(LONG) New poster, a remark to: TotalWar has gone to the Dark Side (Colosseum)

Hello everyone,

First, a little sidenote:
This post turned out longer then I intended. It is made of 3 parts. The first is just something a bit off-topic and intro. Skip it unless you have time free. The second part is about my background of TW games. Read it after you read part 3 and want to know some more about why I came to those opinions.
Sorry for the long post. I understand if a mod shorterns it, breaks it up in more then 1 post or anything in that nature. Truth is, I don't want to remove any part since it took me over an hour to make this post...

part 1

It strikes me as kind of odd, maybe this day (which is only young at its 3 am) is turning out as one of those weird those where a lot goes wrong, but it seems I am very locked away from the TW community.
I just tried to register at the .com forums to post about what I'm about to write below, but somehow ezboard got totally confused. I didn't get a validate email address message, but another message with a different username and password, which I think I used on a forum long dead. After more then an hour I gave up... remembering the trouble with previous ezboards (sigh).
Now I find that these forums, although they are a blessing with registering :), have a system that prevents people from posting in certain places until they reach a certain status.
It's not that I don't understand it, quite the contrary, I think it's a good system. I just put this down to voice the little bit of irony I feel about TW fora; it must really be a war out here ;).


Sorry for that long diversion introduction, maybe should have been a separate post, but then it would just be a worthless topic I think. On to the real topic.

part 2
I am a reasonably new player of the TW games. My brother bought and played Shogun a lot back in those days, but found Medieval a bit hard when it was just released.
Recently, I saw the games in his collection and asked if I could play them for a while. So about a month or 2 back I started Shogun and was instantly hooked. Medieval followed shortly after that and kept me playing well into the early mornings. I now bought both games (including the VI expansion my brother didn't have) and played with delight.
I was even happier when I found out that a new game in the series is soon to be released. After looking at the screenshots and some of the video footage, this all looked very promising.
So eager as the rest of the community I played the demo first thing I could on monday as well. And I'm a bit splitted about it. I've been playing Warcraft, C&C and the likes for a long time as well (even the good old days of Dune2 are engraved in my memory). I like those strategy games, but I was hooked to the TW series for other reasons. I own Warcraft 3 and C&C generals, I play them (not reguarly anymore.. 2 guesses which games caused that ;)), I like them, but they are different. I wouldn't have bought the TW games if they were just another RTS because with Generals and War3, I have all the regular RTS action I need.
The demo of Rome;TW played a lot like those RTS games (as many already stated). Since I am somewhat of a "middleman" (like both categories), I think I might have a slightly different perspective then others on the demo.

part 3
I for one like the new camera. One of the most troubling things in the previous TW games I found the camera. I never could quite get the hang of it. Obviously I haven't played the TW games as long as all the hardcore players, but I'm not that "stuck" (or 'locked in' as I should say in terms of networks) so that I can't appreciate something that technically and simplistically more appealing.
The battlefield graphics are better, I think nobody will argue here... the graphics are a huge step forward.
The minimap, kill ratio bar, unit panel and unit actions panel are less good then before; the atmosphere it radiates is much less the strategic atmosphere that comes from the previous TW games. Sure, the old TW games-graphics may look stale, but that's it's beauty... it contains information.. strategic information. It doesn't need to be fancy, it needs to be clear give a commander all the information it needs in the blink of an eye without too much mumbo-jumbo. All else (in my opinion) pollutes the way a person can effectively use strategic and tactic decisions in the game.
This is also true about the voice acting. Although I much confess that I think this problem is a bit overreacted. I think the odds are pretty high that there is a way to turn them off.
Unit selection has undergone both good points and a bad point. The good points being able to select multiple groups by dragging (requires less action to select more units) and the new left/right mouse button use. I used to give a lot of bad orders in the other TW games because I just misclicked by a few dots and got another unit selected instead of the previous unit charging. The bad point about the new unit selecting are the new slimy green arrows under every unit in the group, which destroys a good part of the nice graphics of the unit. Although I love to have a more clear way to see on the battlefield which unit I selected, because sometime you just can't see which flag is bumping up and down in the distance, this is just too much. One line or so around a whole regiment is more then enough.
Now onto the last and most debates points; the speed of the game. I played Shogun and Medieval in very long periods (since it was holiday, almost whole days, from rise to sleep). Beside the camera the most annoying thing in the previous TW games for me was the fact that it sometimes would take a VERY long time to do a single battle. The combat itself is fast, but the Ai takes so much time manoeuvering. And sometimes I got into battles were the armies were about 500 (my side) to 3000 (enemy). It would take about 5-10 mins before the first army was even in range.. then some more for skirmishing then the real action.. followed by routing.. amazingly, the AI just kept rallying, manoeuvering again, routing again etc. Until finally I chased them down so much that they had almost nothing left. Then came the NEXT army. again the same story. I actually had several battles which I won because the AI had exceeded the time limit.
But these games had the time slider... and everything was good. If you didn't want to wait long for those reinforcements... the slider would bring them closer for you.
Enter the Rome;TW demo. The slider is gone. The reason soon becomes clear: the game is so fast, a slider isn't even necessary! Who would want to speed up a game that's on "fast" by default? The choice for speed was brutally removed when they increased the normal game speed (and killing rate!) to a level which requires RTS abilities. Like I said, I play RTS games, I like those for their speed. But TW games were different, Rome;TW just removed the finest part of its heritage: the strategic combat. The time window to react now is so short.
I saw a post about surprise attacks (don't recall if it was on this board or the .com one) not being doable in Medieval and that now the pace is quicker, these are possible in Rome;TW and are good. I agree that they weren't possible before, but that was mostly because the minimap showed a lot and spies (and border forts and such) are 100% accurate. If you want surprise attacks those should be altered, minimap should hide thing in the forest longer, spies should be able to make mistakes or be feeded false information. But the gamespeed which feeds the series' best strength should not be altered because of this.

In short:
Camera changes: + : resolves problems)
Battlefield graphics: ++ : eye candy like this can hardly be refused
User interface: - : pollutes strategic and tactical warfare and does not give clear overview.
Voice acting: 0 : doesn't bother me much and for those who don't like it, chances are high that it can be turned off, so this is just ok.
Unit selection: +/- : No more misclicking, more visual what unit selected, but a little overdone.
Speed : -- : You can't do much now since you can't react fast. Time windows are (too) short now.

So I must conclude that although Rome;TW has a lot of nice stuff, it also has some major flaws if the real thing is like the demo. I'm not convinced by people who say 'the demo is not like the game', it is going to be released very soon... they need to change a lot to the game to change the flaws.. this will be an expansion pack if it's added (money talks, and more money talks smoother.)

at 4.35 am, this post is way too long, and I'm very tired. Hope you enjoyed reading it, sorry if I wasted your time.

~:wave: Welcome to the Org,

Have fun and hope to see more of your posts in the future!

The time slider has been replaced by a simple fast-forward system. Look under the kill ratio bar (which I'd mistaken for the speed slider at first).

It is quite funny to notice that people keep comparing games to others, why don't they take RTW as a brand new game?

I agree on the fact the game is a lot faster, but do you really think soldiers could "take their time" to kill their enemies. I doubt it. What has increased the killing rate is the cavalry charge in my opinion. This time they go through the lines, which is more realistic. Also don't forget Hannibal gives many valour points to his men (5 i think). Add to this the war elephants, and then it's like facing peasants with an army of knights (you also have an height advantage and attack from behind).

I greatly appreciated the "guard mode" that allows your units not to chase after routers (you need less micro managements). Sure the killing ratio bar is smaller but will you have the time to look at it ? ~;)

Let's get used to playing with this new configuration before we criticize.

They should make foot trops a litle bit slower.

Only a little bit then, because you may have noticed they tire quickly. The foot soldiers make me think about sprinters ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

~:wave: Welcome to the Org,

Have fun and hope to see more of your posts in the future!

---

Hey, that post is sufficient to get him promoted!



@soulflame
Welcome!

Hello again everyone,

Thanks for the replies, I'd like to comment on a few.

@ quadalpha:
I know the new buttons are in place and the kill ratio is still there, but the killbar is more obscure, even when I'm running at 800x640. It will be pretty hard to read in higher resolutions I think, plus the whole reason it's there is to give you a quick global overview of the battle, whereas it is now a bit hidden. Add to that, that the bar includes allied units (I heard, didn't notice myself), which has both good points and bad points. I personally like the bar without allied kills, but now I don't have the choice for that bar anymore.
Which is also the case for the new buttons. The slider gives you more option. Choice equals power (at least to those willing to make them), they just removed power from us. Why not make it the slider but put the buttons there as well, as a way to 'quickly come to a standard fast forwarding (like 33% or 66%)', making the slide jump to that speed. That way the people which like the slide can manually use the slider, and those who find the slider ambigious could just press the buttons to move the slider.


@Ldvs:
Yes, but isn't comparing necessary? How do you choose the games you like? It's probably on some distinct features. I choose Warcraft for the fantasy-comic style warfare, with nice graphics, but also lots of options (I play mostly custom trigger games, which can differ enormously, from Tower Defense to AOS's). I choose Diablo because it's item system and character development appeal to me. I play Neverwinter Nights because I get totally enveloped in playing a role with nice graphics to boot.
And I play the Total War series to immerse myself in grand historic battles and boost my ego of being a good commander (;)).
Of course Rome;TW is a new game, but does that mean it should stray from it's heritage? It's strength? The uniqueness? What if Rome;TW suddenly was a first person shooter. Would you say "Hey.. it's just a new game! Adapt! It's a good FPS!" ? I don't think so. Maybe for some people the change is less then for others, but for me and some, the change is very notable and feelable (is that a word? sorry.. I'm Dutch.)
Not all changes are bad, mind, but the demo just didn't feel like the previous games. Like I said.. I came into contact with shogun just a few months ago.. and was hooked. I was hooked more to a 4-year old game with less graphics and the old battle systems, then a demo of an upcoming game with superb graphics and the new battle systems. That tells me a lot about the atmosphere of the game.

Another problem you pose is that we should play the game a few times before judging. I agree with you that we should. But it would be disappointing if we found we misjudged Rome;TW because we expected it to be (in the end) as unique in the world of games as the previous TW games. Because right now, Rome;TW doesn't feel that unique to me.
Lastly, I will definately try to adapt, but adapting and taking the bad things 'just for sake' is not a good reason. It is then like "Well, some of the game is good, I guess I'll have to ignore the bad things and keep my head high", not a very nice idea if you want to enjoy your game.
I will buy it.. since I also like history, but I don't think I will enjoy this part in the series as much as the previous ones.

Hi people! FIRST POST!

I have been playing TW games ever since Shogun first came out. In fact I grabbed it the day it was released, thanks to some favorable magazine previews. I still have about three campaigns to finish in ME. After playing the Rome demo over and over again I don't think it has gone to the dark side.

For me, there are only 2 nagging things about the demo. The most annoying thing for me is the "sunburst" bug on ATI cards, but I guess this can be fixed easily. Another major issue I've had is the Show Unit Destination function (Spacebar) that was so useful in ME. Currently in the demo the spacebar does some weird things; and unlike in ME, the destinations only show the locations but not which unit is going where (only purple arrows and no unit holograms). I really hope this is changed eventually.

The interface. It does take getting use to for TW vets, but it's not too bad. An unit formation panel is hidden somewhere, ready to slide out. And the change to right mouse button for actions is a great decision. I believe the criticisms on unit special abilities / only the general can rally is too harsh. Special abilities is a great addition, it makes for more interesting battles. Units in the previous TW games were essentially the same, just with different graphics and stats. Now there is more variety. Excellent.

Graphics are great and the engine is very efficient IMO. I mean come on, the demo mission had army sizes equivalent to a decent battle in ME, but the graphics are smooth even though now all units are 3D. This is some great work. The game has a much better cinematic look, which brings me to the disappointing inclusion of those green arrows that shatter the illusion. Too bad.

Lastly, the AI still does some stupid things just like the the previous TW games. (eg. standing still facing the edge of the map doing nothing) ~:rolleyes:

At the end of the day, I think it'd be wise to reserve judgement until the full game is released. The improvements made on the campaign map (such as the inclusion of terrain in strategic planning) remains to be seen. So far, I must say I am enjoying what I see in the demo. Bring on the full version!

@XiaoLi

Welcome to the Org!

The opinions on the demo are split. Some of us really hope that the game would be better than the demo in terms of gameplay.

For the starburst thing, it is currently discussed at .com (yes I am a commie, so what?)
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...icID=107.topic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulflame

@Ldvs: Yes, but isn't comparing necessary? How do you choose the games you like?

---

I simply read the reviews, then try the demo if there's one available and eventually buy the game in case i find it worth it. I don't make any comparison, i take the game for what it is and not what it should be compared to another one.

I guess i don't like to do like others ~:p

Ldvs,

I may have missed it, but I don't see how Hannibal is giving +5 valor to his troops. Here are the demo stats for Trebia and it shows Hannibal and all the generals as having zero command stars:

character Caius Agricola, general, command 0, influence 0, management 0, subterfuge 0, age 23, , x 64, y 95
;character Sempronius , general, command 0, influence 0, management 0, subterfuge 0, age 23, , x 64, y 95


army
unit roman velite soldiers 60 exp 0 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit roman velite soldiers 60 exp 0 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit roman velite soldiers 60 exp 0 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit roman velite soldiers 60 exp 0 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit roman hastati soldiers 100 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit roman hastati soldiers 100 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit roman hastati soldiers 100 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit roman hastati soldiers 100 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit roman princeps soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman princeps soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman princeps soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman princeps soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman triarii soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman triarii soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman triarii soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman triarii soldiers 100 exp 4 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman light cavalry soldiers 40 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman light cavalry soldiers 40 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 0
unit roman generals guard cavalry early soldiers 10 exp 8 armour 2 weapon_lvl 2

faction carthage
character Hannibal Barca, general, command 0, influence 0, management 0, subterfuge 0, age 23, , x 64, y 95

army
unit carthaginian general's cavalry soldiers 3 exp 7 armour 2 weapon_lvl 2
unit carthaginian heavy infantry soldiers 60 exp 2 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit carthaginian peltast soldiers 70 exp 7 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit carthaginian peltast soldiers 70 exp 7 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit carthaginian heavy infantry soldiers 60 exp 2 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit carthaginian royal cavalry soldiers 60 exp 5 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit carthaginian elephant african soldiers 21 exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit carthaginian elephant african cataphract soldiers 21 exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit merc numidian cavalry soldiers 30 exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit merc barbarian infantry soldiers 80 exp 6 armour 2 weapon_lvl 2
unit carthaginian royal cavalry soldiers 40 exp 5 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit carthaginian royal cavalry soldiers 40 exp 5 armour 2 weapon_lvl 1
unit merc barbarian infantry soldiers 80 exp 2 armour 1 weapon_lvl 2
unit merc barbarian cavalry soldiers 40 exp 2 armour 1 weapon_lvl 1
unit carthaginian heavy infantry soldiers 60 exp 2 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit merc cretan archers soldiers 60 exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0

XiaoLi

"The game has a much better cinematic look, which brings me to the disappointing inclusion of those green arrows that shatter the illusion. Too bad."

Using a text editor such as notepad edit the preferences.txt file. In there change:

DISABLE_ARROW_MARKERS:FALSE to DISABLE_ARROW_MARKERS:TRUE
SHOW_BANNERS:TRUE to SHOW_BANNERS:FALSE

Now you can play the game with a better sense on realism. Also, it's worth looking for and trying the mod by Gaius Varrenus because it's very impressive to see the Roman cross the river and form up under ai control. The only problem with the mod is that the Carthaginian infantry was made too strong and it's an easy win even on very hard difficulty.

DEMO MOD BY GAIUS VARRENUS
In this demo you will be able to:

a.) skip intro scene from Battle of Trebia
b.) have the Roman army start BEFORE the the crossing of the river.
c.) instantly adds the Carthaginian sacred band to carthage
d.) larger unit sizes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie

Hey, that post is sufficient to get him promoted!



@soulflame
Welcome!

---

agreed and welcome to the org soulflame. anyways, i really don't see why the game can't be a bit slower, maybe i'm retarded but i could kill most players in the aoe series and that's an rts but, in rtw it's waaaaaaay to fast for i guess most people to handle.

My mistake then, i saw the five flags above the roman units in the tutorial battle. Wierd Hannibal is a 0 star general though ~:p

As for the demo itself, it did move rather too fast. The infantry were faster than I would have liked, but the battle itself was more fun than I had in medieval (that is, after I downloaded the play as gauls patch). I don't see lowering the movement speed for units to be an impossible mod for players to do, anyway.

However, I was dissapointed that, in the full version of Rome, you can't play as all the factions. To me, being able to play as countires like the Sicilians, Hungarians, and Aragonese is what made medieval a great game. I don't really care about balance, starting off as a tiny country and dominating the world is more satisfying to me. Hopefully, someone will release a patch that lets you play as anyone.

That, and what I've heard about druids being in the game had better be a joke.

The only real flaw the demo has is the terrible voice acting, especially the Romans, seems to me theyve sold out by putting in command and conquer style confirmations and given romans American accents, and the cretan archers sound like someone you would meet in the chippy, it ruins the atmosphere, luckily it can be switched off, but what happened to the voices in MTW? they would actually be more suitable for the romans then the voices they have now!
Is it possible these voices are just for a US version of the game?

I hope you are wrong. I hope you are VERY wrong. Have you ever listened to dutch voice acting in games? Believe me.. it's not pretty.. it's a Total Mess!

The way it is the accents are all over the place, they need to be either standardised to the country they are in or speak the proper languages (not practical though, but at least for the romans, 3 factions with a single set of voiceovers) , but at least make the voice acting fit the atmosphere, not a single voice over of a single american (or similarly displaced voice) shouting the unit name, in the previous games you could just about here the leader of the unit shouting orders, it sounded like voices coming from the battlefield, the voices in RTW sound like something dubbed over a hong kong action movie and for the most part suck. although the voice over for the battle and tutorial are good, which only makes the rest sound even tackier!

Ill just switch it off if the voices are the same in the full game, its just a pity.
It really takes away from the game and makes it seem less real and more like a game.

To much reading, I give up. ~:joker:

Hmm.. voices.

I don't even listen to the voices in MTW anymore. There is only two sounds I listen for while battling:

o The sound of archers firing (that way I can tell when they run out without constantly comparing the size of those little thermometers on their icons)
o The sound of retreat horns going off (to tell when I'm blowing it, or I'm crushing the other side).

I'm a 'lets read the reviews' kinda guy.

And the why? I've played a fair number of games in the last 10 years (I don't watch TV.. so its either reading or playing games @ home when not interacting with my wife).. I've found that demos frequently are very very different from the released games. Not always.. but enough to make me only trust reviews of games. To this end I read PC Gamer and frequent www.gamezone.com. I've found that by cross-referencing those sources my 'hit-rate' on really great gaming has been in the 95% range.

I also find that I buy less games since I'm so happy and so involved with what I have. So I'll wait and read the reviews. I just don't play demos anymore.

And finally.. I must be really wierd. As long as I can see what is going on, graphics that are 'more basic' just don't bother me. Starcraft is still a superb game, and I still play it. Yes, the graphics 'look dated', but man is that a fun game. Whenever I play CnC:Generals with my friends, and our powerful systems still start chugging because of the complexity of the graphics, I wish for a switch to put it in 'look dated' mode so that I get a responsive game rather than a slide show that is barely playable. And I have a fairly fast rig!

Ahh well.

Have to admit do not get why people say they have sold out by having voice confirmations upon selection it does not bother me one iota and kind of like it.

They need to add another speed option like half normal speed or 3/4 speed and that would be nice.

The Idea that only the General can stop people from routing makes sense to me and I kind of like it as well.

Also this is a demo to showcase some of the potential that the game has and from what I have played it has a lot. Anyway I am going back to medieval now have to egyptians to massacre.

@soulflame: You're right. I just thought you might have missed it.

What I miss is the way the mini map could be resized in MTW, and the way the 'Paused' box could be moved. In MTW, you felt that the buttons were just overlays on the battle, but now the battle feels stuck in the box with that big opaque slab taking up the bottom of the screen.

Like i said, ill switch em off, but its a pity they werent made more authentic sounding, american roman units, english cretans and scottish barbarians just dont cut it imho. it makes the game seem less polished.
But i dont think anyone will not buy it based on that, as long as the roman advisors aret voiced by country and western singers!

Im sure the gui can be redone similar to the MTW, did anyone notice the gui the computer operators (not the big screen) were using in time commanders? looked smaller on screen