An appeal and an apology to CA. (And several suggestions.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_678

One of the reasons MTW was so good was that it was totally free-form, with you being able to anything you wanted to win. Conquer 60% of the world. With that you could play the game differently every time. But with Victory conditions you are forced to go in the same or a similar direction every time.

---

Alternate victory conditions would be nice - so either "conquer the world/60% etc" or some glory goals. Then that would please people like you who want the freeform game and people like me who find "conquer 60%/50 provinces etc" a bit of a yawn. I loved the MTW glorious achievements - especially the crusades and some of the more idiosyncratic ones (the Krak de Chevalier).

I guess the Council of Nobles missions might give some of the character of GAs - just as the Senate missions did in RTW. I rather like some direction to the game and really liked the Senate missions. They were usually appropriate and the carrots/sticks were just the right magnitude (=> so the missions were optional but nice to pull off).

Generally speaking, customing victory conditions to the faction as BI did makes a lot of sense. EB also does this very well.

Personally I have no problem with those victory conditions. If you had the kind of victory conditions Ignoramus suggested, they could replace the lot by "Replicate history".

I could script you a RTW campaign where all you do is watch history unfold if you like? I don't think many people would enjoy it though.

Slower battles is very important. I'm really really really hoping for a speed bar.

Better AI speaks for itself and is greatly needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

Slower battles is very important. I'm really really really hoping for a speed bar.

---

A speed bar is highly unlikely. Creative Assembly considers the speed buttons to be an improvement over a continuously variable bar. Of much greater importance is Creative Assembly's position that slower speed is not warranted. It appears they are actually opposed to a slower speed option even if the fast battes were the default setting.

The incorrect run/walk movement ratio and other simplifications in the battle engine is an indication that CA is less interested in realism than they were with the earlier games. I remember LongJohn's refusal to increase cav speed by even 10% in MTW, and the reason he gave was that the cav in the game moved at the historically correct speed. Things certainly have changed at CA. Most of the simplifications in the engine are not obvious, but the fake looking movement really jumps out at you all the time.

I don't really care if the movement speed is historically correct. I just want to be able to play the game to the level I played the earlier games, and I can't do it at the current speed of the game. You have 20 units to control. It takes time to coordinate that many units.

Quote:

---

I remember LongJohn's refusal to increase cav speed by even 10% in MTW, and the reason he gave was that the cav in the game moved at the historically correct speed. Things certainly have changed at CA.

---

Nothing has changed at CA, they are still as stubborn as they were. Unluckily for us, in the wrong direction this time (in our opinion).

Quote:

---

Most of the simplifications in the engine are not obvious, but the fake looking movement really jumps out at you all the time.

---

I'm not hearing you about the more realistic aspects of the engine, like soldier facing influencing combat (not flanks actual individual soldiers), the more realistic impact of cavalry charges (even though it is exaggerated), and the whole succesful and impressive 3 dimensional approach to begin with.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=19

Try and see their perspective as well. They're not just catering to the masses, they try to do so with a reason. We can debate their reasons...

Quote:

---

You have 20 units to control. It takes time to coordinate that many units.

---

... but we cannot change them. See my first comment in this post. Two ways they will actually change the game is if most people who complain about Rome:TW Do Not Buy MTW2 (I certainly won't if AI is unchanged). Or if the programmers visit these forums and see our reasons. This reason, that 20 units take time to coordinate, is one of them. I hope they'll take it into account.

I though you could only pick one option so I picked better diplomacy. I guess that explains the priority as I see it :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Nothing has changed at CA, they are still as stubborn as they were. Unluckily for us, in the wrong direction this time (in our opinion).

---

Something has changed. They are now making the units run unrealistically fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

I'm not hearing you about the more realistic aspects of the engine, like soldier facing influencing combat (not flanks actual individual soldiers), the more realistic impact of cavalry charges (even though it is exaggerated), and the whole succesful and impressive 3 dimensional approach to begin with.

---

Individual soldier facing does affect combat in the older engine. The cav charge in the new engine is exaggerated not more realistic. The 3D men are not utilized in the combat model with the exception of the spearpoints which they screwed up.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=19

There's nothing in that post on the new combat engine that isn't also in the old combat engine. There are combat features missing in the new engine that are in the old engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Try and see their perspective as well.

---

I'm looking at it from a player perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

They're not just catering to the masses, they try to do so with a reason. We can debate their reasons...

---

They said they are not making the series for the hardcore gamer. I know their reasons. They want to make as much money as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

... but we cannot change them.

---

I'm not trying to change them.

Quote:

---

They want to make as much money as possible.

---

well duh, but that doesn't justify simplifying the gameplay to a clickfest, and certainly doesn't explain why they don't even bother adding a "realism" option. It's not like it takes that much more time to develop two sets of stats (the "arcade" mode doesn't even need balance testing, I doubt players who prefer that mode will mind overpowered units)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

well duh, but that doesn't justify simplifying the gameplay to a clickfest, and certainly doesn't explain why they don't even bother adding a "realism" option.

---

They did give a reason for not providing more options. They said it would confuse the new players. The implication is that more options would lower total sales.

You'd expect them to want to make a quality game, wanting to achieve sales through that exactly -- not through gimmicks like graphics and cool-looking (but ill-playing) gameplay elements such as flaming pigs, cannon-armed elephants, and flawed assaults.

It is in that spirit and assumption that this has my full support. Not that I expect CA to listen. All they want to hear is the drone of praise coming from the .com members, as professed by their conduct during the siege bug affair. Sigh. Still worth a try, regardless.

It'd be fair to say that I'd select any of the above options, although slower battles seemed most relevant to me. I hope they're not playtesting these games with kids only, because I believe older gamers (24+) desire a more cerebral experience.

The AI needs to be alot better. The Rome AI was disappointing. I feel it was a step down from MTW1. A setting of Very Hard needs to be very hard.

Quote:

---

Now surely even CA can see what everyone wants.

---

__________________

Not to be difficult, but I don't believe the number of responses and votes in this thread are indicative of the majority opinion of Total War gamers. As of this post, the total number of responses to any item is less than 100. It does, however, indicate that the majority of the VOTERS have given their consent to most of the points. We are such a small minority of TW gamers, we often mislead ourselves in exaggerating our own importance as to the marketing needs of the real world. That being said, CA has, and does, pay attention to our suggestions. What we offer is valuable to their developing concepts, and they know it. But, as several have already stated, "make the game, and I'll play it." Lord, I even played RTW for several months before becoming bored beyond belief. I still play MTW (mods) occassionally. I have certainly gotten my money's worth from all of their games and expansions.

I believe our constructive criticisms and suggestions, our over-all discussions of the issues, and our enthusiasm and modding have all contributed to the level of gaming we have so far enjoyed from CA. I have no die-hard opinion on any of the listed items in the poll; I'll play, regardless. But I think we'll find CA's final decisions will not be solely based on what the hand-full of us want. I mean, you gotta admit, we (forum dwellers) are all a bit extremist when it comes to these games, lol.

"A setting of Very Hard needs to be very hard."

Yes it does, and if I may attach an addendum to that- it needs to be very hard because the AI is smart not because its units get a massive stats boost.

Quote:

---

They said they are not making the series for the hardcore gamer. I know their reasons. They want to make as much money as possible.

All they want to hear is the drone of praise coming from the .com members, as professed by their conduct during the siege bug affair. Sigh.

---

I'm beginning to understand why we see so little of CA members lately. But I'm just as bad as all of you. Just hoping they're really making that difficult level Difficult.

Quote:

---

I mean, you gotta admit, we (forum dwellers) are all a bit extremist when it comes to these games, lol.

---

Too true. Most want some kind of recognition or comforting from all of this, and i guess we value those things.

Most of my friends find the multiplayer aspect far more interesting than the single player campaign anyway, since a human will always outsmart you at some point, whereas an AI never will.

the percentages don't add up to 100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Now surely even CA can see what everyone wants.

---

Surely you can see that everyone who has played a TW game has not voted in this thread, so that can hardly be "everyone" :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_678

Using the English as an example, what if I just wanted to conquer Europe? With this conditons you will be forced to attack Rome and Constantiople which I may not want to do.

---

Did they move Rome and Constantinople without telling me? I thought they were in Europe. Damn CA! :)

I like having 6 month turns rather than year turns. I like the battles in different seasons, and it also means that your generals get to do twice as much in their lifetime, and live for twice as many turns.