Gameplay/Realism balance -a message to the developers

It seems that many people believe that having 100% realism in a mod for RTW does not detract from gameplay at all. This is simply not true, or at least not completely. I enjoyed playing RTR for a while but I became bored with the uniform unit roster of the Eastern factions. Historically, yes they were the successors of Alexander and used Greek hoplite tactics, but the problem with that is well...THEY'RE BORING!!! I wasn't a big fan of phalanx units in Vanilla RTW, but when RTR doubled or even tripled the number of them, I just tuned out and went back to Vanilla. So what if a faction is chariot based or something, like the "Egyptians" were in vanilla Rome? The variety was nice, and it really pissed me off that they pulled catapults (Onagers) from the game. Those were my favorite units. To me, nothing in the game was more fun than setting buildings ablaze during sieges using my Onagers. I was also bothered by the removal of Testudo formation from the Romans. How can anyone possibly think that none of these things will be missed? Another thing that bugged me about RTR was the sheer number of provinces in it. I got bored playing siege after siege and rarely fighting a battle on an open field.

That said, I am happy that mods like EB and RTR add a new level of realism to Rome Total War, but nothing is good when taken to the extreme. I don't enjoy first person shooters in which the player is killed with one shot either. There needs to be a balance of realism and fun. I've already stated my main complaints, but beyond that I agree that RTW needed to be much, much more realistic, and bug fixes were definitely in order. And yes, I am glad to see some of those dumb units like incendiary pigs, screeching women, and head hurlers removed and replaced with more realistic units.

It's your mod, and ultimately you guys can do whatever the hell you want with it, but I think if you heed my advice that you will attract many fans who were put off by RTR for the same reasons I was, and still satisfy most fans who are looking for a more realistic experience in Rome: Total War.

I hope you consider what I said here, but no matter what, you have my full support and I appreciate what you are doing for the Total War community.

In my oppinion EB is a mod from very experienced players or progamers for other players (or AI abusers like me :laugh4: )who miss the realism and challange in RTW. Even VH/VH in RTW was very easy not even to compare with EB in Medium setting.
I like this Mod very much. It gives me a little bit more challenge then RTW or BI. (Okey, the solution with 30.000 mnai per turn for the AI isn´t perfect and there are some problems with bribe and 1.2 AI) But at least it gives a challenge.
But I get some friends trying out the EB mod, too. And they think it is too hard, even on MD/MD. The AI sended stack after stack to attack them. In EB you have nealy 0 chance if you don´t rush the AI with your starting army. It is not made for common hobbie gamers (most players) in my oppinion.

Yes, but some people like apples, while others like oranges. I personally like both, so I eat a lot of fruit salads (aka play both vanilla and EB).

EB probably isn't the mod for you then. We're trying to make a realism mod, not attract fans. If vanilla is more your style than have all the fun with it you want, more power to you. If you want to make a personal mod and mix stuff from 20 other mods go for it, but EB will always be a realism mod first, and gameplay will only be secondary.

EDIT: (attrach is not a word!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

EB probably isn't the mod for you then. We're trying to make a realism mod, not attrach fans. If vanilla is more your style than have all the fun with it you want, more power to you. If you want to make a personal mod and mix stuff from 20 other mods go for it, but EB will always be a realism mod first, and gameplay will only be secondary.

---

Yeeyuhhh.

You see, EB isn't a multiplayer mod, so EB doesn't have to worry about attracting droves of fans in order to keep the game alive. And EB isn't a product for sale, so they don't have to worry about losing customer base!

Keep up the good work Qwerty!

Realism for life.

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9...tonyg4lyfe.jpg

EB is a multiplayer mod, or will be once we have the MP changes in our EDU. You'll see balance in that respect, because we can make the custom battle costs different from the in-game costs. And will, so that the costs reflect their battlefield impact, rather than the costs designed to have gameplay reflect history to an extent in the campaign.

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

---

With these realism mods, yea. These kind of mods are for history buffs and people in love with how the ancient world really was. It brings a sense of greater sense of immersiveness and authenticity.

This is where the word "sim/simulator" comes into play with computer games.

Operation flashpoint is a modern day infantry combat simulator, and in that game, gameplay does come second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

---

We'd rather it be right than fun, ie. no chariot mounted seige weapons, no matter how cool it might be. We don't seem to find the two incompatable all that often though.

No its not secendory.
I and propably most of EB members thinks that REALISM = GAMEPLAY.
So more realism more gameplay for me.
I for example love 1st person shooters in witch 1 bullet in head or chest kills you. And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you. But yea i like realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

We'd rather it be right than fun, ie. no chariot mounted seige weapons, no matter how cool it might be. We don't seem to find the two incompatable all that often though.

---

The perfect answer :2thumbsup:

Fun (gameplay) and realism are usually NOT mutually exclusive ~;), and many times are synergetic.

EB is not a mod for the masses. It's a specialized mod. It's not meant to unite all RTW players under a single banner, but rather rally the few who are in search of a more historically sound game. And heck, it may attract a few non-historical up-tights who just thought the game was cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

No its not secendory.
I and propably most of EB members thinks that REALISM = GAMEPLAY.
So more realism more gameplay for me.
I for example love 1st person shooters in witch 1 bullet in head or chest kills you. And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you. But yea i like realism.

---

That's another way to put it. And yea, I follow the project reality mod for Battlefield 2.

i hav found that the added realism in EB is what makes it such a fantastic mod. i mean, look how much better the gameplay is in EB when all they were really trying to do is make the most realistic game possible using the engine. as far as i am concerned gameplay is directly proportional to realism.

Well, I play EB because it is the hardest, in my oppinion best Mod around.
Realism isn´t that important to me and I will still play EB if there were fantasy units integrated in the game (I like the thought of fighting Amazons as elite units very much and miss the easteregg in RTW a little :laugh4:).

Of course you can´t say that realism = fun in general but it is not so that you can say that realism is not fun either.

I like to play shooters too, especialy counterstrike and battlefield. But in these games it is still not realistic in extreme. You can still run and act normal with 1% heals as with 100% e.g. (Yes, they are still much more realistic than Unreal or Quake :P).

I like EB as it is now and the historic text infos are nice to read.
But Of course I still expect a much better gameplay with the next patches ^__^

BTW: Playing on VH battle settings has nothing to do with realism =)

Quote:

---

And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you.

---

Well I believe there needs to be a balance between realism and gameplay, in any game. I agree that it's ridiculous for fifty bullets not to kill the player, but on the other hand the player should not usually be instantly killed by a single bullet either unless it's in the head. If it's from a high-powered rifle, that makes sense if it's anywhere in the torso or head, since a rifle shot will typically penetrate all but the heaviest body armor. If shot in the arm or leg, it should cause some sort of handicap. But a couple rounds in the chest from a pistol, SMG, or even a shotgun should not kill someone wearing body armor. That isn't realistic either. Even if it was, it would be extremely frustrating in a singleplayer game, and probably multi too.
For instance, I enjoyed playing MOHAA online because I found it to have a perfect balance between realism and gameplay. You can get shot a few times and survive, but it doesn’t take a whole clip to kill someone either, especially at close range. Also, the frag grenade damage radius was quite realistic too. I’ve often found grenades to be nearly useless in multiplayer, but that wasn’t the case in MOHAA. They were quite lethal when used in the right situations.

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

Never forget we play games because reality is lacking something...

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

---

haha, that would be a funny game.. i'd play it once at least!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

Never forget we play games because reality is lacking something...

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

---

I think I'd rather play that than a Rambo-style FPS, but I suppose that's why I'm an EB member.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

I think I'd rather play that than a Rambo-style FPS, but I suppose that's why I'm an EB member.

---

ditto qwerty, only i'm not an EB member. the shooter i had most fun with was ghost recon. the reason: if you got shot, you died, or at least were injured and unavailable for a little while. it actually required sound tactics to make it through a mission with your squad alive, unlike other games where as long as you can handle a rocket launcher decently enough you could dominate the game.

America's Army was good in this respect. A head shot = you're dead, but you might survive some other things, at least a couple of times. You died, you had to sit around and watch everybody else. Takes teamwork and tactics to win, not bunny-hopping and launching infinite rockets.

Flashpoint all the way when it comes to FPSs.

Quote:

---

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

---

Bleeding to death (if no medical attention is available) is an integral part of the ECP mod for OFP :grin:

Yeah, OFP is great! Was fun when an arm hit made it impossible to aim, or a leg hit forced you to crawl for the rest of a mission! I second whoever said it above (Qwerty I think) - REALISM = GAMEPLAY. Reality is so much more complex and interesting than dumbed down things, but dumbed down simulations can be interesting for training skills at more complex and realistic solutions. Realistic games/mods give both a possibility to learn stuff, forces you to think through your strategies more because of the extra complexity, and finally still maintains basic ideas of dumbed down gameplay versions such as spear beats cav, cav beats infantry, infantry beats cav, although here time, morale, fatigue and so on matters more than in RTW, and the difficulty level is higher.

Quote:

---

America's Army was good in this respect. A head shot = you're dead, but you might survive some other things, at least a couple of times. You died, you had to sit around and watch everybody else. Takes teamwork and tactics to win, not bunny-hopping and launching infinite rockets.

---

Yep it was good, but the problem with AA was that around 75% of the players would play it CS style, with all the jumps, rushs etc, thus getting killed in the 1st minute and ending the possibilities of any teamwork :inquisitive:

Jumping ist totaly overpowered in all shooters. Everyone is hopping like bunnies (Well, me too :sweatdrop: ). You are much harder to hit and often even move faster.

But back to realism. I remember my friend buying a sniper game (don´t know the name now) where you could just sit and wait, often about 5-7 until anybody runs though your aim and get shoot and killed. Then you Changi Position a little, camping and waiting again...
Realistic? Yeah, a little bit. But in my oppinion boring as hell. (In real you often have to wait hours and more :dizzy2: )
He liked the game much, so there are always different tastes.

even if you don't liek EB's gamelay...just turn on custom battle and stare at the units....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9...tonyg4lyfe.jpg

---

good god...please tell me that's not you.....

haha, of course it's not jerry. just some random picture of the intarweb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

---

I agree. It would be dreadful if we really had to wait three months for a turn to pas. However, I like to play this game because I want to experience the kind of dillemas a Roman (or Seleucid or Briton or whatever) commander faced. It has to stay a game, but within that game I like realism, because for me it improves the immersion. An EB feels far more realistic than R:TW ever did.