Hindsight, what CA and ETW did well.
So with the last major non-MP campaign patch out, I think that its a good time to reflect back on what ETW did well.
1) Patching! I'm fairly sure that this TW has had the most support of any TW. I'm quite glad that they stuck it out with us and we finally got a decently fixed version of what we paid for even though we still in my estimation got a little gyped. You guys did a good job. So thanks.
2) Community Relations. This TW also had quite abit of back and forth between the developpers and us forumites. We got responses to the big issues fairly quickly (AI, aggression, etc) even if they were not in patch form or the patch tried to address it and failed spectacularly. I think the daily update thing was kinda overambitious but I appreciate the effort.
3) Terrain Use. I like how they made the terrain more interactive. You have cover mechanics and garrison mechanics added. While not all that important, I think that having more environmental impact besides 'hills' and stuff would be nice.
4) Graphics. Nuff said.
5) Adding the tech tree. While not really appropriate for any pre-renaissance setting, it would be nice for future TWs taking place in the industrial or modern ages.
6) Areas of control. Definitely a good upgrade from having to be adjacent and every single stack running by it.
7) Revolutions. Probably one of the only major features that went off without a hitch. Quite fun sometimes for RP purposes.
8) Towns. It is quite fun to watch oyur cities grow and stuff. Should be included in more TWs.
9) Rebels. Finally back from MTW. Keep them.
10) An interesting economy. Its finally interesting :). The growth model is much more interesting than the old build x to get +y % model. Hopefully its actually working now, haven't checked.
So that's all I can think of for now. I'm sure everyone else can chime in on it.
Re: Hindsight, what CA and ETW did well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antisocialmunky
So with the last major non-MP campaign patch out, I think that its a good time to reflect back on what ETW did well.
1) Patching! I'm fairly sure that this TW has had the most support of any TW. I'm quite glad that they stuck it out with us and we finally got a decently fixed version of what we paid for even though we still in my estimation got a little gyped. You guys did a good job. So thanks.
The most support of any TW is damning with faint praise. It's the one needing it most too, so no kudo from me.
Quote:
2) Community Relations. This TW also had quite abit of back and forth between the developpers and us forumites. We got responses to the big issues fairly quickly (AI, aggression, etc) even if they were not in patch form or the patch tried to address it and failed spectacularly. I think the daily update thing was kinda overambitious but I appreciate the effort.
I dunno, didn't see all that much back and forth lately. Nor was there much done with the back and forth, as witnessed by naval rebalancing. Considering how infuriated/dissillusioned the following is, I'm hard pressed to give them a kudo for Community Relations.
Quote:
3) Terrain Use. I like how they made the terrain more interactive. You have cover mechanics and garrison mechanics added. While not all that important, I think that having more environmental impact besides 'hills' and stuff would be nice.
except the AI seems overly distracted by it and doesn't really seem to use it effectively. No kudo.
Quote:
4) Graphics. Nuff said.
No argument there. Double helping of kudos, because it actually looks nice enough to distract from some of the flaws.
Quote:
5) Adding the tech tree. While not really appropriate for any pre-renaissance setting, it would be nice for future TWs taking place in the industrial or modern ages.
It's certainly a nice feature. Though why 1700s infantry need to have research done for basic firing drills is a mystery to me. Meh, going to give it a kudo even if it's not well used.
Quote:
6) Areas of control. Definitely a good upgrade from having to be adjacent and every single stack running by it.
Yup, ZoC get a kudo from me. The current campaign system is quite poor but ZoCs take the sting out of it some.
Quote:
7) Revolutions. Probably one of the only major features that went off without a hitch. Quite fun sometimes for RP purposes.
Not really had that much experience with them myself but it seems okay. Allows for some variable playing styles. The AI should suffer them less, it's republics all over the place before too long. Half a kudo.
Quote:
8) Towns. It is quite fun to watch your cities grow and stuff. Should be included in more TWs.
My cities grow? Me being unaware of the fact is an indication how important I rate this. Don't coders have more important stuff to do? The numerous bugs say: Yes. No kudo.
Quote:
9) Rebels. Finally back from MTW. Keep them.
Actually like them. Well implemented, avoidable and not as annoying as random RTW rebels. Kudo.
Quote:
10) An interesting economy. Its finally interesting :). The growth model is much more interesting than the old build x to get +y % model. Hopefully its actually working now, haven't checked.
That actually gets a double kudo. Greater complexity without tripping me up with the details overly much was a good idea well implemented. It's no great game changer but it's the right direction.
Re: Hindsight, what CA and ETW did well.
A couple of things I liked:
* The low ratio of sieges to field battles.
For me too many campaigns in Medieval 2 and Rome were spoiled when I picked a faction for having an interesting roster of troops to use in field battles, only to remember 5 minutes in that field battles were a relative rarity in those games, and I was instead in for an interminable series of identical, tedious grindfest sieges. In ETW the fact that sieges are such a mess is softened considerably by the fact that most settlement assaults are decided by field battles.
* The addition of trade theatres.
A feature I was initially skeptical about; while I still think the game would be more interesting with more continents to conquer, it's actually an effective way of making naval dominance worthwhile, and ensuring a decent mix of land and naval battles.
* Naval battles.
Maybe I have simple tastes, but I like them. I think mostly it's the fact that I can now have some influence on the outcome of naval battles, as opposed to focusing on naval warfare always being a losing strategy due to being at the mercy of the autocalc.
I also agree with many of the things antisocialmunky said, in particular the addition of areas of control, the rarer and more interesting rebels, and the more interesting economy (you can actually make enough money to support a decent army without simply conquering everything in sight). One of the most depressing things about the game is that the strategic aspect has the potential to be the most interesting in the series so far, so much of which has gone to waste due to the AI problems.
Re: Hindsight, what CA and ETW did well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antisocialmunky
3) Terrain Use. I like how they made the terrain more interactive. You have cover mechanics and garrison mechanics added. While not all that important, I think that having more environmental impact besides 'hills' and stuff would be nice.
I like terrain as a factor in battle as much as every wargamer, but what they did in ETW just ended up being a gift to the player, and an obstacle for the AI. Terrain features and cover mechanics are only good insofar as the AI can handle it as well as the player. ETW's AI is abysmal at dealing with terrain features.
In version 1.3 I saw the AI deploy a cannon unit directly behind a clump of rock and trees, so it couldn't fire a shot for the entire battle. It has similar problems figuring out where to deploy cannon for good line of fire when there are any buildings between armies. As the human player, I have no problem dealing with that.
The ability to garrison buildings ends up being another player exploit. If I'm defending in a town, I can choose one building as a "bunker" with garrisoned troops inside. I place the rest of my army nearby, so the guys in the building can provide supporting fire. Wherever possible, I place my infantry line so nearby buildings can act as flanking protection. I never see the AI doing anything like this. Instead, it will place its troops in several different buildings, scattered across the town so they're easy to pick off one by one, and with zero support from the rest of the army.
When defending, I'll frequently use terrain features like fences as traps; positioning my infantry so the obstacles are just within their firing range. When the enemy infantry or cav hits the fence and has to slow down to cross, it's a killing zone. I never see the AI using terrain in that way.
When the AI does deploy stakes or "trenches," it will usually leave that position for some reason before my army gets close. Why build fixed defenses if you're not going to dig in and use them?
Sure, it's fun to have these features in the game. And sure, if the AI was magically improved to handle it effectively, it would make for a much more challenging battle. But as it is, it's basically eye candy and a massive exploit for the player to use against the AI.
I do think ETW's overall design for the campaign map side of the game is a major improvement over the last couple of TW games, especially in limiting micro-management. The CA designers deserve major credit for that, however much we gripe about the AI quality. The removed the most annoying features in prior TW games, like having to shuffle diplomats around before you could talk to any other factions, and they got rid of the annoying merchant warfare thing, which never worked very well (IMO). Occupying a region with different religion is something you have to pay attention to, but it's not something that will cripple your expansion and require major time from the player to manage. They struck a nice balance there.
Being able to retrain and recruit for armies in the field also reduces the micro. They added new potential with towns and the tech research tree, which contrary to an earlier comment I think could apply to other games prior to 1700. It would work fine for a game set in Rome, Ancient Greece, or China/3 Kingdoms. The naval combat engine also has great potential, although it looks like most of that will have to be realized through modding, if we want the ships to actually behave like sailing ships and not motorboats.
Re: Hindsight, what CA and ETW did well.
Here are some additional things I've really enjoyed:
- Many more, and more useful, tooltips.
- The economy in general, but trade in particular. Especially how each trade relationship grants you additional money through the "Other Goods" and that last category which grows over time. With those two extra features, it gives you an incentive to have multiple trade partners instead of just one, which means it's important to maintain good relationships with multiple countries, perhaps even across multiple theatres.
- A pretty smooth transition to firearms based combat. I know STW had firearms, but either because of a lack of skill or because they were made that way on purpose, they were pretty useless.
- The return of a solid mainstay infantry unit. In STW and MTW, the basic spearman could make up 70% of your army. They were relatively cheap, standard across all factions, and could take a fair bit of punishment. Because of their size and resilience, they allowed you to focus more attention on the more special units (cavalry, swordmen, skirmishers, artillery, etc.). RTW kinda threw that out by having 3 different kinds of basic infantry, and because you had to baby them due to the pilums and the friendly fire issues. M2TW also seemed to have weaker spear units in general, or at least it was harder to get good ones. I'm glad, in ETW, that the Line Infantry units are so solid. It was good to have a common denominator again across the many nations armies, and that they were durable enough to allow me to focus on cannons, light infantry, cav, dragoons, etc.
- Fewer agents. Linking the number of agents to the number of buildings was a good idea.
- Diplomacy sans diplomats
- The distribution of important structures into the field and out of the capital city. I like how you can put your universities, factories, farms, mines, etc. are all out in the field and vulnerable to raiding. I also like how you can essentially upgrade multilpe buildings within a region at the same time, as opposed to previous TW games where it was 1 regional building at a time.
- Everything can move further. One of the most frustrating things in RTW, and in M2TW, was how short a distance units, agents, and ships could move each turn. Especially naval units. I feel like the distance units can travel per turn in ETW is just right.
- Trade route raiding. It's one thing to blockade a port, but now you can also just park a ship on a trade route and siphon gold from it.
- Fishing ports. You only need so many trade ports and shipyards. Now you have a useful 3rd option for when you have enough of the other two.
Re: Hindsight, what CA and ETW did well.
-Not needing to run a diplomat around the world
-Being able to pick your leaders
-Naval combat :)
-Campaign map covers most of the world now
-Trade theaters and the trade system in general
-Retraning armies without having to recruit new units in towns and march them over and individually transfer the new recruits in
-The towns completely eliminate the FOW issue
-The tech tree
