Challenging an opinion is the test between the opinion and the opinion's 'owner' to see if it's an opinion worth having.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashantiwarrior
Printable View
Challenging an opinion is the test between the opinion and the opinion's 'owner' to see if it's an opinion worth having.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashantiwarrior
I have never played MTW but i have got STW and one of the things i miss is the assain movies now i hardly ever use assain's in RTW
I think today I am going to reinstall MTW:VI and have a nice campaign with the Irish. This is what I am gonna do ~:)
STW wasn't perfect and neither was MTW, but MTW represented a step forward in the series, and its battlefield AI improved through VI. Now, RTW is a step forward in many areas, graphics, and it even improves on MTW in its strategic game. Where the misfire is in my opinion is in the battlefield AI, which I think is a major step backwards in terms of challenge. Unfortunately, the battlefield AI is the heart of the game. It is also the buggiest game of the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
The sheer number of things the patch addresses points out the flaws and broken features of the game. Lets face it, this game was only marginally playtested and hurried out of the door. I am not going to roll over and bark with gratitude that this game was released in its current form.
My experience was that MTW was more bugged than RTW.
And I just can't wait for the patch.
AAAAAAAAAAAARGH !
When is it supposed to be available ?!
that's what i think too
they say that in rtw the armies are shattered but thats better then be ever chasing an 15000 men large army in mtw
but it is true that you dont see the major ofensives vs you that was there in mtw i think shogun battles suck becaus i always lose but in R and MTW i never loosed
I heard (read) that it would be out this week,so its today. (doubt it, do they even work today?) Or some day in (not) to distant future...
They should release it tomorrow, just for laughs ~D
played it a lot but after a while its was just selfcreated misions for meQuote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
my tacticts whiped out every army even whent outnumbered 1:4
(ofcourse count in my passion for a perfect army) :charge:
but as example it way to easy just conquer the best trade countries put in every region an strong army upgrade everything and maintain your navy and whoila an aproximate 100,000 fl a year
This only shows the dedicated base of Shogun fans that has been growing ever since (until now).Quote:
RTW is third in a field of three, pulling only 21% of the vote.
It neglects the fans who own the game R:TW but do NOT own S:TW or M:TW.
S:TW or M:TW owners have internet & about 1/6 of them visit forums.
'R:TW only' owners have internet (slightly less) but only 1/18 of them visit forums.
So most opinions are not heard, and most R:TW fans do not like or even attend forums as much as the earlier fans do. This is due to the fact that R:TW is designed for a greater public, also drawing in more social gamers. STW and MTW tend to be more mentally oriented, and thus more active on fora. RTW fans are more likely to meet in a bar, like Halo fans.
Sure this may change, but not a lot.
I was without RTW for a week and reverted to STW & MTW to keep my twitching fingers busy. All I can say is what remarkable games they were in their day ... both still play very nicely, particularly STW. I found myself getting all nostalgic playing on some of the battlemaps where I cut my Total War teeth, some of the landscapes I know like the back of my hand. The music, styling and mood of STW was very immersive, and I enjoyed going back there.
MTW was my all time favourite until RTW, and playing that again for the first time since last September I fell in love again with the Medieval period, but the graphics are so clunky, and the campaign so lacking in RTW's subtlety ... I really can't understand why anyone would ditch RTW 1.1 for MTW, irrespective of whether there's going to be a patch or not.
Clicking to get a general's eye view of the action, and seeing realistically depicted armies panicking when they're flanked - the dynamics of combat in RTW are so much more sophisticated. Units of soldiers don't simply hack away at each other until one or other falls below a 'tipping point' in terms of casualties, RTW makes melees so much more realistic - no unit will stand and fight when successfully flanked and charged from the rear. That alone means that there is no scissors-stone-paper simplicity to this game. I have played about 30 hours a week of RTW since beginning of October ... it is simply the most immersive game I've ever come across, until the next iteration of this series that is.
-
Your optimism makes my blood boil for RTW, Men of Wid, and refreshes my keen memories of MTW stretching a two year period, interrupted into two blocks.
Welcome to the ORG!
:medievalcheers:
-
Oaty, what programs did you use which found 1 gig of spyware on your PC? Just curious.
Damn it I am sick and tired of fanboys like Old Celt telling us we expect too much, that we have no right to complain, and that we should get down on our knees and grovel with thanks for every little crumb the industry tosses our way.
If games development was left up to people like you, we'd all still be playing Pong on our TV sets.
I played STW and loved it. I still play and enjoy it sometimes. I also bought MTW and didn't like it at all. It didn't add anything but size to the first game, and I'm not a believer in the idea of "bigger is better". Shogun was just the right size, MTW was a bloated monster.
In addition, MTW's campaign AI sucked (building nothing but huge peasant armies) and the battle engine was clearly more sluggish than the crisp engine at the heart of STW. The lame attempt to create a challenge by having faction resurgences with uber-armies was the last straw for me.
Now I know that puts me at odds with a lot of people who love MTW but for me, STW is still by far the best game in the series, and it saddens me to see how the franchise has progressively gone backwards from that first title.
As for RTW, well I think the system has potential but it has a long way to go. The campaign AI in particular needs sharpening up - I haven't found the battle AI to be that bad, apart from suicidal generals. It's the bugs more than anything that drove me away from playing it.
But I think the greatest irony with RTW is that it was designed to be a fabulous piece of eye-candy and I think it's actually less attractive than the previous games! To me it looks very unrealistic, with the flat, largely featureless battle maps, the absurd skyscraper tall trees, the buildings that seem to be all out of proportion, and which appear to change their proportions as you move around them, and above all, those blindingly bright military units whose clothing looks backlit with neon! I mean, the whole thing looks kind of cartoony to me, and it does nothing for the immersion factor. Perhaps if they had sprays of blood when soldiers got killed - but that would hurt sales, wouldn't it? So the battlefield is not only cartoony, but antiseptic.
Not that I don't appreciate the huge effort that's gone into designing this 3D world, or the sometimes spectacular animations of the soldiers - but man, I wish they'd tone down the colours on those soldiers a bit!
Oh, while on the subject of graphics, where are the fabulous weather effects that they had in STW, those beautiful, evocative mists, the hiss of steady rain, or the spectacular bolts of lightning which light up the whole battlefield and the mighty crash of thunder which makes you JUMP in your seat?
And then there are the finicky controls, which in almost every respect are worse than in the previous games. Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I mean, I could go on, but it's all been said before.
I still think the system has great potential and I look forward to refinements in future releases. I'm hoping the patch irons out those play-destroying bugs and brings the fun factor back. But please, don't tell me I don't have a right to be disappointed, or to express my opinion just because it doesn't happens to coincide with yours!
When I returned to STW last week I was actually startled by the lightning - the ambient weather effects are extremely good, the best of all three games. Why this should be the case I don't understand. Nonetheless, I'm glad to be back on RTW 1.1.
One thing regarding STW is that because it was a simpler game - in terms of units, faction building/troop preferences, and number of provinces - the AI was more up to the job of keeping you on your toes.
MTW & RTW are far more complex worlds, with far more permutations ... is this an argument against the scale of MTW & RTW? Not for me. Eventually the AI will grow to fit into the larger strategic footprint.
And lets not chide CA for being wallflowers when it comes to ambition - the increase in graphics is more than just 'eye candy', it delivers an immersive experience. And I'll repeat the point I made earlier ... the dynamics of melee are far superior in RTW. No matter how good a unit is, they'll still run if you get at them from behind. This is a conceptual leap from STW & MTW, and makes RTW a serious game for adults.
But I hope that they fix the thunder & lightning effects.
ScrewtypeQuote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I never said you had no right to complain. I never said you should get down on your knees. I DID say some of you expect too much, and that's absolutely true. There's quite the disconnect from reality when a couple dozen people who are an extreme minority, think their opinions should trump the work done by marketing and R&D for software projects. RTW isn't a great game because I say so; it's a great game because industry analysts, and many happy consumers say so.
You have the right to complain. I never said you didn't. What I said was: your complaining comes to nothing when most other people are happy. Do you think any company should change its plans just on your personal say so? How about you and 10 other people? I don't think that would matter. But if the reviews were poor, and sales were poor, you would have to change based on the flaws you could fix.
You couldn't be more wrong about me, games development, and Pong. As a programmer, I use the maximum amount of creativity my employer will allow in development. I believe in beginning with the end in mind, and doing a comprehensive assessment of project goals and resources. I will not sign off on any project if I feel adequate testing has not been done, or think things are shoddy in any way. But I'm just a dev. I get overtrumped by sales, marketing, etc. Do you really think the project devs didn't know about the common bugs and issues people point out about RTW? Of course they knew about them! The decision to release isn't up to them!!
Screwtype, you can be as disappointed as you like. And I never said you didn't have a right to express your opinion. I have, in fact, defended that right previously, and will do so again. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from attributing statements to me that I never made.
Well said Old Celt.
Screwtype this game is awesome and I almost did not buy it due to the complaining from jagoffs like yourself but I just got it on Friday and love it, I have all TW games and this one is leaps and bounds above the rest.
Oh one more thing.... YOU GOT OWNED!!!
Er, yes, because only 10 people (ok, fine, 11) have complained. :rolleyes: Nice strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
As for reviews, it's already been posted how reviewers tend to be 10hr players. That is, play the game for 10 hours, and then post their review. That may work for FPS with no depth. It doesn't work for a game like RTW. Let's face it, the graphics are a big step up in the "flash" department since MTW. The sheer "differentness" of it means that things look new and cool. It isn't until you've played it for awhile, and seen how bad some of the areas are that you get an understanding of what the issues of the game are.
As for the sales, I hope they are making the bean-counters happy. Lots of sales doesn't translate into a good game. It translates into good marketing. It doesn't mean that the game doesn't have serious issues. And it doesn't mean that the programmers of the game should be satisfied.
If you feel that RTW is a good/great game as it stands now, that's fine. But your somewhat poor attempts to write off the people who don't as "you and 10 other people", or "a couple dozen people who are an extreme minority" is both unsupportable and silly. You are making the exact same mistake you are accusing others of making.
Bh
Oh please calm down and do away with your facade of drama, it isn't wanted here. No one wins or loses when someone expresses an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wh1teWolf
The facts, with my comments:
1. The majority of those who frequent these forums are not those who used to frequent them during the MTW days, let alone the STW days. This does not spell "keeping your core enthusiasts happy" to me. I can remember a bunch of people who used ot be very proactive in the game part of the community basically fade away after the Rome Demo was released. This further compounded when the final unit lists were released along with the game itself.
2. The Advertising and Sales have gone up since the beginning. Coke is not the best or more rewarding beverage to drink, yet it's the best selling. It's sales are such because of their advertising and marketting - this is for the same in any Capitalist Society.
3. Many things were lost in transition from Generation to Generation of the game's history. This is not to say that nothing is added, I'd say that more was added than taken away - but it's the little and pivitol things that define any certain game. In a strategy game the physics and graphics engines are relatively moot - it's the AI and the Battle Engine that make up the bread and butter of the genre. It would be very nice to have a lot of things back from previous editions, but I'm not holding my breath. Basically if the patch doesn't do enough, I'm gone.
Yeah - not only has the game been dumbed down, so has the feel of these forums.
True, doesn't mean they haven't been playing them though. I only joined here in december, but I suppose would be classed as a 'veteran', whatever that means. ~:confused:Quote:
1. The majority of those who frequent these forums are not those who used to frequent them during the MTW days, let alone the STW days.
For me, the biggest way that RTW lets me down compared to the other two is that when you take an army into battle after looking at theirs, the odds, the experience etc is that you know beforehand what the result will be and most often if not always (unless a brutallt stupid AI bug such as general suicide with reinforcements) you know you will win.
The only thing in doubt is how much you will win by and if the enemy army will still exist post conflict.
Someone mentioned build up of tension previously on this thread and that is the key element that RTW misses. RTW is more like taking a Dyson vacuum cleaner over Europe and easily sucking up enemies, especially with the AI not doing to you what you can do to it ( as effectively) such as assisinations, building up and using diplomats to bribe etc.
I remember in MTW taking my stack of 1000 well solid troops with an awesome general against many thousands, lets say 4000, and having an EPIC.
Due to tiredness you would have to keep a couple of units in reserve until later but would that mean you would be too badly outnumbered. OK i've killedthe general quick, that leaves only 3800 troops to deal with vs my 950.
This type of tension no longer exists in RTW and was a real draw for me in the other 2.
I PREDICT A POST WILL FOLLOW THAT SAYS 'I THINK THERE IS THAT TENSION IN RTW AND I AM JUST NOT PLAYING IT RIGHT' Hmmmm, how long will it be.?
By the way, hello all, haven't posted in bloody ages. ~:cheers:
:embarassed: yeah. it used to be all history and strategy chat. good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBeth
I should be more careful what i post. To clarify, I mean that the game in its current state has not encouraged many threads on how we can defeat the uber AI ~:confused: or on battle tactics. I in no way meant the members of this forum, which is currently the only plus point to a rushed and pretty incomplete game.
Many of the posts I read here suggest changes that, while they may make the game more "realistic", they would also take the element of fun (you know FUN; the purpose of all games) out to some degree. An example would be the whole bribing/assassination genre. Sure, the AI can be programmed to use every advantage to build up a big treasury, then systematically bribe everything you have away from you. Would that be fun? We could change the AI so cities would revolt constantly, and the people would never be happy. Would that be fun? We could eliminate morale from the battle AI, and also any attempt to emulate the particular style of a civs battle tactics and instead have cold calculated logic for all AI behavior. Would that REALLY be fun? We could make siege warfare much more realistic by emulating real life behavior and eliminating nearly all direct assaults. Sieges will be a waiting game because, with proper defensive logic, direct assault = SUICIDE. Again, would it be fun?
I'm not a bonafide military genius, but I know the computer can easily outmanuever you if decision making and actions are equally based on logical reference and limited time to execute (i.e. RTS where you cannot pause). Do you think it would be fun to have a game that deteriorates to a "click fest" because you cannot think and react as quickly as the computer? A good game will always balance the fun aspect with the difficulty or tedious aspects of the representation.
There are bugs which need to be addressed. Hopefully, all the major ones will be. The bigger the scope of a project, the more likely bugs will remain hidden for long periods. They still discover bugs in Windows 2000 on a routine basis. I really don't see how any enthusiast for military history and tactics could NOT have fun with this game. Yes it has limitations, bugs, and stupid behavior at times on the AI's part. But I think, even with all that, the game is still a dang lot of fun. I play it for hours and hours, and enjoy it even with the flaws. The patch should fix most of the outright bugs, but there's no way the AI will be improved enough to satisfy some of the most demanding players in the time they've (CA) had to implement the patch.
In past TW games it took a lot more time to deploy troops, march troops and do the actual battle itself. The deployment/marching/maneuvering ritual is gone! :dizzy2:
The units are too fast and unbalanced. What is the longest battle you've had in RTW? In MTW? in STW?
In STW, deployment was very crucial, due to the chain rout.
In MTW, it was much easier, due to the strength of the spears and higher morale.
In RTW, it was dumbed down to the point that it doesn't even matter anymore since the enemy will all charge at the same time at unbelievable speeds ~:eek:
Um, I'm not sure about this. In some ways, I think deployment matters more in RTW because combat is so quick - it is hard to pull off grand manouvres, so it is more a question of having pointed your men in the right direction and letting them go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
However, it seems terrain matters rather less in RTW than the earlier games - hills, in particular, don't seem so dominating. (This may be a good thing.) So this reduces the importance of deployment.
I appreciate the speed of RTWs battles, particularly in the context of keeping a campaign moving at a brisk pace, but they do often seem to miss the epic quality of some of STWs and MTWs battles. However, my hunch is that a lot of the problem is in the AI failing on the strategic map to get a reasonable force to counter the player's. The few times I've confronted full strength AI stacks with decent generals, the battles have been impressive if still brisker than in the earlier games.
Fully agree, IMHO the main problem of the AI is the bad use of their generals, most of it's full stack armies are leaded by a capitan, meanwhile player armies are leaded by a 4 stars general at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
It has two major effects, armies are cheap to bribe and their battle performance is to poor.
If AI used good generals to lead their armies. the game would be more challenging
I disagree too. Whatever happened to the Rock-paper-scissor scheme?Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
That's because it was abandoned. That's what separated TW from other games in the first place. You can't do it because the units are meant to plow head-on. Why do you think they cranked up the speed in the first place?Quote:
it is hard to pull off grand manouvres
Here's some of what's missing, from STW (minus expansion pack):
- Vicious fights for the Hill. Defending or attacking, the fight is always on the edge.
- Weather effects. Attack a province in a middle of a
a) Snowstorm/blizzard. The AI is hidden. Formation is always defensive.
b) Heavy rain. Most of the AI is hidden in the forrest and your arrows are considerably weakened. Occasional lightning can help. Trying to extricate a buried army is amazing. ( in RTW, you just plow right through).
- AI hides and divides its forces. You are constantly torn whether to divide your army.
- Limited access to army. You can't pump out units from many province or you'll go broke quickly.
- Routing and Rallying. It is practically impossible to do this since 100s of soldiers are wiped in a couple of seconds. In bridges, you just create a box, let the AI flow through and then charge. Literally, the whole army vaporizes.
- Ranged unit shootouts. Try charging arquebusiers with melee units and they will rout. Attack hidden archers without backup and your melee units will be decimated.
- Better battlemap. They kept talking about huge battlefields, yet you have this tiny area to maneuver in the final product.
Where are these TW hallmarks in RTW? I can let my collosal disappointment of MTW pass, after info on RTW was leaked out. Heck, I even bought VI since I was impressed with RTW.
I'll try out Imperial Glory if RTW is still a dog after the patch. CA seriously need a competition. Right now RTW is a Wargame/Arcade hybrid, it simply doesn't mix. :dizzy2:
im doing that to......but patch is up so..... PLAY!!!! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
For me the biggest dissappointment in RTW is the lack of challenge. I haven't played STW, but when I began playing MTW it took quite a few battles and a lot of forum browsing to discover all the tricks and ways to beat the AI and even after that it was still quite difficult. It was fun, step by step I could face greater enemies with more confidence, but victory was NEVER certain! Now RTW is just plain boring in that aspect, the AI ALWAYS uses the absolute same tactic. It deploys in a long thin line and charges, thrilling, isn't it? In MTW the AI tried to manevour for higher ground or a better position, I remember trying hard to out manevour him.
I mean a battle in RTW where my army of 2300 beat an enemy of 3500 and I only suffer 37 casualties, that is not normal! Sure I could put it to VH and see my unit of heavy cav be cut down by archers, but that is just plain stupid, ahistorical and most importantly NOT FUN!
RTW has been made more appealing to the FPS crowd and thus it was seriously simplified, I mean the AI uses barbarian charge tactic for every army out there *sigh* Yes it does, I made a test where I gave the Parthian, horse archer heavy, army to the AI and it just charged it.
The second great dissappointment was the lack of historical accuracy. The Roman factions are portayed nicely, but when one looks at the barbarians :dizzy2: It doesn't really help if all barbarian factions have the same units which are named like in some very old games - I mean: swordsmen, chosen swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry, noble cavalry. It is like it used to be ten years ago, where you faced yellow enemies, blue enemies and red enemies and there was a boss that had the same skin but was black. *sigh*
And when we see some difference it is totally shocking...druids...head hurlers...:dizzy2:
The above really takes away from that feeling when you play the game, where you think who it is best to attack and you need to take into account casualties and the size of the enemy army. It was nicely pointed out that in RTW you just run over Europe with a vacuum cleaner, doesn't really matter who you attack, you will probably win, even if you don't use the cheesy bribe. ( Full stack for 8k anybody? )