Printable View
Those are not valid roman numerals. There is a system to roman numerals, and it's not hard to read.
The problem with putting dates on the turns is that it's going to be obvious that the dates are wrong. Then again the average gamer probably doesn't know when anything happened in history, how long people lived or how far an army or a ship could travel in a given amount of time.
One turn per year is fine, two per year is fine, four per year is getting silly.
I'd get far too bored with 2,000 turns, 1,000 is all I'd ever want and 500 odd is probably better.
I accidently pressed yes, I withdraw my vote. I thought yes for the real dates.
Dates only, it would make no sense whatsoever to be in year "112" , that would remind me of rome :total war to much.
I’m not married to the dates.
I would prefer to start on turn 1080 AD instead of turn 1, true enough. But I wouldn’t like fielding knights in full plate in 1180 AD. That sort of thing is best done on turn 100.
Will gunpowder arrive on a given turn or will we trigger it somehow?
qft - someone add 'gah' or 'candeh' please :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I'm neutral. I mean, I think to myself that dates make more sense, but I don't think I would even notice the difference if I was actually playing the game. Either way, an army marching about 100km is 6 months isn't really any less bogus.
I guess the problem with the turns rather than dates thing is that it is not direct abstraction. Having a character that survives through 100+ years worth of military, social, and technological development isn't consistent with the real world. This is unlike the fairly small armies seen in all Total War games- realism can be preserved even where a simple scale-down is present.
But, if the game only lasts 225 turns, I hope the armies move really, REALLY damn fast, at least compared to those in Rome.
We need years, otherwise its like your faction leader has died at the tender age of 45 turns. please give us years, please
For me personally I definantly want the turns. I love medieval history and I want some dates to go with my accomplishments, not "turn 115." I have no idea why they would fix somthing thats not broken, whcih brings me to a bigger concern I have.
I completlly agree with the comment that they are trying to Tivo the game with this 225 turns junk. I loved the 2 turns per year that was in Rome. I play pretty slow at times and enjoy taking my time when playing and I don't want to feel rushed. Having them fast forward to the highlight reel of the game is just stupid. The game (or our history in the game) is made in those mundane or "boring" years that CA wants to fast forward.
All in all, I don't like the turns instead of years idea, but it pales in comparison to my problem with the 225 years and the fast forward thing that they're going to impliment.
I agree with the date as the turn. I have seen a pic in 3D Gamers showing Britain on the campaign map covered in snow and not in Gamespot. Doesn't that mean two turns per year as in RTW?
Snow:
http://images.3dgamers.com/screenima...74mtw2_342.jpg
No Snow:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/20...3_thumb005.jpg
Well... Hmmmm! :juggle:
I much prefer the years in comparison to the "turn 1" etc, i'd also rather have it move one years at a time.
Something tells me that most of the 17 people who voted 'yes' on the poll misread the question, or clicked the wrong option or something. Antiochus definitely did.
EDIT: By the way, it will still be possible to know which year you are on. Although I don't altogether approve of the turn thing, I think going through turns and then reminding yourself what year it is would work quite well, especially if CA are going to make different turns have different timespans like some have suggested.
I don't see how "using your imagination" can be a viable alternative seeing as a turn will mean something different for each unit type on the map. How's that going to work? Am I to spend more time "imagining" stuff than getting down to the skinny?Quote:
I have enough imaginition to imagine one turn being 5 years or another 5 weeks. If CA could come with a piece of code that adds the town/region, month and year to the title of the current battle it would give me enough anchoring into a timeline.
i dont like the turn i prefer the years
That's my beef, too. 1 turn effectively equals 2 years (at least on average)Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon_fodder
And if I recall correctly, CA stated that characters age 1 year per 2 turns.
Therefore haracters live therefore live through 4 times as much historical events as they should because they age to slowly.
Inherent to that, if you play from begin to end you have 4 times as less generations of kings as you'd expect.
I know, it's just an abstraction. A pretty bad abstraction. One I can't block out of my mind with my "imagination".
I agree with Duke_John that 225 turns/seasons/whatever is plenty and I would like a system like what A.Saturnus described, but only if characters age synchronised with the rest of the game- that is, characters only live about 30-35 turns max.
But CA has pretty much stated that they want the player to rush through historical events, while still letting the characters live a long time to "breed affection to them".
I really wish that CA just put Era's in again, and have the option of having the game end at the end of your starting era (or not, if you want a long campaign)
Also withholding judgement until there's the end result to judge. People are extremely quick to cry out against perceived oppression around here.
I voted yes because if this is the system given then I would rather like turns then years. I am more interested in the late medieval period, but if we would have 2 turns per year as with R:TW than I would need to play 600-700 turns before getting my culverins and men-at-arms in full plate (if advancement is based on time and not just clicking through the techtree).Quote:
Something tells me that most of the 17 people who voted 'yes' on the poll misread the question, or clicked the wrong option or something.
So 225 turns suits me fine. Too much history has been cramped into those and CA should have used eras, but alas that is the game they are designing and turns is IMO the best solution for that design.
Creative Assembly stated that they weren't including eras because it was more work to make multiple campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'd almost get the impression that this is CA's solution to the fact that in RTW the game was usually over before the 100th turn. What that means is that they're not going to try and improve gameplay to alleviate that problem (EB has four turns yet most games last until well into the 1st century BC) but opts for a trick, a "hack" almost. Great, isn't it? ~:rolleyes:
The solution would have indeed been to put some work into the darned game, huh? To not have it suddenly been "too much work" to put in eras again for a designer that had done that quite handily in the singleplayer mode of MTW. It's really quite sad to see that it's suddenly too much work to make a quality product.Quote:
So 225 turns suits me fine. Too much history has been cramped into those and CA should have used eras, but alas that is the game they are designing and turns is IMO the best solution for that design.
Hmm...a kinda difficult choice. I think I like years better, though. I definitely like being able to say I had whatever at this date etc. (like in cIV when I had gunpowder before christianity was founded; that is how I knew it was time to bump up the difficulty), and I kinda buy the "the years adds to the authentic feeling of the game" argument.
I think a large part of the problem comes from trying to get two different views from one system, or I guess three views from two systems. cIV is awful in this respect. I like my tactical battles, but I also want to control the grand strategy and empire building. In cIV, you needed a very good imagination to "see" any kind of tactical battles. MTW, on the other hand, is by far the best game I have seen in this respect (haven't played the other two TW's however), but there is still a few bugs to work out. Having a strategy map that is completely independent (time-wise, anyway) from the battles is excellent (IDK if the TW series was the first to do this, but as I said the way they do it is quite good), and in MTW the strategy is turn-based and the battles are real time (that was one thing I didn't like about SW:Empire at War, both were real time, and the flow wasn't very good, dido for Lords of the Realm).
I propose a third breakdown. Keep a grand-strategy-map-empire-building-troop-training-building-construction thingy that is turn based. Also keep the completely independent RT battles. Add in something like mini-turns for troop and agent movement. Something like 1 turn for grand-strategy...thingy=1 year=maybe 4 mini-turns for troop movement (depending mainly on how many territories are in the game/how big the territories are). This way you get extra turns for the things that you need it for, and you can add in changes for seasons and stuff and it seems more realistic (it takes 4 years for an army to march from London to Scotland? And every war can take up to 10 years or more? Give me a break), but you avoid having 2000 actual full turns, which does seem ridiculous and would be hard to keep the average (or even rather-more-committed-than-average) player interested.
:shame: IDK maybe it is a stupid idea; it definitely isn't perfect and will need some adjusting and tweaking, but I really think it would be a step in the right direction.