Bad news from CA about Battles

The Shogun@

Quote:

---

"Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).

A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "

---

I'm very grateful for your their attention. As a loyal fan since The Shogun TW, i've waited for an explanation a official one and they did it.

Sorry to say but it was a my nightmare which become a true... I can understand they can't change whole the battle mechanics but they can change something. I mean especially battlefield sizes and kill rates. Kill rates is easy part. Modders can handle it.

Just an idea, they can put a option for battlefield sizes on options for custom and campaign. Big or huge. I'm sure of that they can't redesign the battlefields again.

Quote:

---

"Q. Do you plan on having an option of making the battlefields bigger for campaign battles? The option is already available for large custom and historical battles. Quite apart from that, the bits surrounding the current battlefield edge are rendered anyway, so why not let us use them?

A. No. The borders are there to allow for reinforcements massing before entry and for escaping troops to flee without simply vanishing off the edge of the terrain; they are 'being used' already. Incidentally, there were always borders around battlefields. It's just that they weren't shown with a borderline in Medieval: Total War or Shogun: Total War. "

---

Yes, there should be a border on maps for routing as a sensible fact. In fact, i'm not against to "red line" but i want some space when i play on huge or big unit size for proper maneuvering...

I dont like RTW battle philisophy. Because it is so fast, fields are narrow i cannot get a "tactical" taste from game. Many times battles are wasting time chase of routing units. Because they flee easily nearly half of them!

On huge settings you cannot make a tactical maneuver, armies also so close to each other. Totaly boring if you want to seek "decisive" battles. But older series were not the same.

And i say honestly they can fix that position without "re-imagining". This very possible because RTW is their project and they now what is possible to fix?

I'm old school TW gamer and a hater clickfest style RTS games. CA made a false decision they made the TW legend "easier" for unpatient clickfesters but we putted aside in fact TW spirit putted aside.

I'm very upset at the moment from the CA's final decision. :embarassed:

Quite true. The kill rates are ludicrous and I spend 80% of my time on the battle map hunting routers.

They really oughta fix infantry run speed too.

TW games are all about the 3D battles. (for me anyways)

But a typical battle in RTW goes something like this.
Setup, click start, enemy right in front, 30 seconds later it's all over.

The main attraction to the TW games has been ruined.
I like to play the 3d battle map manouver for position, lay an ambush etc.

Seems as though C.A. have followed so many other developers by breaking
the features that made their games great in the first place.

Why the hell do they do that ?

Quote:

---

I'm very upset at the moment from the CA's final decision.

---

Welcome to the club. Here's your hat.

The Shogun said, "The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "


I would say that BI's 80 new units is a "re-imaging" of RTW. What's needed is a "re-balancing" which apparently isn't going to be done.

*EDIT*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceTorque

The main attraction to the TW games has been ruined.
I like to play the 3d battle map manouver for position, lay an ambush etc.

Seems as though C.A. have followed so many other developers by breaking
the features that made their games great in the first place.

---

Quite true... Ironic part is CA knows what is false and rejects it what they did at their older games! :no: They are hiding behind reasons such as "re-imagining" "this is a new game". They have a company they have an experienced team which has been concentrated only developing games. They have a unique community. As an example just look to the Europa Barbarorum project. but they say no!

We know that "this is a new". It is "New" thats true but something could be changed.

Many of the fans created "mtw-rtw" comparison threads. I saw plenty of them in TWcenter, TWorg also COM. Why? Just think about it. Why we need it to compare with MTW? What were the disturbing things motivates us?

They can change many things which will become the RTW better and closer to the classic TW point. I swear if they want they can. They can claim the success again which is created before.

I wrote to COM. forums "i will not buy the expansion if you..." and i showed them reasons as a responsibility.

(Logged as Julius Augustus)

"Will you buy the expansion?"
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...art=81&stop=91

An answer came from a moderator... ~:handball:

Quote:

---

BatanguenoM@
"Please stick to the original topic/question, guys. Any more deviations will require us to do janitorial work on the thread.
Thanks. "

---

What was false on my message?

It was false because you were saying bad things about the game. ~;)

They dismiss our "input" as a minority number of TW players.
But we are only a minority in terms of being vocal about our dissapointment
with the game.
I put to C.A. that the vast majority of new and old players would enjoy
the game more and would be more inclined to buy future TW games if.

They listened to their fans and not just produce what they think we want.
just look at this new game.
http://www.mindlinkstudio.com/engine.htm

I know it's still in development but after reading about some of it's features
which have been requested in TW games for years.
e.g. Advance order, fake rout, huge battlemaps.

Why do C.A. refuse to listen to it's fans ?

Having played vanilla lan games and then Chivalry Total War lan games, I can safely say this engine rocks, and if CA can pull their finger out for just a second they could seriously improve their game in about 20 minutes of fiddling with options.

I suspect other things prevent them making it 'better'. They have to make it still work for everyone who bought the original, they have to make sure the ai at least can try and win, etc.

don't forget the vast majority of people who bought RTW never visits forums, maybe doesnt even have internet. That kind of people probably loves RTW and has a hard time beating the AI. Just like the gaming press is praising RTW to heaven.
And to those people "80 complete new units !" sounds a lot more attractive then "rebalanced gameplay and lowered battle pace !". The latter would probably scare them, if anything.


Even tho BI has some very interesting new features, I still dont feel like supporting the product by making mods for it (ChivTW). I don't feel CA deserves to be supported by the modding community. They do much too few in return. I wonder what wouldn't happened if Vercingetorix had not made his CAS editor (and all the other tools). Would CA have helped us ? if not - then the RTW community would probably have been dead already. I mean, how many of you still play RTW Vanilla (unless you're one of those people who thinks mods contain viruses that destroy your computer) ?

Imagine how much CA could gain if they would support mods 100%, like for example valve does. They could even sell special packages with mods (provided the mod teams agree), just like Valve with Counterstrike etc. They could promote mods on their own (incredibly chaotic) homepage, and catch new interest from the gaming press and community.

He is right. Most of my freinds who own RTW dont even know that any bugs exist. I have one freind who has to play as egypt against the A.I to win on hard. And it is also true. Most gamers will probably think ohhh 80 new units! Lets buy it for that. Only to get bored of it a week or two later. And on the note of mods. It really is a small percentage of RTW gamers who are really interested in Mods. When i told my freind the other day that i couldnt wait for a mod called EB for the game he replied;"What's a mod?". *sies*

Quote:

---

CA's PR departement must be completely retarded...

---

:laugh4:

I just turn off my morale when i do battles so it cuts down on people routing and it works rather well. Then enemy will stil route every now and then, but my troops wont route unless i make them, which is how i like it.

there couldn't be a bigger fan of this series than myself (ok, im not challenging anyone, but just making a point heh) but if this kind of quick answered, sarcastic attitude, with arcade gameplay continues from CA, I'm seriously out....I will find something like a Slitherine production or even A0E3

oh...I will add (would have just edited, but for some reason we can't do that here) that I only play RTR 5.4.1 now (soon to be 6.0) because vanilla 1.2 is sheer garbage. I am even planning on spending about 4 hours on MTW 1.2 tonight because I get a better challenge that way...

At least my Emperor Campaign Difficulty, Preatorian Battles (best RTR settings) germanic campaign is very much along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Trust me...RTR is the solution to all of CA's horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

I don't feel CA deserves to be supported by the modding community.

---

....And I guess there would be little to Mod at all if CA hadn't released the game eh?

Quote:

---

CA's PR departement must be completely retarded...

---

Figure of speech or not, the use of the word 'retarded' in this way I find extremely offensive and it's about time Forum Moderators did something about it. Swearing is nothing compared to this IMO

.......Orda

*EDIT*

~~~Figure of speech or not, the use of the word 'retarded' in this way I find extremely offensive and it's about time Forum Moderators did something about it. Swearing is nothing compared to this IMO~~~

Retarded: adj. "Showing or exhibiting retardation; abnormally slow in mental development; abnormally slow in action, awareness, or progress."
Why would you take offense, this is exactly how CA is handling RTW. The inability of CA to adapt will prove its undoing, Darwin was rite even in the realm of computer gaming.

They REFUSE to develop any game or expansion around what they community as a whole desires...only catering to those who don't know any better.

I mean they have NO reason whatsoever to design a game opposite what the community wants, other than to please themselves.

like it or not, if they do not design the type of game we're all looking for, I'm gone...

Slitherine games or AOE3 have both promised to pick up the ball if CA drops it and I believe them...they've detailed their plans...CA refuses to for "trademark" reasons

i like how rtw is like how it is the only thing that annoys me is the terrian since im not that smart with history so is something is historicaly incorrect i dont notice it i just have fun and i like the border line because its the only way my infrantry can get missile infantry or cavarly

Centaurion, no offense but you are EXACTLY the kind of gamer CA is banking on...you fail to notice the subtle, yet gamebreaking, major issues with the title.

I rest my case...

:help:

Quote:

---

Figure of speech or not, the use of the word 'retarded' in this way I find extremely offensive and it's about time Forum Moderators did something about it. Swearing is nothing compared to this IMO

---

For god's sake man. I think it's about time you jumped down off your horse and joined the rest of society! :furious3: Complaining about this is just, well, RETARDED! ~D
BTW, do you work for CA or any of their affiliates? You and that horse of yours, always seem to be on the CA side of the fence.

As for the RTW Exp pac, I guess we should just leave it to the dedicated horde of Lab rats out there who will be rushing out to buy it as soon as it hits the shelves, to gauge whether or not it is RETARDED!
Wait for the feedback......

Quote:

---

"Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).

A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "

---

This is pretty close to saying, "BI battles will carry all the same major flaws as RTW." That just sucks. Could have at least thrown out a few bones like fixing combat speed or something.

CA painted themselves into a corner with their schedule.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Orda on this one. Comparing CA to retards is an insult to retarded people. The stupidest people I've met in my life were ones with normal brain capacity anyhow. Y'all should get more edumakated :book:

People either modifiy your posts ASAP or accept the warning points in good grace when they are issued.

It will be a race between yourselves and your forum moderator.

If the mod has to modify your breaches of conduct expect a hefty set of warning points.

Like sport attack the ball not the person.

Bad news? There is nothing new at all. And thinking that it would be easy to enlarge the battlefield just like that is wrong, unless you have programmed the engine yourself then how much worth is your opinion? (Although I have of course found a way for Sengoku Jidai :wink: ).

About the 'retarted' issue, I rest my case by saying that people who need insults to get their point across are .........

The sad truth is, no matter how much we cry about this we are just a minoritys.
The majority doesn't care about these thing, and CA is doing this for buisiness.

Simply slowing down battlespeed wouldn't fix everything. In fact I think the stats differences between units also needs to be decreased. Units like warband, naked fanatics and peasants, which constitute the main part of all brigand armies, are a piece of cake to beat after around 20 game years. Also I think there should be a function to add time restrictions for units appearing in mercenary pools and which units rebel armies will have, so that brigands and mercenaries DON'T have to be the same all the way through the game.

In fact I'm not sure M:TW battlefields were that much larger, but the important thing is that they FELT larger, due to more varied terrain. There were not only the large hills, but also many SMALL hills that weren't enough to deploy an entire army on, but hopefully use to SOME advantage in battle. Now it's mostly large hills where you can put an entire army, and seldom more hills close to the large hills. I like the idea of generating the battle maps dynamically, but I think this first attempt needs improvements, for example by adding more variety through some appropriate algorithm. The R:TW battlefields look less geographically correct than those of M:TW IMO. If they can render battlefields with the quality, variety and correct local feeling that M:TW had, but with a dynamical system like in R:TW, that would be the best thing IMO because it gives unique maps for each map tile, and give the same map every time you fight a battle in the same location. All that said, I think the R:TW battlefields should be made larger. I never play huge unit size simply because there's no room for manouvering. If you play a phalanx faction like Macedon you can block the entire map with your phalanxes and just move forward to win the battles. As a rule of thumb, the battlemaps should at least be twice as wide as the widest single line you can form with the units available in the game if you stick to their normal unit formation depths (i.e. 5 for mac royal pikemen).

WE can rant all we want about CA´s lack of satisfactory decisions or not it simply will have no effect on their strategy so why bother? I do bother though to see my fellow comrades haggle in the way you do. Just stop, it´s not constructive. :embarassed:
However, I do feel that CA should release an open-end, completely moddable game where you can change EVERYTHING! Personally I´d spend 500$ on that copy, wouldn´t you? ~:cheers:

why can't we just spend $50 on the kind of game we're asking for?

truth is we can, just not with this franchise...I love TW and have played the franchise for years but I'm about done with it...permanently.

some other devs have the right idea...CA doesn't. Thanks Sega.