Printable View
That's another thing I've been thinking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisruptorX
If the "turns" that CA is implementing last multiple years, then surely kings and generals will only last a couple of turns, which will seriously impede the game's immersiveness... You might only have a good general for a few turns, and then he's gone.
Maybe I'm not understanding the turn idea (I hope so), but if I am then that's just one more failed feature...
Quote:
It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.
errr time for your medicine?Quote:
You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.
I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.
Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.
What's your point? You disputing the fact that as soon as you start playing the game you are creating an alternative history?
Crusaders with cannons in the 15th century? Why not? That is what TW is all about.
I would have to agree. I do not enjoy playing the historical battles at all, I enjoy making an alternate historical empire and creating my own armies, etc. That is what the total war games are all about. The mostly historical troops (Egypt in RTW didn't happen:no: ) and realistic tactics are great, of course.
You simply can`t pack all the parameters -affecting the outcome of a battle or the evolution of a culture over the centuries- into one single programm. Accepting that, I just play around and have fun (or get very angry at 'em rebels blocking my roads)....and I am very glad CA & -most of all- the modding teams try to give us a "taste of history". Anyways: BL is a semi-fictional scenario & still a lot of fun...or b/c of the fact it is fictional....
I noticed you can zoom in more on the campaign map.. Is it only me noticing that?
you can do that in RTW :inquisitive: .Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
That close ?!
Basically, as I recall, every turn represents two years of time but characters will only age one year every two turns - so basically they live four times longer than they ought to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
Yes, it's anomalous, but the idea is that since turns aren't numbered by years, you won't notice it.
:dizzy2:
Sounds like nonsense doesn;t it?
You aren't creating an alternative history. With each installment more fantasy elements are introduced to the point now that alternate universe is a better description.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakalwe
Then let's have flying machines in the 15th century as well. There is no limit to how much the history can be distorted and the realism degraded then justified by claiming it makes the game more fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakalwe
French tactical naivety...
I guess CA hopes that at least the French will buy their game... :inquisitive: That would indeed be naive
They might be disappointed as we learnt the trick with RTW.
3 battles in 20 min, crazy running units, it looks more of the same: I guess I'll pass :no:
Louis,
When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Hopefully it will all be moddable... Though the aging of generals could easily be hard coded item. Still it is hard to be overly critical until you actually see it in action...
I would hardly call the aging of generals a crucial part of the gameplay if the passage of turns won't be relative to time anyway. It's a trivial problem, albeit I am a little concerned as to what purpose this serves, but it remains trivial. And I highly doubt they would let it go unmoddable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
Not accusing you of giving misinformation, but where did you get that info from?Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
If they're not going to indicate the year at all (~:mecry:) then I suppose it doesn't matter that much. However, it seems strange that in a supposedly historical game in which the starting year and the ending year are clearly indentified, that the year would not be shown...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
It was worked out at the org ages ago, but it's not hard to do the math for yourself. The campaign is x number of turns long and the campaign covers x number of years. Now I've forgotten the actual numbers, but if you do the math I think you'll find it boils down to 2 years per turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
Meanwhile, CA told us fairly early on that characters will age one year every two turns, ie one summer turn + one winter turn = 1 year.
So basically characters end up living four times longer than they oughta.
Don't take my word for it though, this is all from memory, so you might want to check it out for yourself.
Essentially what they've done (in case you're wondering) is to compress the timespan of the campaign so that they can incorporate numerous different periods, whilst at the same time keeping the campaign at a length to suit the average gamer (ie 200 or 250 turns, whatever).
My guess though is that this will be fully moddable so that it will be a simple fix to match turns with years like the previous games. But doing so will probably leave you with a humungously long campaign of 800 or even 1000 turns. But then some people might think that's pretty kewl.
Edit: Ah, here it is, the original thread. Enjoy!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62117
...but CA arent trying to accurately depict history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
An enormously amusing, cynical thread. Long live the org, CA's gadfly.
Well, quite. I'm sure they wouldn't have it any other way. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamur
Nice to see you back. :bow:
The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandarah
If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!
So a turn is a two-season period? I thought you meant that each turn was a one-year period and that characters aged a year every two years. If one turn equals two seasons then that's fine, and characters won't age more than they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
My mind is at rest (on this issue ~;)).
I think what he meant is that with the published timeline and the number of turns your winter actualy lasts two years.
It boils down to it that CA wanted to inlude all those nice units from many periods so they published the timeline. But you won't actualy play that long because if you consider ine turn one season, with taking in consideration that there are two times less turns than years you will actualy play for only the quarter of the period.
Of course they do. Hardcore fans are a minority whereas these so-called "falf-wits" are representing the likely reaction of the disinterested general public. I think it's a little unfortuneate to call reviewers half-wits when they are merely expressing their opinions. It continually puzzles me that the most hardcore of fans are usually the most critical. Surely they should be happy that a series they like gets popular support. To succeed commercially you can't rely on a small cult following, you have to appeal to the masses.Quote:
I hope weak game reviews from half wits do not have more impact on game design than the hardcore fans
No, that's not what I said. I suggest you go back and read my post, or better still perhaps, go and read the old thread that I provided a link to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
Missed the link. Now it's clarified.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Im not buying this game.
I was attracted to TW by the historical gameplay. I myself, love history and read books all the time, to think that a game and a history book was combined was awsome. The TW series is no longer "historical", it's fantasy. It just takes place in real eras.
Im not going to bash CA. Total war just isn't my type of game anymore.
P.S that reviewer guy sounds like a idiot.
The TW games were never really simply depicting historical accuracy - TW had the uber-geisha, 1 man army kensai, etc. The same thing with MTW.
well obviously it's either one extreme or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
This looks like another RTW...
Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.
IMO, CA reached their pinnacle with the original Medieval. All these 'new' features that they are 'introducing' seem to be either from the previous games or graphical.
You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.
"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
The previews looks good, but something tells me the AI is going to be as bad as in RTW. They need a new engine, definitely.
Removing the bias that causes the AI to attack with weaker armies and make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target units would help.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Very poor would be a better description, though when talking about 'Intelligence', non existant is fairly close. The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
........Orda
To be honest, I don't recall STW AI being markedly better in any of above three respects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
RTW starting formations can be modded. But I don't have a big problem with them. I can't say they seem any worse than MTW ones. Maybe they sacrifice depth for breadth, occasionally. The main formation problem that irks me is a not the formations per se but a failure to keep formation - specifically breaking up a nice phalanx line at the last minute for no good reason. The formations/AI for barbarian and the horse archer armies perform reasonably ok.
The AI use of projectiles is kind of hit and miss, it is true, but then it often has been in TW.
The lone units charging to certain death does happen occasionally, but I noticed it more in STW when most neighbouring factions would have become rebels after 20 turns or so because they lost their Daimyos in suicide charges against me.
It's true the STW AI gives you a much better fight. But I think that is largely because of its behaviour at the strategic level (with a little cheating, it plays the Risk game extremely well IMO), so that you are often beaten before the battle starts. And it's also because the higher morale and slower kill speeds allow it to grind you down on the battlefield (especially when combined with the remorseless reinforcements coming from its smart strategic performance).
I never seemed to have a problem with rome's ai when the enemy had a larger army than my own, which, because of the factions I habitually play as, happens quite often. If they can only somehow make the ai behave more like it does when it knows it's numbers are superior even when it's not, it might provide a little bit of a better fight.
Guys, why do you all have negative opinions on this game?!! THE GAME HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED!!! Since now, ive seen a dozen guys confessing they're not buying it!
I remember STW's AI was quite good (long time since I last played). It did know how to interact with environments and set up good formations. MTW's AI was even better. Rome's was just, Rome's. Stupid formations, suicidal general who charges head on to a phalanx, archers who shoot fire arrows all the time. I think that CA might have pulled it off this time.
If you remember the video where there was the english vs the egyptians, where the german player was saying "Zultan Zaladin", which also contained cannons. I remember that the AI actually mauled the player (or he could have been a noob.lol.), and advanced to the players position similarily to MTW's AI.
I liked the preview, but I'll wait for the game.
Unless I'm much mistaken they're evolved versions of roman lilies. Ever had a kid leave jacks out on the floor then walked through the room with bare feet later that night? Yeah, ouch, that infinately worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
and lo, Lusted doth read the articles on M2TW, and produceth thus these quotes on thee fair M2TW: (more related to campaign map ai, but still related to ai)
Quote:
In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors.
Quote:
We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...42571&skip=yesQuote:
What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...4512&page=2&q=Quote:
Talking of the campaign map, there are new agents, improved diplomacy, and improved trade, as well as a host of new buildings added to the tech tree; new sabotage and espionage options,
Quote:
The diplomacy system has been improved. We're going to give the player a lot more information about how the artificial intelligence feels both about them and about the offer on the table. However, at the same time the AI will take offence at insulting offers and will have a better memory of past dealings. You should be able to trust your allies, but only up to a point.
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...ml?sid=6146146Quote:
We're definitely committed to improving the AI on both the campaign map and battlefield and plan to make a significant step forward from Rome.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/699/699515p1.htmlQuote:
We've also introduced a new recruitment system, a new enhanced system for the treatment of religion, enhanced diplomacy, new trade options, improved missions, improved sabotage and espionage, improved AI, new tech tree buildings and new agent characters.
Why are you still posting in this thread? Just leave if you're razzing people, we don't need unnecessary flames, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
hm... if bodies are 3-D dont troops have to walk over the bodies or around? (like elephants)
This is definately realistic... OK so I can't think of a medieval example BUT, in the years before WWI, the european nations gradually separated into two clearly defined alliance groups with agreements that said "If you go to war against so and so, we will also go to war with them." I'd like to see this kind of agreement possible. Also, one set of alliances were made to defend against powerful, arrogent Germany, while the other set were made to gain Germany's protection and help. This was basically just clubbing into two clear groups which go to war all togeather.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
For example, one alliance group is made up of A, B and C, the other is X, Y and Z
A war between B and Z alone would be impossible. If B did declare war on Z, then A and C should join in the war, as should X and Y. Get what I mean? No didn't think so...
I am all for entangling alliances, but I think the "gang up on the leader" mechanic will make them short term at best. As I understand it, once player faction A outstrips the rest of the AI factions, they will form a de facto alliance against you - regardless of the relationships you've tried to build up over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fwapper
Well I think it is reasonable that if one's faction becomes so large it threatens its neighbours, it's reasonable for them to form an alliance against one. That is indeed often what happened historically. However one should also be able to force other states into lop sided alliances due to one's power.
The A,B,C vs X,Y,Z example I was thinking of was basically clubbing up on the leader. As it happened in history: Britain, France & Russia ganged up on Germany as it became too powerful - it upset the balance of power - Germany (in defence) Made alliances with Austria and Italy. These alliances were solid ones which were not easily broken, unlike those in RTW. ...OK so italy did swap sides when her alliance group started losing, but most alliances worked. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
You forgot the holy sword of great redemption +10... :furious3:
Let's not forget the Dragons. Integrla part of every real game representing Medieval period. :D
And that they will all team up on the onqueror is not entirely true. Some factions would ally with him, if they hated their neghbours more than him, if that faction promised not to conquer them.