Printable View
I think the community likes to think of this game as deeper than it is (battle strategy excepted).
Since STW this series has been no more than a battle fest with nice links between the battles - it certainly has no diplomatic or overall strategy challenge like EU, EU2 and Diplomacy.
Only my opinion but surely this is why it is becoming an X box clone - 'cause essentially it has no depth aside from the battles !
From what I've read, I don't think that anyone would disagree that there needs to be two different levels of play (not necessarily two different maps) - one level to fight the battle and one to manage territory and move troops
The only real point of contention is whether the higher level should be turn-based or real-time with pauses. I, for one, would certainly be interested in seeing if the second was practical.
There's also some debate as to whether the higher level map should be kept 'as is' or whether it should more closely resemble an extended battle map. Technical limitations aside, I'd only point out that RTW high level map has been a great step towards a more accurate simulation of the underlying terrain from the MTW map and perhaps the next TW will be able to take the next jump.
man the game wouldnt be the same if they removed the stratmap
if they do the must rename it
On the problem of turn-based strategy, and your opponent's army not moving for 6 months, etc., I'm thinking of Diplomacy the boardgame, where each turn has a planning phase where you, and all other players at the same time, issue orders to your units, and a movement phase where those orders are then carried out simultaneously for all sides.
I'm sure with some thought a good strategy computer game could be made with such a system.
I think you have a valid point and I certainly would not want to see the next release by CA sink any lower in order to cater for the click-fest market.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBeth
As far as EU and EU2 are concerned I have to admit I'm baffled as in my opinion those game had absolutely no strategic element to them at all and were too boring to play through to completion even once.
I would still prefer to CA to concentrate their efforts on making their next release PBEM compatible so that I can play their game against some decent human opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epistolary Richard
Forget Real-Time give me PBEM any day.
This system has been used to good effect by Battlefront in the Combat Mission series and would certainly be preferrable to real time for tactical play as it would then allow for PBEM multiplayer battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weirwood
Whether the same system can be successfully extended to strategic play is less certain but I can't think of any real reason for it not to work.
This system could work as well. I'd probably want the amount of movement per turn to be less than it is now, or you'd lose the advantage, however. For example, if you move your army in an attempt to intercept another army, and they move in a completely different direction than you thought, having to wait 6 months to find out about it seems excessive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weirwood
Basically, you'd need some system that would give you 'scouting reports' on enemy movement, such that you'd have a general idea where they are headed. Of course, that wouldn't work against a human player, so any sort of MP would be rather pointless. Still, it could be better than the current system.
I must point out that the current turn based system worked well when you're using a regional system like in STW and MTW. But I don't feel it's the best solution to use for a movement point based system like RTW.
Bh
If anyone wants to know why I don't believe a real time strategy game can ever work then just download the Medieval Lords Demo and try to play it.
If thats what you want the next CA game to be like then your welcome to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tocca
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
EH?? I think i'm perfectly capable of knowing what i like myself. ~;)
And that is, more strategy, more complex economy and so on... just as i said.
But i don't think they will be going there, they'd loose many customers that want a fast pace game. I happen to like more complex strategic games, like EU2 (which has been enormously improved since released by all patches).
I also like a good battle, fastpaced action. RTW does both, but it falls very short on the strategic part.... In my opinion....
I don't want it as complex as EU2 for example, but i'd like a much more challenging game, strategic wise. Again, this is my opinion.
We will never get a game that everyone likes, that's impossible. But with options to choose how complex management you'd like (smarter governors, to whom you can assign the running of a city and so on) we could actually have it both ways.
Thoose who want to play a fastpaced battle action game can just leave all the micromanagement to the AI, and thoose who want more complexity can run the management themself.
Just as it is now in the game, but it needs to be much better implemented and with much more options.
Why do you insist on pointing to games you don't like as indications of the only way the game could work? I mean, I didn't like Master of Orion 3, should I then conclude I wouldn't like any of the TW games (both use a turn-based strategy, real-time combat system)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
The issue isn't whether or not other games that use the system well exist. It's whether CA could make a great game that used it. Before STW, I'm sure there were a lot of companies that thought you couldn't make a good TBS/RTS hybrid, but CA proved them wrong. I'd love to see CA prove them (or you) wrong on this front too.
Bh
Because these games highlight the inherent shortcomings of the real time format in handling strategic gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
Its not that the game designers got it wrong, its that they allowed themselves to be pressured into using an inappropriate format.
If you can quote me a single real-time multi-player strategy game that actually works then feel free to do so and I'll be happy to buy it. But so far everyone I've purchased or tested has been a total load of crap. And the really sad thing is that in many cases the game concepts were brilliant and the only thing that screwed it up was the format.
Even RTW is border line. I've had to sacrifice any chance for multiplayer strategy in order to pay for the real time tactical play and to be honest the semi-animated strategy map movement really becomes a bore after you've been playing for a few hours. I find myself constantly double clicking to try and speed up dwaddling assassins and cautious spies, when really all I want to do is pick the buggers up and put them where I want them to go.
Simply press Spacebar, and your units will travel to their destination instantly! And once you pressed Spacebar, the game will remember this settin and speed up all coming movements by you until you press Spacebar again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I do, do that a lot but its not always practical especially when moving through hostile territory. I tend now to go and make a cup of tea while I'm waiting for the PC to finish playing with itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tocca