea.

[Grifman]

You can always pause the game. I do all the time.

Grifman

[tootee]

We talking about online MP games.

Anyway I feel that improving the control keys, and slowing down the speed by 25 to 30% will make the battles more fun... maybe. Usually, when a game get a bit laggy, we have more time to look around and appreciate the situation, and make better tactical decisions. And this makes the game more fun, I think.

[BarryNoDachi]

i think the reality is that we are just gonna have to wait and see.

koc, there are ppl from ca posting here so maybe ask in one of those threads about the gamespeed compared to stw and mi?

or i dont read there myself but at .com there might be more information about it


------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[youssof_Toda]

With battles lasting a day that included lining forces up, trying to outmanouver the enemy, the actual clash, and the pursuit of the defeated army. I think STW gamespeed was ok. The damn infantery in MI are jst way too slow while other units are a bit too fast. Again I think the overall balance of the stats in STW 1.13 was perfect and didn't need any (or very minor) changes.

[NinjaKilla]

*Bump*

Ouch, Koc remember to leave the lights on next time. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[Action]

Thats why I only play single player. I need my pause. Without it, it sort of feels like a click-fest, which is normally what sets this game aparts from other RTS.

[youssof_Toda]

Quote Originally posted by Action:
Thats why I only play single player. I need my pause. Without it, it sort of feels like a click-fest, which is normally what sets this game aparts from other RTS.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that the one who knows where he is clicking and why will win it trom the guy who is clicking like a madman but has no clue what he is doing.

[Dionysus9]

Of course, Youssof, but thats not the point. How many generals issue an order every second?

Its just a little wierd, but I cant really thinkg of any solution other than an optional speed setting.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

A speed scale would be very handy actually.

And the hosts speed would be the one used.

I agree have u ever heard of a general who issues orders every second? It's just not war. Also in reality once a battle starts its not a battle its an all out brawl.

------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!

No Fear Legend.

[youssof_Toda]

Generals used to have some commanders below them who were given different tasks. For instance you had the reserve squad which was leaded by a commander and which had the task to help on places on the front where help was needed. The general gave orders to his commanders and they performed them. As we all know for the sake of gameplay it is required that some adjustments are made which contradict with reality.

[ElmarkOFear]

A way to overcome this, but you would have to trust the people you are playing, is to have a 4v4 battle where everyone can buy/control only 4 units each. Thus altogether it would be a 16 v 16 game as if only 2 people were playing. Less men, better control. You know, now that I think about it, it could be an interesting way to play a 4v4 battle. Everyone would deploy back and then group together all 16 units as if they were one group and then fight the enemy. Only problem which may occur is routing. If your general gets killed it could rout all 4 of your guys even though they might have been on opposite sides of the battlefield. I will have to test this to see how it works.

[This message has been edited by ElmarkOFear (edited 08-15-2002).]

[FasT]

Chess is a very slow and tactical game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Only time will tell http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by FasT:
Chess is a very slow and tactical game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Only time will tell http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]

But chess works on the principal that you only get a single click and then your opponent gets one...

[Kocmoc]

guys i wont play games ovver the whole day, i read in otehr post (puzzposted) that the gamespeed will be a bit slower....that enougth!

imo, compared to MI-speed it should be 20-25% slower, that would be great.

dont give the masses things to choose! give a nice average speed.

koc

------------------
Grey Wolves (http://www.totalwar.club.tip.nl/)

[mizuYari]

Ah, a game that uses drums, snares, horns and flags and howling to communicate (the way they would do it back then)...

mizuYari

[NinjaKilla]

Does gamespeed relate to lag? Is there some sort of trade off here? I mean MI was fast, but less lag that STW whcih was slower but laggy. To be honest I'm surprised that MI was so popular and I would suggest that STW was a perfect game speed - yes I know this is real time: but it is also strat.

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[FasT]

Well i think the groupin feature is silly.A little bar above the units u have grouped.So in the heat of battle u gotta make sure u hit this little bar.

Anywaz i dont group my units only hotkeys.i only grouped to swizel army http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[ShadeWraith]

I never really group units for battle, I find it a little too inflexible. I use the group function to set them up how I like and move them, once melee starts I prefer to manage units individually.....maybe thats why I always lose http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Wraith

[BarryNoDachi]

elmo, us kenchi boys play 3v3 with only 8 units that have low honour http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif it is good fun and is v suprising how much it improves your game it really gives you a real feel for the morale of your troops http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

imo, i think mi was speeded up to stop the excessive lag from stw. in 1v1 games stw is v good speed where as mi is too fast but...when you start playing bigger battles that have more lag the speed of mi for me is ok http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif where as stw takes toooooo long http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

nb i never played stw in "the glory days" that everyone goes on about (over rated imo http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif ) but have played it a fair bit with clanmates

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa Kocmoc,

No options? A game should have many options.
I don't want hardwired settings.

What works for one, doesn't work for the other.

I agree though that an average value should be the default, the game host can then adjust it. The gamespeed in UT is 100%, the host can set it from 10%-200%. So one can not only go faster than average but also slower.




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

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[MagyarKhans Cham]

the best woulkd be that both sides can adjust the speed bar, and it is only adjusted if both sides do it

so player A decrease it with 20%, no effect
but if player B also decreases it with lets say 10% than this is the new speed

if player B lowers it to 30% than the speed will be 20% lower

if one lower teh gamespeed than a little message is sent rto the opposition

[Puzz3D]

Kocmoc,

I asked Gil Jaysmith about the gamespeed for the online game and mentioned how WE/MI is too fast in 1v1. He said MTW is limited to 14 frames per second. I don't know what that means in terms of playability because I don't know how far a man can travel in one frame and I don't know what the frame rate limit is in WE/MI. If the MTW demo that I played was at 14 frames per second, then I hope the online game is no faster than that in 1v1. The main thing that struck me about the demo was that it has slower combat resolution which gives plenty of time for flanking maneuvers with free units after other units are engaged. The fighting isn't over in a flash like it is in WE/MI v102. The gamespeed in that sense looks good to me, and is more like WE/MI v103.

Is the speed of movement in MTW too fast? If the speed of the online game is similar to the demo then it's playable for me, but I have good hand/eye coordination and I have developed a natural ability to keep track of 32 units since I played chess for many years. The speed of MTW may well push many players beyond their ability to optimally control all their units. Overwhelming an opponent's management capability was also used in original STW very effectively by many good players.

A key here is having a fast machine which gives you good mouse control and battlefield scroll speed. Without good mouse control, the battles go out of control as more units become engaged. Lowering the gamespeed moves the point where machine performance becomes a factor in gameplay to a lower level, and allows a wider range of machines to play at the same level of gameplay performance. For sure, if you have a slow machine, you are at a disadvantage to someone with a fast machine. Reducing the maximun frames per second might work to slow down the gamespeed, but, if taken too far, will result in loss of smoothness in the animation. I would think that CA has chosen a 14 frames per second limit as a compromise between smooth animation and machine requirements. A 25% reduction would give 10 frames per second as the limit which might still be acceptable. Alternatively, simply slowing down the individual unit foot speeds requires a complete rebalance of all the combat stats to keep the tactics the same, and that's the problem we ran into in the WE/MI v102. I don't think that's a good way to do it.

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 08-17-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 08-17-2002).]

[Kocmoc]

guys,

i agree with u but u dont think about the silly guys!!!

if u give this guys too many things to choose they will spoil the game!
look at patch 1,03 u cant give them the choice, they have to use it or they cant play thats the only good solution.

if we start to choose the gamespeed at start of the game, hmmmm...u think all guys can agree about a speed? ...how long will it taken if they agree,? or wich discussion will be there?

NO, dont let he masses choose, this cant work.

koc

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

The host should decide about the gamespeed when he 'builds' the server.

There just won't be endless waiting. In STW I can choose any koku between 51 and 99,999, either of the near 450 maps, 4 seasons, 4 gametypes, 2 eras.

If I host a 51 koku winterbattle assasinate with 1.09 gamma stats at K's Pegasus, then there indeed may be a chance that I will have to wait forever. If I stick to that, I would be the only silly person.

In a similair way: if I host at 190% gamespeed, it would be quite unlikely that anyone would join. The same goes for 30%. Use a reasonable level (I guess something around 80%-120% will become the default level), but nothing prevents one to try his luck with a weird setting (this can be quite amusing with friends) and it will be a speed that is decided by the players not some hardwired 'this should work average'.



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

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Bullethead]

Seems to me the very existence of this thread shows the basic problem with RT combat resolution, at least in games purporting to be realistic simulations instead of the typical RTS thing. Basically, at some point every player reaches his limit of effective control, after which realistic tactics go out the window and the game becomes a clickfest tankrush. Hence, calls to slow down the speed of combat.

Has CA given any thought to perhaps going to a "punctuated realtime" system such as that used by Combat Mission? Seems to me that something along that line will have to change if the TW series continues after MTW and the size of battles increases again.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Punctuated is realtime, pause, realtime, pause?

I agree that some people may like this, but I don't. Again, a game needs options. If TW expands to a title where a player has to control more stuff, I'ld prefer the game to support larger teams: 16v16 battles where each player controls only a few units.

In other words: the player chooses how he plays the game, not the developer and not a mainstream.

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

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[youssof_Toda]

I'd like the developers to get what we have, right first. Undoubtly there will arrise some problems when it hits the shelves, why not focus on that first? Things like game balance, easy control of the units, ironing out bugs which make the game instable, make sure the server functions properly. I'd rather see them solve these kind of problems than making new fancy options.

[NinjaKilla]

I don't think introducing a semi-turn based system would be benefical as it would break up the game play. IMO STW was the perfect speed, however having said that with the lag games often came pretty dull as opponents could see moves coming a mile off.

Gee I hope they got this sussed on MTW...

BTW Welcome to the .Org Bullethead. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[mizuYari]

When playing solo, video frame speed is important because it is more realistic, reduce jerkiness, etc. 14 fps is pretty good and perhaps is similar to a low quality video conferencing.

When playing multiplayer, video frame speed is a bit less important. As long as we have something in the order of 5 fps or faster, we are OK. In many online battles, players complaint about lag when the frame froze for about 5 seconds, during which time something happens and the next frame comes, you see all your men ran. That's definitely not good.

Game speed many refers to is the speed of the units:
1. How fast the unit run in one second. This is relative to many factors:
- How fast the unit runs relative to how fast it is tired;
- how fast it runs relative to the size of the map;
- how fast it runs relative to the field of vision (would the unit be out of sight the next second, which is very fast, or it takes several hours, which is the speed of a snail).

2. How fast the units can kill (how many battle resolution turns per minute).

Adjusting the speed bar would only favor the fast clickers (or veterans of the game such as Magyarkhan Cham etc.). This only create an opportunity for cheaters the same way timer was allowed to be set...

I personally would like to have trade-off between computer power and visual resolution.

MizuYari

[FasT]

FasT speed
FasT control
FasT eye
FasT fingers
FasT win
FasT machine

Im workin on all these http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

upps i nearly forgot GOOD Tactic's.

[Bullethead]

TosaInu said:
Quote Konnichiwa[/QUOTE]

Hajimemashite, TosaInu-san.

Quote Punctuated is realtime, pause, realtime, pause?[/QUOTE]

Punctuated realtime is a hybrid, part realtime, part turn-based. The idea is to strike a balance between the best aspects of both systems and avoid their worst aspects.

Something like that has to be done in the future if the TW series is to grow. Personally, I'd love to see "Bayonets: Total War", covering say 1700-1850. It would be impossible to do any of the battles of that period with the current realtime system. Even if a new engine could handle the scads of regiments, squadrons, and batteries in such battles (ie, way more than 16 units per side), no player could manage it if it was a pure realtime game like the other TW titles.

For them as don't know, here's an outline of a punctuated realtime system: In Combat Mission, which is a WW2 tactical game, the player(s) can only give orders once a minute. While doing so, the game is paused. Once done, it plays out in realtime for a minute w/out any direct human intervention as the units attempt to carry out their orders. But often unanticipated things happen during the minute (which is a long time in a WW2 firefight), so the unit AIs often do different things than the player wanted.

In practice, it's like the player is the overall commander who makes a plan but is not also the subordinate who actually has to carry it out. Then when the plan doesn't work to some degree, he makes a new plan or adjusts the old one, repeat.

The advantages of this system over pure realtime are as follows:

The size of the force and the complexity of the battle that a player can control are limited only by the number of units the game engine can handle. Thus, much bigger battles are possible.
Because the player isn't under extreme time pressure while giving orders, he can coordinate units better. This means realistic tactics stay in play longer before things degenerate into a "tankrush". This makes battles in general more realistic.
Because players can't give commands while the action is running, frame rate is much less of an issue. Jerkiness just makes the action look bad, it no longer prevents a player's from getting the mouse cursor on a particular unit to give it orders at a critical instant.
In addition to the above, developing "mad skillz" with the interface no longer gives certain players an unrealistic advantage. Such "mad skillz" have no bearing on the player's simulated role as general, they're just a product of the game itself and the pure realtime structure.


In addition, such a system is better than RT with the ability to pause at any time. That sort of system gives a player an unrealistic degree of instantaneous control.

Of course, for a punctuated realtime system to work, it has to somehow include a realistic amount of "military friction" to counteract the potentially excessive player control granted by issuing orders during pauses. After all, in real life battlefield decisions are made under pressure, are based on imperfect knowledge, and are carried out by other people who might not get the word or fully understand it.

In Combat Mission, these factors are handled in a number of ways. The biggest "friction" generator is the time between order pauses--the longer this is, the less control the player has, no matter how long he takes to give orders. CM also has a great FOW system that includes not only LOS but also misidentification at long range when there is an LOS. There are command units on the map and the further units are away from them, the longer it takes before they start carrying out orders (abstracting the time needed by runners to get the word to them). Likewise, the more complex their orders, the longer delay due to the time needed to explain the orders. Finally, in MP games players can set a limit on the amount of time the game is paused to give orders.

All of this naturally requires very good unit AIs so the units act realistically in the rather long intervals when they're acting w/out direct orders or have to react to unanticipated changes in the situation between player orders.

Quote I agree that some people may like this, but I don't.[/QUOTE]

To each his own.

Quote Again, a game needs options. If TW expands to a title where a player has to control more stuff, I'ld prefer the game to support larger teams: 16v16 battles where each player controls only a few units.

In other words: the player chooses how he plays the game, not the developer and not a mainstream.[/QUOTE]

But why limit the game to 16v16? Why not 200v200 or more? And if that happens, why limit such battles to being possible only when you've got dozens of players to share the work? Wouldn't it be cool to play Waterloo or Leipzig vs. a single other player?

[BarryNoDachi]

i agree with koc should be one speed only

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa Bullethead san,

A flexible game would allow a 1v1 Waterloo with 200 units/player (with or without punctuated RT) and also 200v200 with 1 unit/player (with or without PRT), or any variation of those things. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

When I said that I didn't like PRT, I didn't mean to say that TW (future?) shouldn't offer it, I meant that I'ld like another RT mode.

The best softwaretitles are those that are configurable (options and editable external files). One rigid state can never please more than only one user.

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

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Bullethead]

TosaInu said:
Quote A flexible game would allow a 1v1 Waterloo with 200 units/player (with or without punctuated RT) and also 200v200 with 1 unit/player (with or without PRT), or any variation of those things. One thing doesn't exclude the other.[/QUOTE]

That would be great. In fact, my biggest complaint with Combat Mission is that in online games, there can only be 1 player per side, regardless of the total number of units. It's possible to play team-v-team games as PBEM but only by working around the game itself because this is not an intentional feature.

BTW, the PBEM mode itself is another advantage of a punctuated realtime system. With PBEM, you can play people anywhere in the world even if timezones mean you're both never awake at the same time. The tradeoff is that it takes a month or 2 to finish a single battle (and even more if doing team-v-team PBEM, which requires several emails per side per turn).

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[ElmarkOFear]

Bullethead: I am a big fan/player of Combat Mission also. I believe the new Barbarossa game is coming out very soon if not already. I enjoy the turnbased/PBEM aspect of the game, but it would be almost impossible to convert MTW or another future Total War game to this, due to the fact that you lose control over your men during the 60 seconds of realtime after each set of moves. This control is what makes the Total War games so attractive to the online community. A hybrid would be interesting, but if it WAS possible, the developers more than likely would have been able to offer a multi-campaign. If you ever want to play a game of CM send me an email to el-marko@insightbb.com I can also introduce you to some of the top PBEM players of the game, since they beat me on a regular basis!! HEHE http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I was much better at Panzer Gen 2 and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Bullethead]

ElmarkOFear said:
Quote Bullethead: I am a big fan/player of Combat Mission also. I believe the new Barbarossa game is coming out very soon if not already.[/QUOTE]

Not for a while yet. I test it and it ain't quite done http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. BTW, you'll love it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Quote I enjoy the turnbased/PBEM aspect of the game, but it would be almost impossible to convert MTW or another future Total War game to this, due to the fact that you lose control over your men during the 60 seconds of realtime after each set of moves.[/QUOTE]

That's the whole point. You, as general, either sitting on your camp stool on a hill in the rear or leading your troops from the front rank of your bodyguard, would be totally unable to have instantaneous control over your units (especially in the latter case). You'd have to blow horns and wave flags in the hopes somebody'd notice, or send a dispatch rider. Either way, it would be some time before units on the far flank started doing what you wanted them to, assuming that was even possible by then. Hence, the whole idea of the player, with his god's-eye-view of the battle, being able to achieve instantaneous control over units to act on info obtained from the big picture, but of which the units involved would necessarily be totally ignorant, is rather bogus.

Quote This control is what makes the Total War games so attractive to the online community.[/QUOTE]

Not to me, because of the penalties it imposes. Setting aside the realism issue noted above, forcing the player to wear every hat in the chain of command from general to commander of every individual unit, all in realtime that is compressed compared to reality, puts a very low limit on the number of units the player can control effectively. So while you might be able, with practice, to eventually become adept at clickfesting your way through a 16v16 battle, that has got to be about the absolute limit. IOW, the instantaneous control you find so desirable comes at the price of limiting the game to rather small battles.

Quote A hybrid would be interesting, but if it WAS possible, the developers more than likely would have been able to offer a multi-campaign.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why there isn't MP for the campaign. In fact, I recall from the earliest rumors and previews of STW that it was to have been MP on the campaign side as well. The plan was for the online community to have specialists with some players being the strat rulers and hiring other players who were good at the tactical side to be their generals. What happened to that? There have been a number of MP games with a turn-based strat side and RT tactical side in other genres (space empires, for instance), so the concept isn't per se impossible.

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[mizuYari]

There are people plottingb for an MP campaign. The UGLY campaign is one spring to mind.

I do like the setting BulletHead mentioned:
1. View of the game is the view of the general. The only way he can change the view is to ride himself to a higher point.

2. Flags, drums, horns, fire crackers, gun shots, canon shots, smokestakes, hollowing, courriers are the only way to control the units (video conferencing is not yet implemented in the battle field, even in modern army, so instantly see each unit is not real).

3. Attack, defend plan must be presented before the attack. The spies will come back and update a battlefield model/map. Dispatch to remote units could carry the map with the orders. The spy could be captured to yield the maps and other infos.

4. Time of day for a fight is important. Night raiding of camps, sun-in-the-eyes, fire in the castle, etc. would be modeled.
5. Training of units are important. Each general has a different way of commanding.

However, there are difficulties playing such a game:
1. In real life, each unit would know what to do instead of waiting for the command from the general on every move it makes;
That means the AI would be quite good. Training would help the AI (and battle plan would also pre-condition the AI).

2. In real life, prepare for movement of an army may take months. Battles may be fought an entire day.

3. Would limit the players to a few die-hard wargame model players, and exclude the Nintendo-generation.

MizuYari

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

TW would not exclude the 'nintendo generation' it would also offer a mode which could be less suited for those.

In the same way a STW WE/MI player can choose between assasinate, last man standing and halve the enemy (which are in essence all the same thing), on could choose between 1v1 200 units each using PRT, or 200v200 RT (or any variation of that).

What's mentioned above, is also the idea of the advanced teamgame as mentioned before.

More players can play the same game at once (16 per side doesn't seem unrealistic for current hardware), each player controls 1 unit (a squadcommander if you want) and can only see what his unit can see. The general has a better view of the whole situation and has to coordinate the individual units by issuing 'commands' to the squadleaders. This is a delayed control like real ancient battlefields would have (even with Roger Wilco the general can only issue orders to a few units, they have to listen, understand and react). In the meanwhile (and at the same time) the unitcommander can see things happening around him and is the only one who knows about the moralesituation of the unit and can decide to react otherwise or respond to the unexpected.

It's essentially the same thing as Bullethead san proposes, but by using real humans to control the units instead of the AI.

An advanced teamgame is quite a different thing from a 1v1 or even 2v2 last man standing.

It might even appeal some 'nintendo guys' as they don't have to worry about 16 units anymore, but only 1.

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

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Boromir]

Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
Of course, Youssof, but thats not the point. How many generals issue an order every second?

[/QUOTE]

But then how many times would a general be able to say "hold on a sec, let me pause this battle while I think of what to do".
Agreed, the game should not be too fast but I dont think it necessarily would be the "fastest mouse clicker wins" surely. I can click my mouse as quickly as anyone but its those who can think quckly and click in the right positions. That's why I've always been shite cos my brain is like an old cog system, it takes too long to get to full speed. People like Mag, Koc, Amp, Lahll etc were always able to read the situation quickly and act accordingly. That's what wins battles.

Boromir...

------------------
Sven Goran-Eriksson is a very very very nice man

[This message has been edited by Boromir (edited 08-20-2002).]

[NinjaKilla]

BTW If any of you guys play Batteground: Prelude to Waterloo, Waterloo or Napoleon In Russia and would like a PBEM game, gimme a shout.

Ss.Lt. 'NK'
III Corps, AdN http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[Puzz3D]

I see the online battles in the same way Boromir does. The dynamically changing battlefield situation has to be continuously re-evaluated as quickly as possible. As long as the gamespeed isn't so fast that you cannot physically issue the orders then it's still primarily about outthinking your opponent. The absolute control you have over each unit is what gives the tactical moves their chesslike precision. The statistical uncertainty in the fighting is where the risk comes in and adds tension to the outcome.

Coordinating 16 units to the necessary precision in realtime is a challenging task, but you only have to do it to a better degree than your opponent to win. It is easy for the battle to become chaotic for you if your plan is not executed well or if you are outplayed, aggressively pressured or taken by surprise by your opponent. To me, that's part of the excitement of the game as long as the game is not so fast that you feel out of control all the time or don't have enough time to react to an attack before it's too late to make a difference.

The trade-off for this continuous action tension is that you can't be in two places at once. When all your units are not in the field of view, you have to split your time amoung each group which gives you less time with any one group. Although you can jump around quickly and each group is smaller than 16 units, you may not be commanding the right group at the right time. This can acually allow for diversionary tactics where you entice your opponent to look in one direction while you make an attack somewhere he is not likely to be watching.

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 08-20-2002).]

[MagyarKhans Cham]

still an option as tosa stated, where speed can be set would be a good thing

i know guys who have the original game but played it just a few times online cuz it all went to fast for them. why not add a slow button so even the slow can have good battles