Several new pics at Gamespot (May 16)

you ppl can't be serious. Who cares about such a detail that doesnt improve the gameplay at all - and puts even more pressure on CPU/GPU.
Age of Mythology had footprints, and it made the game unplayables on my comp once large armies populated the map. With footsteps off, there was no problem.

I suppose it would be good to have as an option, but it doesn't really bother me.

I hear ya on the graphics, but CA has done a great job so far in providing their customers with a variety of solutions in adpating to the various levels of processing power. I assume that this would remain.

Options should be either:

(a) the terrific looking floor template + footprints.

(b) toned-down flooring + no footprints


Sand with no footprints just looks too weird.

I would go further and remove the shadows, they seem nice but they are so dark they give the impression that every day is blisteringly hot

......Orda

Most games with footprints have relatively few soldiers, seldom more than 50 or 100. TW games have over 1000, sometimes 10000, soldiers! It would be so heavy for the computers to handle that it'd lag like nothing you've ever seen in any game before. While a good feature in theory, it can't be implemented even with the upcoming technology MTW2 will be made for.

Then the only answer is to remove the sand. As pretty as it may look, it becomes artifical and experience-spoiling without foot prints.


This seems to be a major technical challenge: ground interaction. We should have mud, and puddles, and snow, and sand. The snow in RTW also looked ridiculous. This will be a major advancemtn in immersion once they solve for it.

Hmmph. I just may wait until then. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

you ppl can't be serious. Who cares about such a detail that doesnt improve the gameplay at all - and puts even more pressure on CPU/GPU.

---

I agree. It does kinda remind me of Dr Cox in the TV series Scrubs and his "things I care as little about" speech:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Cox

I don't really have one ready, but I suppose I could riff a list of things I care as little about ... Let's see: low-carb diets, Michael Moore, the Republican National Convention, Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products, high definition TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, The O. C., the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans; the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys, Jeff the Wiggle that sleeps a lot, the Yankees payroll, the red states, the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host, everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, and everything that exists, past, present and future in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh, and Hugh Jackman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Most games with footprints have relatively few soldiers, seldom more than 50 or 100. TW games have over 1000, sometimes 10000, soldiers! It would be so heavy for the computers to handle that it'd lag like nothing you've ever seen in any game before. While a good feature in theory, it can't be implemented even with the upcoming technology MTW2 will be made for.

---

Try putting 29 000 soldiers on the field in a custom battle might give you an idea of what it would be like..

Edit: if you made the tracks fade, away as mentioned by DA, I don`t think it would require too much of the computer.

i saw a custom battle with 65000 units so cool!!!!!1

Footprints !!! Oh great, now the next TW game won't increase army size either.... but will feature 'footprints' coz no footprints was a major complaint about MTW II. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Then the only answer is to remove the sand. As pretty as it may look, it becomes artifical and experience-spoiling without foot prints.

---

What are they gonna put in the desert then???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

agree. It does kinda remind me of Dr Cox in the TV series Scrubs and his "things I care as little about" speech:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Cox

I don't really have one ready, but I suppose I could riff a list of things I care as little about ... Let's see: low-carb diets, Michael Moore, the Republican National Convention, Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products, high definition TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, The O. C., the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans; the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys, Jeff the Wiggle that sleeps a lot, the Yankees payroll, the red states, the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host, everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, and everything that exists, past, present and future in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh, and Hugh Jackman.

---

---

Ha ha ha classic! if I may respond in kind....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.D

But Hugh Jackman is Wolverine....

---

Quote:

---

Edit: if you made the tracks fade, away as mentioned by DA, I don`t think it would require too much of the computer.

---

even if they fade out fast enough for a single soldier to leave just 10 footprints behind, that's still 10000's of footprints if a whole army marches. Anyway, possible or not, I can't even believe we're discussing this. No wonder CA puts graphics above gameplay if they read stuff like this.

The proposition of footprints is needless, as adherbal and others have said, it only creates more pressure on the CPU, needlessly, as they would not add to the visual beauty of a battle (in my opinion).

Improving the visual effects such as explosions and bombardments (e.g. trebuchet stones on walls), would make the game more beautiful, but hey, at the level we saw in the movies released by CA, those visual effects are much more than OUTSTANDING!!! I especially liked the way walls were battered, and the principle of "What you hit, you crush" thing. The graphics at this stage is top notch, and nothing more can be added to it I think, I just hope that they pulled off the same trick with the gameplay, especially the AI....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I would go further and remove the shadows, they seem nice but they are so dark they give the impression that every day is blisteringly hot

......Orda

---

Yes, I agree, the shadows often are too dark.

Perhaps they've just got them turned up to ultra-dark in the promo screenshots to show off the feature. Maybe with the final release shadows won't always be so obvious.

While I agree that footprints will put a lot of extra strain on the system requirements, I don't think they don't add to gameplay: if you're going to try ambushes and such, you have to be careful you don't give your position and/or plans away to your opponent by having a large numbers of tracks leading into the nearby forest, or to the far side of the hill where your opponent can't see your reinforcements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad The Impala

While I agree that footprints will put a lot of extra strain on the system requirements, I don't think they don't add to gameplay: if you're going to try ambushes and such, you have to be careful you don't give your position and/or plans away to your opponent by having a large numbers of tracks leading into the nearby forest, or to the far side of the hill where your opponent can't see your reinforcements.

---

Nice idea, but in practice I think it would be better applied to the strategic map. It would be fun if armies led "trails", depending on their size and your army's scouting ability. Mount and Blade has this feature.

I'd like to see a little more blundering about on the campaign map. Ambushes are a step in the right direction, but still rather rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Nice idea, but in practice I think it would be better applied to the strategic map. It would be fun if armies led "trails", depending on their size and your army's scouting ability. Mount and Blade has this feature.

I'd like to see a little more blundering about on the campaign map. Ambushes are a step in the right direction, but still rather rare.

---

Hmmm...I doubt the track system of Mount&Blade would be gameplay wise. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

if you're going to try ambushes and such, you have to be careful you don't give your position and/or plans away to your opponent by having a large numbers of tracks leading into the nearby forest, or to the far side of the hill where your opponent can't see your reinforcements.

---

aslong as the TW series don't get real line-of-sight, ambushing or surprise attacks will be almost inexistant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

aslong as the TW series don't get real line-of-sight, ambushing or surprise attacks will be almost inexistant.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

aslong as the TW series don't get real line-of-sight, ambushing or surprise attacks will be almost inexistant.

---

How do you mean with real LOS? Do you mean on the battlefield?

yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

that might even make the AI feel less predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

---

I thought LOS has always been implemented in TW. Can the player really see enemies not in the LOS of his units?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I thought LOS has always been implemented in TW. Can the player really see enemies not in the LOS of his units?

---

They can see them. But the hiding stuff in RTW really got on my nerves sometimes....

I remember the birds flying over a wooded area in STW often meant there was an ambush within the trees. I can't say I remember anything with birds in MTW or RTW, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

that might even make the AI feel less predictable.

---

You can restrict cam, but still the battle map will show unhidden units the you should not see in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I thought LOS has always been implemented in TW. Can the player really see enemies not in the LOS of his units?

---

Yes, you can see them. "LOS" in TW seems to be calculated just on proximity (and whether or not units are tagged as "hidden". For example, you can see all the units inside a city, even if they are in the city square, when you're still outside!

Now that this subject has come up - yes I think it could add quite a bit to gameplay if real LOS was implemented - so you couldn't see over that hill or wall to see what's behind it. Until your units are actually in a position to see for themselves.

And while I'm on the subject - why the pre-battle screen when you're told exactly what you're facing in terms of opposition? Isn't this incredibly unrealistic? Wouldn't it add a lot of excitement - and help to even up the game considerably - if you didn't actually know what you were facing until you got to the battlefield, but rather only had a rough approximation?

I know this is sort of included in the game now - but perhaps they haven't gone far enough. I mean, you always know exactly how many units the enemy has got, even if you don't know exactly what they are. And then when you get to the battlefield, you are told in the opening screen exactly what you're facing.

The game might actually become a lot more interesting if your "spies" got it wrong quite a bit - so that they either underestimated or overestimated the foe before you went to battle. And maybe the pre-battle screen should be scrubbed altogether, with you only finding out exactly what you're facing when you espy them via line of sight on the map.

Now that could add tension to a battle. Not to mention evening up the score somewhat in regards to the AI...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Yes, you can see them. "LOS" in TW seems to be calculated just on proximity (and whether or not units are tagged as "hidden". For example, you can see all the units inside a city, even if they are in the city square, when you're still outside!

Now that this subject has come up - yes I think it could add quite a bit to gameplay if real LOS was implemented - so you couldn't see over that hill or wall to see what's behind it. Until your units are actually in a position to see for themselves.

And while I'm on the subject - why the pre-battle screen when you're told exactly what you're facing in terms of opposition? Isn't this incredibly unrealistic? Wouldn't it add a lot of excitement - and help to even up the game considerably - if you didn't actually know what you were facing until you got to the battlefield, but rather only had a rough approximation?

I know this is sort of included in the game now - but perhaps they haven't gone far enough. I mean, you always know exactly how many units the enemy has got, even if you don't know exactly what they are. And then when you get to the battlefield, you are told in the opening screen exactly what you're facing.

The game might actually become a lot more interesting if your "spies" got it wrong quite a bit - so that they either underestimated or overestimated the foe before you went to battle. And maybe the pre-battle screen should be scrubbed altogether, with you only finding out exactly what you're facing when you espy them via line of sight on the map.

Now that could add tension to a battle. Not to mention evening up the score somewhat in regards to the AI...

---

I agree with your entire post 100%, screwtype, and the second part in particular (about being able to see the exact composition of the enemy's army). I always preferred the way Shogun and vanilla MTW did it--by only showing the approximate numbers you were facing, and no more than that. For as nice as the feature is sometimes, I admit it actually bugs me a lot that I can see precisely what the enemy has. Unless you have an absolutely ridiculous number of spies hanging around, it simply isn't realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

The new pics look really great but I have two remarks.

1. The horses in the desert are hovering over the sand. Someone else noticed this too in another picture. It ruins an otherwise fantastic picture but it does explain why there are no footprints in the sand.

2. I do hope that you can't just charge your cavalry through your own infantry without problems or penalties. There are just so much men and horses in one place that it's bound to go wrong if the horses move to fast. The same goes for a crowding penalty, soldiers just can't fight to their full potential when you have be careful not to trample/be trampled by a fellow countryman.

---

that hover thing was the first thing i noticed. and it does ruin the picture. but the first 2 look fantastic

I really like the shadows of the clouds over the desert sands. Great detail, and I love the fact that each person will be unique. Different face, size, weapons, shield.

Quote:

---

I really like the shadows of the clouds over the desert sands.

---

Where?There shouldn't be any since you can clearly see the sun and any other shadows are selfshadowing of the terrain.

Quote:

---

I remember the birds flying over a wooded area in STW often meant there was an ambush within the trees.

---

How such a simple game had so many more details.