The future of TW series - as I see it ;-)

The release of the demo triggered contrasting reactions; some of us feel confused and disappointed while others are happy with the demo and just cant wait to play the game. Obviously some major changes were introduced; some feel happy with that some are completely disappointed. Why? Also there is a fair amount of guesswork going on to find out where is exactly CA (and Activison) heading with this game. Obviously what comes here is part of this guesswork but I feel that it is fairly logical and consistent with what we can see at the moment. Also it has some painful conclusions for all those who loved the TW series for the depth of tactical battles.

So what is up with all the changes? Before we dive deep into the theory lets pin down the facts for those who think it is all about the green highlighting and the RTS style camera view.

1, The ENTIRE INTERFACE of the tactical battles was redesigned. Not a single old TW feature was kept.
- The icon system has been changed
- The unit controls have been changed
- The minimap has been changed
- The unitcontroll icons have been changed
- RTS camera set as default
- And of course, last but not least :) the (in)famous green highlighting

2, Game play has been changed
- Units run faster (with a lame reason that maps getting larger)
- Units kill faster
- Units have „special abilities” (warcry, flaming arrows for Cretan archers that can ignite solders!!!)
- „fantasy units” have been introduced (druids, war dogs, chosen axmen, flaming pigs, etc)

3, Unit names were kept simple. No more „nodachi”, or „naginata”, but we have „barbarian mercenaries”, „barbarian swordsmen”, „barbarian warbands”, „barbarian light cavalry”, „barbarian heavy cavalry”, „barbarian whatnot”, etc.

After seeing all these changes some of the old vets hold their head in their hands asking „why o’ why?”, while some says „why not? after all it is a new game it is logical that it comes with a new interface”.

First of all it is not logical. The logical move would have been to keep the those features that proved to be useful and try to improve the system building on them, instead of getting rid of the entire system as it is.

So why was this radical change necessary? Where is CA heading with all these changes? Well, the answer or part of the answer is obvious: to seek the favour of RTS fans, but lets not run ahead with the story. To understand the real problem we have to see the paradox of TW, which is as follows:

- The TW series have the best tactical engine (I am sure we all can agree on this ~:) ).
- The multiplayer part was always the weakest market for the TW series.

So the PARADOX OF TW is that „The best tactical game engine has an insignificantly small MP community”.

Considering that anno they put so much effort into developing the tactical engine it is easy to see that it is an unsustainable situation on the long term. The very strength of the TW series can attract only a few hundred players while the less refined SP part was able to attract a lot larger fan base.

„What to do?” asked peeps at Activision HQ. I am sure they did not have to think hard or search too far. There are MP games with lot larger fan base, most of them RTS or RPG style of games. The solution is simple: turn the MP part into a RTS style of game (after all RPG style is bit more difficult to achieve).

The flip side of the coin is that they have to carry out this move while keeping their SP market. Luckily for them it is not near as impossible as it seems. While most SP players enjoy the tactical battles, they have other focus (namely the strategic aspects of the game), some of them even runs the battles on autocalc, etc. Also the changes introduced into the tactical part are more forgiving for SP players than to MP players. The typical SP reaction is „why don’t you guys use the pause button?” Indeed, why not? The SP player can pause the battle, hand out orders, can search for his flanking cavalry in the chaos of battle, can regroup his formation, can reassign groups that were lost after routing and rallying, etc. Why not? So what is this fuss about? So far so good for CA. Of course, to make sure to keep- if not increase- the SP market they will give all (or almost all) the changes the SP community asked for: improved diplomacy, improved alliances, improved trading, improved naval transport, improved strategic map, etc.

So here we can see the outline of a two-pronged attack, it is so clever and cunning, it is almost diabolic. I like it for sure. ~:rolleyes:

The first part is to INCREASE the depth of the strategic campaign to keep the recent fan base and win over the fans of empire building games like EU2, Civilisation, etc.
The second part is to DECREASE the depth of the tactical battles, turn them into an RTS-like or RTS battles and thus win over the fans of various RTS games.

Now the COMBINED market of these fan bases is something to be worth to aim for.

Consequences for game development:
- They wont incorporate anything suggested by the recent MP community. Simply because it is not their target group any longer.
- They will do their best to please the SP gamers. So SP guys and gals don’t be shy!!!
- They will do their best (in fact they did their best) to turn MP into a RTS style game.
- They will do their best to give more and more eye candy, so expect even more special effects, 3D animations, etc.
- In the foreseeable future there will be no improvement concerning the tactical engine. In fact, THE TACTICAL ENGINE IS TOO GOOD (!!!) for the RTS like game they want to use it. (And even so the tactical AI will look like a genius compared to the rush fest of RTW MP! Lets face it, they put a lot effort and time into the tactical engine and it did not pay back, it managed to attract only a few hundred people.)

Consequences for the community:
- SP base will be even stronger
- Old MP vets will slowly disappear (or stay here but play only MTW or even go back to STW).
- There will be a large new MP community, needles to say mostly RTS fans.
- The gap between SP and MP players will be even larger.

So what to do if you are planning to play RTW MP?

- buy yourself a fast mouse
- Do as Vanya suggested all the time: select all units, put them in wedge formation (if you can!), double (right!) click on the enemy general

CHAAAAaaaaRRRRRRRRGGgggggeeeEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! ~:joker:

Good Luck and Have Fun …

Agreed on most of ur points but I wouldnt worry to to much about the names and the infamous or (in)famous lol green highlighter because I'm sure with all this master modders correct names will be added and green will be gone.

Hopefully we will see a Gnome editor for this game, extreamly handy in MTW.

I disagree.

Only one flaw in your cunning assessment of SP... that they like it.

As you know I have been me!

ie ranting, poking tongues, making fun and occasionally saying something of use or digging up a reference to back something up.

So you all know I am complaining about the tactical interface and the way things are going towards Diablo II... now for those not in the know head over to the Arena forum and check out the Diablo II thread... it is where MTW players are trying to make a Diablo II group to play with each other on the BattleNet servers... I really like DII.

Anyhow I have never played MP. I am SP. The campaign for me gives more depth to the tactical combat, it gives me objectives. I like tactical combat, I like variety in my games too. Pause is for me in SP a necessary evil. Before I used to be on call 24/7... I was an elite IT support technician and that is part of why I gripe about poor support from others as it is way beneath my professional standard. So call from million dollar client pause game or turn off shower... now I am teaching ESL... pause is for my wife a far more demanding form of client. But pause is not a way for me to play the game, I do not want to pause 24 times a second so I can play the game properly.

So in short I play SP and I play it because it is one of the few games out there with tactics and strategy.

:saint:

If RTW is indeed an RTS, then it is a failure at it. I don't know if Navaros is still around, but I'm sure some of you remember his strongly worded complaints about MTW. IIRC, he is a big RTS fan. One of his biggest complaints about MTW was that once the battle started "you can't do anything anymore" - something that is definitely NOT true about an RTS game. On some other generic gaming boards I've heard similar comments made about STW/MTW, so Navaros is not alone in his viewpoint. Those little guys in an RTS will fight to the last man. There are no flanks and there is no routing in an RTS, so those very important TW concepts are alien to the RTS gamer. The fast clicking RTS gamers will be stunned to learn that their fast click has to be intelligent too. "Why are my stupid men running!?" they will exclaim. Followed by "Dumb game!" (or worse). With the speed at which RTW units run and kill, this complaint about not being able to do anything once the battle started is magnified even more. No, I don't think RTS fans will bask in the glory of RTW's speed - no matter how fast they can click.

Similarly, I've read comments on the above mentioned generic boards (and in some RTW previews) about the awkward camera & unit controls of the TW series. So what is wrong with providing control features and keys that RTS fans will find familiar? After all, as you continuously point out, there are a LOT more RTS gamers than TW gamers, if they are indeed the target audience to expand the TW brand. These large numbers of RTS fans is also a valid reason for making the RTS controls the default. One of the biggest pains about learning a new game is learning how to control the game. By including the RTS options, they make the game that much more accessible to those gamers. They can concentrate more on learning the complexities of RTW rather than fighting the interface first.

About those hideous green arrows: I didn't much care for them either and wondered why CA felt they were needed. Until I saw how jumbled combat can get. Gone are the nice neat formation of STW & MTW. In RTW, the units mingle - A LOT. And they can get quite scattered too. One click on the unit banner brings up all those green arrows and then you can see how badly your unit formation (or lack thereof) is. The arrows also can give you a quick idea as to the facing of the unit - another thing that may be hard to tell in the chaos that is combat in RTW.

I could comment on a few other items, but that will have to be for another time (maybe ~:) ). Making the TW games accessible to other gamers is not dumbing the game down. Also, it is not very open-minded to think that features in those "other" (lesser) games are not worthy of a TW game. Other types of games have good ideas too.

Now, if CA would just slow down the RTW units enough so I can get in a double click on an enemy unit before it moves out from underneath my pointer, I'd be a little happier. ~:wacko:

I dont know what you guys are talkin about , I played the gaul vs romans trebia mod and once all those 3000 total infantry were engaged it lasted several minutes of melee. Now imagine with 10000 as the engine promises it can handle. Engagements will last awhile. Your basing your opinions on battle speed with 180 spearmen and some uber cavalry vs 1000 much lower valor and other trait romans. maybe im wrong... If you do make melee longer though cavalry charges will play a bigger role in the game, unless you want to make those less effective also.

10,000 is normally an eight way MP battle... it very rarely got close to that many in MTW (which can handle that number) as maybe only two combatants plus a single ally where involved.

To get 10,000 regularly would require a different way of sorting how many units can be fielded and how many factions turn up... maybe the senate faction will help boost numbers on the field now and again...

While I agree with the assumption that CA is attempting to woo RTS gamers (they said it themselves), its certainly not true that SP TW players are happy or have any kind of dislike or lack of need for the tactical engine.
Similarly, I don't expect RTS gamers to like the new interface or find it any easier than the old style.

I play SP only & the tactical engine is vital to my enjoyment of it.

I can't understand how RTS players could come into Rome with the RTS camera & not fight the interface.

The beautiful thing about (especially Medieval) TW is that the complex tactical battles are almost entirely mouse controlled & have decently free camera movement.
I have been playing for years just with the only keys used being shift, ctrl, ctrl-a, space, pause, esc. and g.
Shogun needed / and * too but Medieval fixed that with the scroll wheel controling camera height. Similarly, I now use ctrl-t fairly often now but played perfectly happily for years without it as the mouse slider was well up to the task.

Its my opinion that Shogun & Medieval did so well is precisely because of both the depth of play and the great, simple, mouse driven interface.

I can't stand to play RTSes anymore for exactly that reason.
The RTS interfaces are horribly complicated & require so much effort to do simple things like move 100 people across the map in a coherent group.

The TW interface let you even move several hundred in perfect formation with two simple clicks so you can concentrate on stuff like flanking.

The only thing awkward about the old TW camera is learning that the bottom 1/3 of the side of the screen strafes the camera & the top 2/3 turn it.

i always used WASD in both shogun and medieval to strafe the camera around, and mouse to rotate. Much simple, and you can do other stuff wiht you mouse while you use keys.

and i rely on mods to make up for stupidies CA come up with, btw wardogs arent entirely fantasy either are flaming pigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

and i rely on mods to make up for stupidies CA come up with, btw wardogs arent entirely fantasy either are flaming pigs.

---

That's true, but their actual historical use was so minor that it's almost non-existant, so including them when other more worthy subjects are overlooked suggests that realism was a minor concern when selecting units for the game. They add to the gimmick factor, giving extra and somewhat amusing eye candy, but I strongly believe that pigs belong on the dining table and not the battlefield. Dogs should just guard the table while I'm eating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

That's true, but their actual historical use was so minor that it's almost non-existant, so including them when other more worthy subjects are overlooked suggests that realism was a minor concern when selecting units for the game. They add to the gimmick factor, giving extra and somewhat amusing eye candy, but I strongly believe that pigs belong on the dining table and not the battlefield. Dogs should just guard the table while I'm eating.

---

All of this is nothing new.What about battlefield Ninja(The ones that could turn invisible ,if standing still.) ;Sword Saints ,and the Organ Gun ? Don't recall having read too much about those things dominating the battlefield of medieval Europe.

I am just an SP gamer, and I'm appaled. And while I fought to win, I wanted to win historically, danm it! The SP is nothing without the battles, as Civ 3 is better diplomacy wise. CA is digging there grave, and I wish they wouldn't torture us while they do it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I am just an SP gamer, and I'm appaled. And while I fought to win, I wanted to win historically, danm it! The SP is nothing without the battles, as Civ 3 is better diplomacy wise. CA is digging there grave, and I wish they wouldn't torture us while they do it to.

---

How do you know Civ 3 is better diplomacy wise?

This SP guy is not shy.

Originally there were occasions when casualties seemed to occur too swiftly but after many plays involving prolonged melees I’m not so sure.

The run speeds are too fast. The scooting units look especially silly from afar and change the feel and pace of the game. This needs to be fixed.

That said, if CA slows the unit run speeds (and brightens the selected icons in the panel), I’ll be a happy camper. I would turn the radar off if I could. I seldom use it but I can ignore it. Toggling the interface panel all together would be best. I do not understand the groaning about the interface. It is not a disaster even if it isn’t what everyone wants. I have already mastered the cameras. People are WAY too wrapped up about the term “RTS camera”. LET IT GO! So long as the tactics are in one place and the strategy is somewhere else this CANNOT be an RTS. If the interface happens to share some aspects of certain popular games (God forbid), so what?

The green arrows we can turn off. The banners we can turn off. The camera has options. This is all good stuff!

MP will have a problem, as always, with mods and versions. Every MP game does. TW MP is a small crowd unlike, say, Unreal Tournament, so this fact compounds their trouble. The bitching over MP unit balance hasn’t begun yet but rest assured, it will. I sympathize with my MP cousins but none of this is new to Rome.

The manor in which people have been extrapolating demo issues into vast conspiracies is remarkable. As always, we continue to heartily entertain those devs who chose to visit.

Regarding some of Cheetah’s statements:

Velites, hastate, principes and triarii are not simplified names. In Shogun, arquebusiers were never called teppo like they could have been. Other units likewise had “simple” names. CA has always mixed the names around for a bit of flavor but has never used actual local vernacular in every case.

Special abilities. Ninjas had a special hiding ability in Shogun. Certain cavalry units could dismount in Medieval. These features were not called special abilities but that’s what they were. Having a toggle on the interface labeled as such is not a problem. This is one more case of getting wrapped around the axel over something trivial that is brought up because it reminds someone of Warcraft. Some abilities I dislike (flaming arrows), but there have always been some things I don’t like.

CA is on record as saying that they expect campaign battles will be less frequent but more important. I can’t quote chapter and verse on this but I am certain I read it in an interview. It might have been Michael DePlater. Anyway, this conspiracy idea about nerfing the tactical game in order to enhance the strategic game is laughable! We haven’t seen the strategy game yet, fer chrisakes! And besides, the tactical battles are still the sine qua non of TW. There is no evidence, none at all, that tactical battles have become less important in Rome.

In closing, if they fix unit run speed, wouldn’t Rome be fine? Isn’t every other issue really trivial?

Very well said, Nelson(although I still think run speeds are not too fast, I don´t want grandfathers and on my PC the animations look fine aswell ~;) )

Hey, I only play SP and I am near-disgusted with some of the gimmicks that are present in the demo and will presumably be in the game - like those unit names, unit voices, finnicky UI, etc. I appreciate the improvements that have been made to the strategic campaign, but it is very shallow with such a crap tactical battle situation.

I might not buy RTW if people get the game and say "it is just like the demo" or "it is very similar to the demo".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

If the interface happens to share some aspects of certain popular games (God forbid), so what?

---

I could care less what it copies from other games, doesent change the fact that it offers less versatility and functionality and is just as bulky as before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

In closing, if they fix unit run speed,killing speed, UI, speed slider,wouldn’t Rome be fine? Isn’t every other issue really trivial?

---

I do remember seeing a post on one of the gamespot forums that went something like:

"I don't usually like that kind of game but rtw is awesome"

So they are obviously attracting new people.

Quote:

---

campaign battles will be less frequent but more important

---

What idoicy. Why would CA do this? Haven't they ever heard of skirmishing? Oh good lord, hand me my gun now. Now whether I use it on myself or use it to threaten certain people to fix the game is still up in the air. ~:(

The problem I have with the special abilities is that they really resemble the special abilities in Warcraft3, i.e. they make the game a clickfest. Look at the other thread about the Celt ability Warcry. Dismount/remount you did before the battle. Ninja's hide ability is automatic. Stuff like warcry requires that a player click them again and again in the battle for the unit to be effective. You will have to click the special abilities again and again during the battle. Warcraft3 is a clickfest and RTW is copying the heavy clicking parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Hey, I only play SP and I am near-disgusted with some of the gimmicks that are present in the demo and will presumably be in the game - like those unit names, unit voices, finnicky UI, etc. I appreciate the improvements that have been made to the strategic campaign, but it is very shallow with such a crap tactical battle situation.

I might not buy RTW if people get the game and say "it is just like the demo" or "it is very similar to the demo".

---

I agree 100%

SO the main point of Cheetah´s post is that it will bad for MP players. Strange, did anyone have a look at MP battles without me hearing from it before?
I agree that the main point about the battles of TW are the tactical possibilities and I also agree that there isn´t much of it in Trebia. What a surprise! The Romans are right in front of you and there´s no time to make tactical decisions? How can that be? Seriously, if one had a lot of options the moment Trebia starts, THAT would be inaccurate.

In many ways RTW will be LESS RTS than MTW. It´s not about killing all enemies or even routing them, no we have tactical positions. How gamey! In sieges we will face huge cities instead of just a castle where you ask yourself "what the heck does that have to do with London?". Units are much more realistic now. Instead of forming massive blocks, the individual men in a unit have much more flexibility. Units can shove into each other. Cavalry doesn´t any longer stop at the side of a unit. You may declass the 3D-graphics as mere eyecandy, but truth is that it´s much more. It adds a lot of realism to the gameplay. Realism that isn´t there in MTW and in common RTS-games.
The only point, really the only one, about going into the wrong direction is the speed of movement. Given the massive improvements, I can accept that.

It's really baffling to see the endless complaining and misery on these boards... do many of y'all live somewhere with trees, clouds, wind, things like that? Go take a walk, play some football with your mates, lie on the grass while it's green (btw, it's still summer!) and look at the clouds (or lack thereof, wherever you are).

I'm with Saturnus -- I like the green arrows, I love the mixing of troops on the field, I've played with MODROME enough to know for sure that a lot of the whinging about killing speed is hot air, and I'm beginning to wonder whether I should suggest to my grad student friend that his Doctorate in psychology could be studying paranoia in the gaming community.

No Tamur, I wait until school starts to do that, instead of taking classes. ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

No Tamur, I wait until school starts to do that, instead of taking classes. ~:joker:

---

lol ~D I keep trying to convince myself that I'm going to focus on school this year, but there are so many other things to worry about... like playing football, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

So what is wrong with providing control features and keys that RTS fans will find familiar? After all, as you continuously point out, there are a LOT more RTS gamers than TW gamers, if they are indeed the target audience to expand the TW brand. These large numbers of RTS fans is also a valid reason for making the RTS controls the default. One of the biggest pains about learning a new game is learning how to control the game. By including the RTS options, they make the game that much more accessible to those gamers. They can concentrate more on learning the complexities of RTW rather than fighting the interface first.

---

You're right, luring more gamers into buying their game is exactly what they want. BUT, why are they only focusing on the new players?

Sure, they threw in 'TotalWar Controls', but are they really TotalWar Controls? If the game played like 'vets' feel it should, would there even be debate? I use the term vets to refer to people who are very familiar with the other 2 games. So fine, bring up the argument that this is a new game. But why does it appear there was an attempt to give the player the option to play how they have in MTW, but this isn't obviously achieved? Its not like they don't know how to accomplish it, they've done it twice.

So why do I mention so much that is obvious? Exactly what Cheetah is saying, and has said already. The needs of the few are being overlooked for the recruitment of many. Great strategy right now, right? Well what about later when their focus shifts even less from the Tactical Engine because all those who cared the most about it have since given up and moved on, thus not being the "balance" to CA's "check" of their performance in this area. Then the game becomes more like what? An RTS.

And how well would they perform in the RTS market...like Cheetah already said, they'd be a little fish in a big pond. This whole argument/post by him is to further shed light on this. Does it matter? Nah. ~:p Sorry m8, but we're in the 'few', and our needs/wants aren't as important as the many. The focus from a business point of view is good right now by CA, but once part of their market is gone (the MP players), and they have less of a loyal fanbase, they better have a very solid product, because there won't be many people left who "have to buy that". Then where's the stability?

And don't take it personal Gregoshi. Just used your words to make a point. ~;)

About special abilities for units – I actually think it is historically correct and improves the reality factor of the game.
For example, can you imagine such unit as naked fanatics forming testudo formation? Or german night raiders forming phalanx or wedge formations?

Actually, the special abilities reflect exactly the way each different unit was trained (if at all) and fought a battle those days.

So I think it is very welcomed feature. It is much more realistic and puts additional tactical depth to the game.

And about warcry before charge – I don’t think you will have to click on warcry over and over again during one battle – I hope this ability could be used only once through the battle. :knight:

Quote:

---

For example, can you imagine such unit as naked fanatics forming testudo formation? Or german night raiders forming phalanx or wedge formations?

---

No because these units never existed... thus they can't form any formations. Special abiltities are just plain dumb when you have to click on them to activate it. Give warbands some moral bonus, and mabye make the Romans afraid of them, but don't make me click on it.
edit:About those naked fanatics, I'm not saying no Celt, Gaul or German fought naked, but certaintly not enough to make a unit out of it.

http://www.isle-of-skye.org.uk/celti...ia/celt_c3.htm


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I'm not saying no Celt, Gaul or German fought naked, but certaintly not enough to make a unit out of it.

---

Is that a pun? ~:p ~:joker: I like the special abilities. It gives a bit more realism if you think only about the phalanx and testudo. How else would you form a testudo if not have some button or something to click to activate it? And, if there was no button, would you expect that the phalanx could run in formation? Nope, so its either not have it, or make it a toggle so you can use it at will, while not making it seem like men could run in phalanx formation. And if the alternative is to just make it impossible for them to move quicker than they do in the phalanx, no thanks, I wouldn't ever use that unit then.

And something that I've been thinking about recently: realism in terms of unit abilities shouldn't take away from gameplay. What I'm talking about is, have you noticed how long it takes for units to respond to commands? Sure its more realistic, but it takes away from gameplay. I'm a bit on the fence on this one, as it sort of does have a good side to it, in that strategy comes into play more, as a wrong move with a unit is much worse. This is one thing that we've been asking for, for strategy to mean more.

But...on the other side, there are certain playstyles that aren't going to be possible. Like how will you effectively get rid of missle units without just plain beating them with other missles? The cav skirmish won't work the same. You won't just be able to rush your opponents' missles, hit them, kill and rout them, then withdraw your cavalry...unless your opponent is very bad, or using the restroom. The skirmishing style of play is going to be very difficult now, which I think will hurt some players and some factions as well. It will be harder for the Parthians, for instance, if it plays out like I think it will.