Rtw > Mtwii?

I tread softly into the fourier of my thread as I dare to blaspheme MTWII.

Seriously, though, maybe somebody else has had the same problems and has some thoughts on what to do.

I got MTWII with much anticipation, installed it and (about an hour later) jumped right in. I played for about 4 hours, gave up and went back to RTW. I haven't been back since. Why:

1. Better graphics != better gameplay. The new graphics are more realistic, dynamically lit and, well, frustrating. It's harder to see what's going on in battle for one thing. Too much fog, shadows and general murkiness. In RTW I can see my troops and the enemy clearly so I can concentrate on fighting instead of figuring out what I'm looking at. Individuals pairing off with unique animations - who cares? All it does is slow down my framerate. Badly. I have a PIV 3.4 G/512cach with 1.5G Ram and 128 on an ATI 9600. Not an uber rig, but not a shoddy one either. Point is: I spend very little time "up close" during battle. I don't care that they look more realistic. Gimme back my framerate.

2. Get on with it already. Everything is *s l o w e r*. On the campaign map, dude spends three times as much as he used to just winding up for the sword strike. Nice animation, but it takes too long. I know it sounds petty, but it's one example of the game being overall slow. Battles, notwithstanding slower framerate, take too long too. It takes much longer for horse to take down peasants than in RTW. If I have to wait this long for cav to scare off the peasants, I can't imagine what a real battle is going to be like.

3. From rags to riches. Eventually. I noticed that I ran out of money fast and made it up very slowly. In the number of turns it takes me to build up Arimium, Arretium, Segesta and take over at least Mediolanum, I'm still waiting for the queue to start up again in MTWII. Honestly, there is literally nothing to do except hit "next turn" and wait. Priests are preaching, princesses are princessing and army is waiting for the markets to actually generate income. This is first cousin to the "too slow" aspect. "Too much idle time" would be a good description.

4. First battle - mission impossible. OK, I know we're in Medieval times and everyone is past the fishing village stage so we should expect settlements to be built up, but my first assignment is to take a *rebel* "town" that is fortified with stone walls and lots of archers. None of my siege equipment survives long enough to even get close to the gate or a wall and I, of course, have plenty of pitch-fork troops but no archers because my queues are dead because what I have built isn't generating income yet, etc. etc. Basically I'm handed a mission that cannot be done until later. (much later as best as I can figure.)

And so I gave up. None of this was much fun. For me, RTW is the right pace, the right balance of graphics and playability and the right mix/balance of strategic stuff.

Has anyone else noticed anything like this as well? Or is it just me? (in which case, what am I doing wrong?)

mjl, I understand what you're saying.

1. Even though graphics are indeed nicer, I too was too much distracted or confused by it sometimes. It just wasn't so clear always because of the graphical shock and awe, but I don't think it's a big problem. A commander should know how he has placed his army.

2. It's kinda slow, yeah, but you can speed it up if I'm not mistaken. Dunno, I just click the left mouse button with my own units and I put off the Follow Other Factions Movement thing.

3. I think it's not so bad, it's alright.

4. Never had that, or maybe I didn't notice. Usually I don't fight siege battles 'cause they're annoying, especially if attacking. Defending is a lot better, but even that I don't feel like doing, unless I'm almost sure the battle's lost if I press Auto-resolve. I always had this thing to "feel" whether it was a gain or a loss with that.

So basically, you don't like this game because you are playing it wrong and/or are no good at it?
If you experience the "slowness" you describe then there is something really wrong to be honest.

At the moment, RTW is a better game imho. M2 feels like a bug-ridden expansion for the RTW, that lacks alot of cool features of the original (I for example, loved the ability to get a battlemap view of my cities in RTW).

However, RTW has been around much longer and the dev team had much more time to polish it and iron out the bugs. RTW 6 months after its release was in the same sorry state that M2 is in right now. Anyhow, my point is that given time M2 will become the better game in the series. Given time.

P.S. I have very high hopes for the 1.2 patch... *crosses fingers*

hehe, yeah, you should tread softly...

1. Strongly disagree iwth you: I like the new graphics much better than RTW. It is much more realistic not to be able to recognize your own troops on the battlefield. For framerate: decrease your graphics quality, but first: try turning off shadows, especially on units.

2. Strongly disagree with you: I like the fact that everyting is slower. Rome was way too fast for my taste. And yes - I started playing totalwar with Shogun and MTW. Everything was much slower then than in MTW even... And... it made tactics matter more.

3. Strongly disagree with you: IMHO, there is STILL too much money to go around in MTW. The better mods increase the cost of units and their upkeep to deal with that.

4. hmmmm.... My biggest hope is that patch 1.2 makes the game harder...

I think this is pretty much a question of taste and personal ability. If it's hard (maybe even a bit too hard on the higher difficulty settings) for casual gamers, and somewhat too easy for hardcore gamers, I guess CA didn't do an extremely bad job in balancing it (although hardcore gamers tend to find exploits that make it even more easy for them, like abusing the passive AI or luring the Mongols into siege battles, tsk...)
Anyways, I like the slower game pace. It's better than the arcade hackfest RTW was for me - although there are some really annoying bugs like the shield bug, with which cav slices through spear units like a hot knife through butter. Well let's hope 1.2 will make that a bit better.

To conclude: For me M2TW is a bit better than RTW, there are a few small improvements like towers that have to be controlled to fire, somewhat better pathfinding on walls and the King's Purse that make a better overall impression for me.
I can't enjoy the better graphics much by the way, because my comp is an old hag :laugh4:

as far as units showing out from the surrounding terrain and architecture and vegetation there is a real problem. compare to rome you can keep your eye on the action better because the animations are more cartoonish and stand out.

the other stuff is not so bad though.

but unless you have unit detail set on highest the elephants will not surpass the graphic clarity of unit detail on medium for rome elephants. im not sure why that is. and also with distance even though i have my unit detail on highest with high texture after a certian distance you can not see the pikes. in rome at distance the pikes took a characteristic of a thick hedge of poles at distance like a forest.

horses also dont seem to look as realistic for some reason that i dont understand.

so there is something about unit detail that i do not like. with unit detail on highest horses and elephants should look totally real for a game with requirments this one has. individual soldier models and animations on the whole are better though.

it disgust me entirely that you cannot see the pike forest at a distance like it showed in rome.

i dont know if anyone else noticed that or not. it may be some kind of bug.you know instead of the pikes being invisible they are supposed to switch to a pike forest and they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad cat mech

as far as units showing out from the surrounding terrain and architecture and vegetation there is a real problem. compare to rome you can keep your eye on the action better because the animations are more cartoonish and stand out.

the other stuff is not so bad though.

but unless you have unit detail set on highest the elephants will not surpass the graphic clarity of unit detail on medium for rome elephants. im not sure why that is. and also with distance even though i have my unit detail on highest with high texture after a certian distance you can not see the pikes. in rome at distance the pikes took a characteristic of a thick hedge of poles at distance like a forest.

horses also dont seem to look as realistic for some reason that i dont understand.

so there is something about unit detail that i do not like. with unit detail on highest horses and elephants should look totally real for a game with requirments this one has. individual soldier models and animations on the whole are better though.

it disgust me entirely that you cannot see the pike forest at a distance like it showed in rome.

i dont know if anyone else noticed that or not. it may be some kind of bug.you know instead of the pikes being invisible they are supposed to switch to a pike forest and they are not.

---

I think we're playing different games. My experience playing M2TW is the exact opposite of everything written above with the exception of the pikes which I hadn't paid any notice to. I'll remember to check that next time.

I enjoy vanilla MTW2 better than vanilla RTW, and certainly has the potential to be better than RTW:BI 1.6. Depending on how much CA helps out the modding community, which they talk a lot about, MTW2 could be significantly better.

This thread has come up with every single new Total War game. Actually it has come up maybe 3 or 4 times already on this forum alone (more? I really just get into thi9s forum every few months), and that is not including the 5 other main forums talking about it.

It has been done. Just by posting this you are declared "too new to talk about it."

Just wait and watch.

When the next one comes out there will be a NEW fool crying that after they have "got way way into both games" the new one falls short. They will say that MTW2 IS far and away better then the current dissapointing crap CA has sold us.

Today that fool is you. Sorry. If you stay inerested in the game maybe one day you will read this website and have the opportunity to explain to a future fool what a fool they are. :laugh4:

fools are the ones who dont ask questions.

a person who ask advice and questions is no fool.

:clown:

Agree with mad cat completely, the OP is no fool.

For the record, at this exact moment I do think RTW/BI is a better game, even with v1.1 patch and Carl's excellent Problemfixer. M2TW just has too many problems, and too many missing features and broken promises (extensive modding support? "modder's heaven?" don't get me started). It will be interesting to see how the upcoming 600 terabyte patch will address this... I have high hopes but low expectations. Perhaps in addition to this the upcoming expansion will add some life back to the game. Until those days come, I will be playing RTW to make up the time.


:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrac

Today that fool is you. Sorry. If you stay inerested in the game maybe one day you will read this website and have the opportunity to explain to a future fool what a fool they are. :laugh4:

---

Please do not call people fools, unless they are actual court jesters. :clown: Doing so is a personal attack and against Org rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjl1966

4. First battle - mission impossible. OK, I know we're in Medieval times and everyone is past the fishing village stage so we should expect settlements to be built up, but my first assignment is to take a *rebel* "town" that is fortified with stone walls and lots of archers. None of my siege equipment survives long enough to even get close to the gate or a wall and I, of course, have plenty of pitch-fork troops but no archers because my queues are dead because what I have built isn't generating income yet, etc. etc. Basically I'm handed a mission that cannot be done until later. (much later as best as I can figure.)

---

4.Which settlement are you talking about? Don't forget you have 15 turns to fulfill the mission so you can take your time building up a decent assault. If all else fails, simply besiege the target and slaughter the defenders when they eventually sally.

I didn't like RTW and think it's the weakest of all the Total War games. It's the only one in the series so far where I didn't buy the expansion. It's too arcadey for me. You charge and the battle is finished 5 seconds later. There's no tactics involved. That and cavalry is completely overpowered. You just charge, disengage, charge, disengage ad infinitum and you can take out anything.

1. In a Citadel battle with two full armies of Huge units, I can play with the near-highest settings with little lag. I only have 1GB of RAM, a nVidia 7900 and an Intel Core Duo 4400. It's a good setup, but not nearly the best. Maybe you need to tweak your graphics options. As far as murkiness, just click the faction icon in battle.

2. I thought this too until I discovered the wonderful use of the "spacebar" on the campaign map.

3. Money is an issue, as it should be. Very little of your "bank" should come from your actual economy. While you should be generating about 1k a turn, you should never rely on it. You can easily make a quick 20k as a reserve fund by sacking a rebel city.

4. You can always turn the difficulty down. It's more realistic this way. In Rome, the magnificent cities were defended by peasents simply because they were rebel settlements. M2TW actually provides a challenge. If anything, I hope they add a new difficulty level in the future, or make it more challenging. Steamrolling over various faction's militias gets old after a few campaigns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Please do not call people fools, unless they are actual court jesters. :clown: Doing so is a personal attack and against Org rules.

---

Is it a personal attack? At what point does making an observation about someone/something become a personal attack on that person/thing? If I observe that .org member 'x' is white, will someone construe that as racist? IS it racist to simply observe someone's race???

If simply observing someone's race is a personal attack, then following my example being white would have to be an insult - this is because an observation cannot be a personal attack: it is by its nature benign. Only an insult can be a personal attack. To most people being white is not an insult, so they cannot be personally attacked by someone observing they are white. A few people may feel it's an insult, in which case they might hold it as a personal attack to be called white - but that doesn't mean it is. The truth of it lies in the view of the person doing the talking, not the one hearing it. It's about intent, which I'll revisit later.

Similarly to race above, I contest that being a fool is not inherently bad or insulting. I'm sure there are plenty of fools, and generally I don't think they're heavily ostracized by most. If you think noting someone is a fool is a personal attack, TinCow, then that is a reflection of your views toward fools, and not something inherent to being a fool... since in order for it to be a personal attack, it must be an insult first, which indicates you yourself must frown upon fools in order to take the position you have - someone unbiased toward fools would see no fault at all.

One further concern is that no comment can be a personal attack without there being malicious intent on the part of the one making the comment. Without that, there's no attack at all - only the false perception of being attacked. Tyrac's comments show no malicious intent that I can see toward the OP. Consider this: perhaps all Tyrac means is that the OP has acted foolishly in posting this thread, or made foolish comments. Neither of those would be a personal attack, but simply observations from Tyrac's point of view, and so it seems nonsensical to me to suggest that Tyrac was personally attacking the OP. If his attitude had shown animosity then I'd largely agree, but as it stands it is merely an opinion. In the future please don't be so hasty to wave the "personal attack" flag, TinCow.

As for what Tyrac actually said, I must largely agree. It seems foolish at best to dredge up this same tired topic for the nth time, and his brief synopsis of the progression of things is probably not far from the truth of the matter.

Uhm... Foz? Calling someone a 'fool' *is* an insult. Period.

Edit - Nevermind. Apparently Tyrac may have been referring to the OP as "a cold dessert of pureed fruit mixed with whipped cream or custard". Courtesy of http://www.webster.com/ . :grin:

I am admittedly curious as to the results of this thread, in terms of comparing M2TW and RTW. You'll have to excuse me, I must have missed the other 'n' threads that focused on this 'tired topic' that I've only seen mentioned in passing a few other times.

For the record, this forum is starting to become rather one-sided. It seems that it's becoming more and more impossible to try to bring up intelligent, legitimate criticism of the current game without hordes of fanboys and others who don't RTFT(hread) spouting the usual "stop whining!!111" or "enuff already lol" nonsense. This is a given even if the discussion is done in an intelligent, respectful manner or if it's something relatively untouched but others claim it's been "beat to death" already. I must have missed the announcement that the .Org is changing it's name to "CA Fanboy Central"...

Sorry if that's a bit offtopic, but it needs to be said.

Whacker, I agree with you.

The reason that so many threads on this issue have been closed of late is not that it's against the rules to discuss the game's flaws but that people in those threads have stepped far over the line and begun attacking those who don't share their point of view.

imo, this is a debate that has to occur, but we should at least make it a civilised one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Uhm... Foz? Calling someone a 'fool' *is* an insult. Period.

---

You talk about intelligent discussion, but say things like this. Since when did your viewpoint become universal? Fool is not an insult simply because you think it is. You'll have to do better than that.

Is it insulting to be of lower intelligence? No. There's nothing inherent in it, and it's only insulting if someone uses it as an insult. Is it possible to say someone has a low intelligence without it being a personal attack on him? For sure. Teachers do it all the time when explaining things to parents, for one. Again intent determines meaning. If the intent is not to degrade, then saying someone has low intelligence is not a personal attack, nor is it insulting - it is simply illustrative.

And so it is with 'fool.' Being foolish is not inherently insulting: it's simply descriptive of someone who shows a lack of judgment. We rely on context to derive whether it is insulting or not in any given usage of it. Nothing is black and white Whacker - everything has what meaning each person has assigned it, and what intent each has put behind it.

Note: please don't construe my comments as taking sides. I cannot help but explore the depth of the matter that some would so casually slap a label on and move on. Defining a personal attack cannot be done lightly, or soon there is no way to disagree with anyone on the forum because you'll be personally attacking them. There has to be a line somewhere or nothing can be said at all - I'm just trying to provoke discussion of that line, and how exactly we define it, since it's rather integral to the function of a moderated message board.

Pro Tip: if you wish to present "intelligent, legitimate criticism" the best place to start is with the intelligent and legitimate parts. Criticism flows quite naturally of its own accord.

Nice troll kiddo... I'll bite. Never claimed my personal viewpoint is "universal" as you put it; it is however the social norm, at least in most cultures I'm aware of, that when you call someone a derogatory or insulting name, that it's an insult. (Wow!) I'd suggest you take a look at the defintion of "fool" here: http://www.webster.com/dictionary/fool . Ignoring the fruity dessert and court jester bit, by definition "fool" is derogatory, end of story. Again no idea where this "lower intelligence" or "foolish" stuff came from, has nothing to do with the foolish (pun intended) topic at hand, which is calling someone a fool. I really feel like Mr. T at this point.

This isn't complex or philosophical, it's pretty black and white. Even if one obstinately refuses to accept the above, the mods have spoken... Calling someone a "fool" is an insult and will be treated as such.

My apologies in advance to the mods for stirring the pot. I'm only human... and don't take too kindly to be disrepected in a self-righteous know-it-all type post in public venues.

lets get back to topic, not discussing Fool, it may be exciting discussing thta, but we might as well have a bit of on topic stuff...

I liked RTW, it was okay, but not ym favourite, I overly enjoyed MTW better, and now with M2tW, I lvoe it, mainly because of the time period and setting, and when I learnt of the new expansion, I need a oxygen mask for a while!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjl1966

1. Better graphics != better gameplay. The new graphics are more realistic, dynamically lit and, well, frustrating. It's harder to see what's going on in battle for one thing. Too much fog, shadows and general murkiness.

---

Try the 'flash friends/enemies' button. I use it a lot. Plus I put all the graphics options on the very lowest. It still looks nice and I have no frame rate issues.

Quote:

---

2. Get on with it already. Everything is *s l o w e r*. On the campaign map, dude spends three times as much as he used to just winding up for the sword strike. Nice animation, but it takes too long. I know it sounds petty, but it's one example of the game being overall slow. Battles, notwithstanding slower framerate, take too long too. It takes much longer for horse to take down peasants than in RTW. If I have to wait this long for cav to scare off the peasants, I can't imagine what a real battle is going to be like.

---

When RTW was the latest game everyone bitched about how fast the battles were (which I agreed with). I guess it's a matter of taste but I much prefer this. The battles are more comparable to MTW than RTW in length which to me is good.

Quote:

---

3. From rags to riches. Eventually. I noticed that I ran out of money fast and made it up very slowly. In the number of turns it takes me to build up Arimium, Arretium, Segesta and take over at least Mediolanum, I'm still waiting for the queue to start up again in MTWII. Honestly, there is literally nothing to do except hit "next turn" and wait. Priests are preaching, princesses are princessing and army is waiting for the markets to actually generate income. This is first cousin to the "too slow" aspect. "Too much idle time" would be a good description.

---

Yes it's can be slow to get your economy up to the 'I own more money than I can spend' stage. Is this a bad thing? Hell no! Shortage brings choices which is what gameplay is about.

Quote:

---

4. First battle - mission impossible. OK, I know we're in Medieval times and everyone is past the fishing village stage so we should expect settlements to be built up, but my first assignment is to take a *rebel* "town" that is fortified with stone walls and lots of archers. None of my siege equipment survives long enough to even get close to the gate or a wall and I, of course, have plenty of pitch-fork troops but no archers because my queues are dead because what I have built isn't generating income yet, etc. etc. Basically I'm handed a mission that cannot be done until later. (much later as best as I can figure.)

---

Hmm what faction were you playing? The first rebel town mission is usually like butchering sleeping cattle?

Foz, Whacker - continue the discussion by PM if you must but not in this thread

:focus:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjl1966

2. Get on with it already. Everything is *s l o w e r*. On the campaign map, dude spends three times as much as he used to just winding up for the sword strike. Nice animation, but it takes too long. I know it sounds petty, but it's one example of the game being overall slow. Battles, notwithstanding slower framerate, take too long too. It takes much longer for horse to take down peasants than in RTW. If I have to wait this long for cav to scare off the peasants, I can't imagine what a real battle is going to be like.

---

Push spacebar when a unit moves slowly and they will all move faster from then on. I can't play without it. Unfortunately, you can't fix the animations because I am tired of seeing the diplomats bowing and the merchants doing their things.

Vannila MTW II is way more better than Vannila RTW.

Howewer vannila MTW II compared to most RTW mods, is farr left behind in terms of depth and historicall accuracy. And some RTW mods are better even in graphics (The Crusades).

One big mistake wich CA did is that they made these uber graphics, wich require high tech expensive computers but in terms of gameplay and historicall accuracy, no real progress.

I guess that they did not targeted the "historicall accuracy maniacs" like me, but the average gamers wich look for nothing more than fancy graphics.

There is still the old idea of "conquer the map" to win. No building of historicall importance, no uniqueness for each faction regarding buildings, history, relationships, altough significant progress has been made comparing to RTW. Few provinces, easy to conquer - steamrolling the map is the only thing to do. Little controll over the internall politics, dull diplomacy and endless expansion. No depth at all. Scarce historicall information, fantasy units put in just for fun.

One should compare the awesome work made by RTW modders, (a work made for free, in which many sacrificed countless hours of life), just to bring the real historicall accuracy in to a game...

I`m curious what the mods will bring to MTW 2.

has anyone else observed whether they see the forest of pikes at great distance as in rtw or do they disappear when seen at great distance as my game is doing.

and if you can see a forest of pikes at great distance please list your settings. currently my unit detail is on highest with high textures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum

One big mistake wich CA did is that they made these uber graphics, wich require high tech expensive computers but in terms of gameplay and historicall accuracy, no real progress.

---

That deserves some discussion. Is it actually a mistake for CA to take the game in this direction? I've heard a lot of people rave about the graphics, and it seems clear that they played no small part in selling the game. From a business standpoint, this may be the most effective direction to take things. Feel free to discuss.

That said, I personally would much prefer the bigger improvements to come in the gameplay area rather than graphics. It's nice to have the game look good, but ultimately it is a secondary or even tertiary concern. I can still derive quite a bit of enjoyment from pulling out old games that played great, and giving them another spin. I can't say the same for the games that just looked good - they always fall by the wayside. That to me is the best test of how good a game is: if you can play it years later and still love it. The looks sometimes go along, but I've never picked up a game again that didn't play great first of all - the looks just sometimes happen to go along. You can notice this a lot when you're first playing a game too, but it's a lot easier once it's older.

Quote:

---

I guess that they did not targeted the "historicall accuracy maniacs" like me, but the average gamers wich look for nothing more than fancy graphics.

---

Well... sort of. Certainly I agree that they didn't target the historical accuracy maniacs. I don't think their goal was to just hit the fancy graphics guys though - it's just that the graphics are easier to get into place, and more necessary too - if the game doesn't display correctly, you have to go back and fix it, or it's unplayable. For that reason it's likely the graphics get most of the kinks worked out far before the gameplay end of things, which is why it's gameplay catch-up time for the patches now.

As for historical accuracy, it's in a tug-of-war with gameplay most of the time. The problem is, the more you force things to conform to history, the less room you have to do anything with the gameplay mechanics: history begins to dictate them. The opposite also applies: more gameplay freedom means less history. CA has run with the idea that this is foremost a game, and loosely based on history. So, they sacrifice history as much as necessary to get the gameplay where they want it. This seems like the best overall compromise, since making the game strictly historically accurate would likely lose a substantial part of the audience due to what it would do to gameplay. There is interest in historical accuracy, but there is much more interest in good gameplay, so CA seems to simply be catering to the masses as much as possible by emphasizing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum

One big mistake wich CA did is that they made these uber graphics, wich require high tech expensive computers but in terms of gameplay and historicall accuracy, no real progress.

---

I disagree that there's been no progress on gameplay. RTW totally re-wrote the Total War strategic game. Many people preferred the old Risk style system, but that's a completely different discussion. In STW and MTW, the strategic map is really nothing more than a system that generated battles. In RTW and M2TW, it's an entire game of its own. Whether you agree with the decision to make that change or not, it still qualifies as major progress.

Keep in mind too that so far there have only been two game engines made. MTW runs on an improved STW engine and M2TW runs on an improved RTW engine. While you can tweak and improve things between different games on the same engine, major changes usually have to wait until the next engine is released. So far we've seen the original engine, then a sequel engine with a massive advance in the strategic game. I would expect an equally significant change to be present in the third game engine that CA develops.

Wow! The volume and depth of responses here far exceeded what I had hoped for. I've learned a lot here and see things a bit more clearly in terms of three factors:

1. Variety. MTWII is not RTW and isn't supposed to be. I see that some of the things I'm uncomfortable with are simply differences between the games. RTW was my first TW game, so naturally I'm most comfortable with it's style which is, interestingly enough, out of step with the rest of the TW line.

2. Vanilla Wafers. I hadn't considered the fact that MTWII is still vanilla. This is an important point and puts a lot of weight behind the "wait and see" advisory.

3. Tactics and such. I picked up a few pointers that may help me deal with some of the ingame problems I'm having. For those that asked, my first battle was the assignment to take the rebel town in the west. It is not a cakewalk and all siege equipment is rendered useless. I get the feeling it's not supposed to be that hard, so I'll have to take another look at what I'm doing. I may simply be going in too early.

As for the minor controversy revolving around Tyrac's response:

I took his response as an expression of frustration at the repeated theme which questions the quality of a game he obviously likes very much. I know what it's like when somebody is still bogged down with the "who cares" details and missing the bigger picture. There's some validity to saying somebody in my position hasn't seen the light yet. He's also giving me a mild ribbing for being a forum noob. It's true! A little forum hazing is no big deal.

I'm also very glad to see the moderators are actually moderating. This case is no harm no foul, but it's good to know the cops are around for the really big problems when they come along.

Thanks to all of you for your responses. You may very well have saved my MTWII career. I'll give it another go.