-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
Popup buttons at top are a pain for me since I use the mouse for camera movement. Would be nice to have an option for permanently on.
There is that option. Pressing the appropriate F button will switch between 3 options - hidden, auto-roll, and stuck. I believe CBR posted this before me, but in fewer words ;).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
Auto preferences -still there, still stupid, still won't let me use 1280 * 1024 without altering the file :furious3:
In my experience (using funny resolutions and such on my widescreen monitor), RTW reads from the graphics driver. So, if I add a custom res in the driver's control panel (I have an nvidia, not sure if ATI supports custom res's although it would make sense), it will be selectable in RTW.
Quote:
I love that they have added this... But I wish i could carry on my British campaign.. is there a way to unlock at the fractions yet with 1.2 ??
The faction unlocking mod still works with 1.2. None of the faction descriptions were changed.
As for the pathfinding issue in cities, it is most annoying when your unit gets spread out on a street and you need to attack an enemy. The unit will attempt to attack the center (average position? flagbearer?) of the enemy unit, so my men on the ends just walk past the enemy (who is attacking them) in an attempt to reach the center. With the pathfinding, they may end up going around several blocks before they get to their destination and start attacking. This has been a problem before, but it seems to be worse in 1.2.
Overall, though, I am extremely satisfied, especially with the campaign map improvements and editors.
- nickersonm
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Do not install any 1.1 "unlock all factions" mod. Such mods edit the file descr_strat.txt, which was also modified in the 1.2 patch. You will lose some of the patch's additions if you overwrite that file. Instead, modify it by hand—go to Rome - Total War\data\world\map\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_strat.txt, look for the lists of factions at the very top, and add all factions you want to unlock to the "playable" list. If you want the maps, get them from a mod that unlocks all factions, but be sure not to overwrite descr_strat.txt.
EDIT: Turns out I was wrong. descr_strat was not affected by the patch.
Anyway, the pathfinding is distressing, but there are no glaring bugs other than that. If only something close to this were the original product, and CA's two patches could've dealt with pathfinding and opening up the game more to modders, RTW would be perfect.
-Simetrical
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
One good thing... the Scythian females no longer look like their faces were painted by Picasso...
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Alt - Click.to.move Works
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Can't really understand why people don't like the routing... That's what happened in real life. They didn't hack each other to the death, they charged at each other, hacked a little, and then the one getting the worst beating fled... It didn't take a long time, and certainly not enough time to order units about, as one complained about not being able to do...
Humans aren't really as brave as some like to think when it comes down to dying...
Morale and routing are important, sure. I'm even happy to accept that a raw, untrained army might not last for long against a much better one. But do you really think it happened in seconds, as it does in unmodded RTW? I've had battles where 5 seconds after melee started the first unit routed and 5 seconds after that a chain reaction 90% of army rout was in progress.
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
Now, imagine the RTW engine producing a battle like that. I can't. The unmodded game at least; all hail those wonderful modders who have gone some way towards making the game playable.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles
Morale and routing are important, sure. I'm even happy to accept that a raw, untrained army might not last for long against a much better one. But do you really think it happened in seconds, as it does in unmodded RTW? I've had battles where 5 seconds after melee started the first unit routed and 5 seconds after that a chain reaction 90% of army rout was in progress.
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
Now, imagine the RTW engine producing a battle like that. I can't. The unmodded game at least; all hail those wonderful modders who have gone some way towards making the game playable.
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
its good for such an buged game,especialy the later marian reforms,and better ai.to bad for the HA!
~:cheers: CHEERS ~:cheers:
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wh1teWolf
Going back to the AI besides Screwtypes constant bitchin and complainin on every dumbass post he makes...All in all its a great patch and makes for great campaigns it's like a totaly different game then 1.1, WELL DONE CA!!!!!!!!
While I don't appreciate your gratuitous rudeness whitewolf, having had the opportunity to play this game solidly for the last few days, I think maybe I've been a bit too hard on it.
I was deeply disappointed with the initial release of the game, it had so many bugs on my PC it was almost unplayable. Since I got the patch, I've had only one CTD (when I right clicked on a portrait on my family tree) and I've had more time to get into it.
And I must admit, despite the flaws, I'm having fun with the patched game, and I'm coming to appreciate and enjoy some of the design decisions that I was quite critical of before.
I'm now coming to the same view as many of the other posters on the RTW forums, that probably the thing I'd most like to see is an improved campaign and battle AI, because the game is still too easy to beat, and I can see myself losing interest over time. But right now, I'm having a bit of a blast, in spite of the niggles there's obviously a huge amount of effort that went into making this, and I think CA deserves our appreciation for what they have achieved.
Now guys, all I ask is that you keep improving on what you've already done until you've built a game we just can't stop playing ~:)
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Do not install any 1.1 "unlock all factions" mod. Such mods edit the file descr_strat.txt, which was also modified in the 1.2 patch. You will lose some of the patch's additions if you overwrite that file. Instead, modify it by hand—go to Rome - Total War\data\world\map\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_strat.txt, look for the lists of factions at the very top, and add all factions you want to unlock to the "playable" list. If you want the maps, get them from a mod that unlocks all factions, but be sure not to overwrite descr_strat.txt.
Crud, I didnt think about this. If someone could send me the descr_strat.txt, it would save me a reinstall, and make me oh so very happy. Either a PM would work. Thanks.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
This patch completely ignored tons of posts regarding the hyperspeed killing rates during battles. There is almost no tactical skill that can be exercised when a battle lasts under 60 seconds. I have to cut the swing rate to 50% just to get an enjoyable pace.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Another thing that i have noticed that is unchanged in the patch is how troops still fall down at random at the start of battle. while this isnt much of a problem on flat terrain, on a city wall it is quite damaging. perhaps my biggest irritation with the game.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
The depressing thing is that im really excited when battles last over 1 minute..... Medieval was never like that unless the enemy was utterly useless, you could enjoy and watch the battle unfold make tactical decisions changes, alterations in battle and see the difference Rome is just send infantry in they charge if the enemy doesnt run one cav charge inthe side and they all run after only 25% casualties.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Ok, I don't know if this is just my system (which is buggy at the moment), or added in the patch, but disbanding troops no longer adds to city population in my game. I made a few units of peasants to shuffle over to a city I wanted to quickly boost to the 2000 mark, disbanded them, and the population was still the same. Is anyone else experiencing this?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
No, I'm not experiencing that Quillan. I've been frantically churning out peasants to add to the pitiful populations of cities I've exterminated and they are all definitely adding to the pop. when disbanded.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
This patch completely ignored tons of posts regarding the hyperspeed killing rates during battles. There is almost no tactical skill that can be exercised when a battle lasts under 60 seconds. I have to cut the swing rate to 50% just to get an enjoyable pace.
What do you mean "cut the swing rate to 50%", and how did you do that?
I've been thinking about adding an extra hit point to all units to make the battles last longer, but I want to play one or two campaigns right to the end before I start making changes.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
I havent fought the Numideans before but in light of the warband issue I'm wondering if the strange makeup of the armies I faced was the same 'bug'. The numidean army I crushed was 10 units of skirmishers with some (very effective) heavy cav that were probably family members.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeWee
Of course "single unit match ups often melee much longer" than when large armies clash. It's because the single units don't get flanked.
Sheesh...
Anyway, the reason why battles are over so quick isn't the kill rate, it's the fact that low-valor units rout as soon as the other side seems to get the upper hand.
Big battles do last longer unless you don't have reserves or reinforcements thereby letting all your units rout at the same time. If you rally your routing troops and keep a second line with fresh troops the large battles last way longer than smaller ones.
They don't last as long as battles did in real life no, but then our armies are like one tenth of the size of armies back then...
The only kill rate that would benefit from a change is the one for routers but that's a different issue.
Arggggghhh! Sorry, I just hate it when those who don't know what they're talking about talk as if they do.
Longer Battles are NOT about having *longer* battles, but about having HIGH TACTICAL battles. Unmodded the RTW does not allow for Tactical battles---PERIOD!
Simply slamming reserves/reinforcements is not a substitute....
Also, in STW and MTW, there were several other variables, in addition, to *valour* that effected a unit's ability to Stand and Hold (not rout). A player with a FULL comprehension of the variables and with experience could compensate for unit *type* and valour weaknesses, as well as using those same variables to maximize his advantages. TERRAIN played a *much* greater part in the outcome of a battle.
More to the point of what irks me about your post: do you *think* you have more experience, more knowledge, more contemplation, of the Total War series than the poster you replied to?
I mean really some people know what they are talking about and some people don't; and then there are those who *think* they do.
~ToranagaSama
---
Opps, GFX707, said it all so much more succintly.
Oh, I see, Colvion, bless him, honored you by responding in precisely the manner you demanded, an explanation. The man took his time and effort, and this is all you have to say:
Quote:
I do enjoy them. I'd enjoy them more if it was possible to fight 50,000 vs 50,000 battles that would last half an hour but until we have computers capable of that I'll settle for what I have. IMO it's better to have realistic kill speeds than to nerf them to simulate that each unit is 10 times larger than it is...
Why don't you honor him (and the rest of us) and respond to the points he brought up? HINT: Tactics!!!
BTW, what is realistic about Vanilla combat speeds?
Ban me if you will, but RTW Newbies are a clueless butch.
~ToranagaSama
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Can't really understand why people don't like the routing... That's what happened in real life. They didn't hack each other to the death, they charged at each other, hacked a little, and then the one getting the worst beating fled... It didn't take a long time, and certainly not enough time to order units about, as one complained about not being able to do...
Humans aren't really as brave as some like to think when it comes down to dying...
So then, given the above, you must explain what it was about the Romans that made them so superior? If they were just "hack[ing]" away like everyone else then WHAT was at the root of their success?
How and why would one "get... the worst" of it? Was it just luck? Was there no skill, no thought, no plan?
Wasn't the battle goal to attempt to, in some fashion, surround your opponent? Wasn't it that once an enemy *perceived* himself *about to be surrounded, in some fashion, that THEN the enemy would rout?
Here's a dose of realism for ya:
Hannibal's victory at Cannae
Quote:
At the onset of the battle, the Roman and Carthaginian skirmishers began to pick at each other, testing for weaknesses and trying to force their opponent into committing to a plan of action (Lazenby, 1978). It wasn't until Hannibal's heavy cavalry charged the Roman right flank that the battle began in earnest. Hasdrubal's 7,000 Spanish and Gallic heavy cavalry collided with Paullus' 2,400 Italian heavy cavalry (Peddie, 1997). Immediately, the sheer force of numbers began driving the Romans back. To make matters worse, the river to their right and the infantry to their left effectively hemmed in the Romans. Many left their horses to fight on foot, allowing riderless horses to plunge unchecked through the Roman lines, causing further confusion (Lamb, 1960). The Romans were soon routed and began fleeing back towards their main camp and up the hill to Cannae. Hasdrubal successfully maintained command of his troops and rode behind the advancing Roman infantry and assisted the Numidians attack the Roman allied cavalry (de Beer, 1969).
On Rome's left flank, Varro held his ground against the Numidian light cavalry. His troops did not ride after the fleet, shaggy mounts of the Africans, but instead braved their pulsing style of attack. Indeed, Varro was effectively and efficiently upholding his initial plan of having his cavalry withstand attack until his infantry could break the Carthaginian center. However, when Hasdrubal's heavy cavalry threatened his right flank, Varro and his men rode with haste from the field. The Numidians gave chase while yet again Hasdrubal reformed his troops for attack (Lazenby, 1978).At the onset of the initial cavalry rush, the skirmishers for both sides melted back into their respective lines. The formation presented to the Romans was unique. Hannibal's Gauls and Spanish troops were arrayed in a convex line, with the outermost point closest to the Roman legions. Intent on destroying their enemy, the Romans began their steady, tightly maintained march towards the Carthaginian forces. The Gauls and Spaniards fought valiantly, but had to give ground due to the sheer number of Roman troops. As they made their slow retreat, their line flexed backward from convex to straight, and then finally concave. Meanwhile, the impetus of the Roman's forward advance carried them between the two African heavy infantry forces (Caven, 1980). Paullus, after the routing of his cavalry, assisted in leading the Romans towards their foe. As the front line of the Romans began to tire and meet continual resistance from the Gallic and Spanish troops, they realized they had nowhere to go for retreat. By that time, the Gauls and Spaniards had been pushed to the rear of their battle lines. They had yielded ground, but never broke before the Roman legions. The Roman advance slowly ground to a halt as those in front were stymied while those behind continually pressed forward.
At this time, Hannibal signaled the final stage of his battle plan. With the sound of war horns, the heavy African infantry wheeled towards each other and began attacking the Roman flanks (Caven, 1980). Meanwhile, the Gauls and Spaniards redoubled their efforts and applied pressure to the Italian front ranks. It was also at this time that Hasdrubal's heavy cavalry crashed into the back of the Roman infantry, effectively sealing off any avenues of escape. As the Romans vainly sought to free themselves from this perfectly executed double envelopment, the battle turned into a massacre.
Tactics Used in the battle of Cannae
Convex-Straight-Concave-Hold-Flank-->Victory
If you can, at all, envision this battle, it should be quite clear that the above battle tactics can NOT be implemented in RTW for the simple reason that Units will NOT *Hold* long enough for the battle (manueverings) to develop.
The lesson is if you, as a player, are in any way as capable a Total War general as Hannibal, you are going to get your butt kicked by the lousy battle settings that CA has implemented----and it SUCKS!
The game has been dumbed down and is unplayable (at least in 1.1 version, holding personal reservation for 1.2, but from the looks of the comments, there is no hope).
BTW, does anyone have a graphic/video of the battle that they could upload?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.
I believe the Romans troops in that battle were NOT "seasoned". Please see the link I provided in my previous post.
Quote:
...Varro and Paullus departed Rome with their newly raised army and headed towards the army of Germinus and Regulus, already following Hannibal and heading towards Cannae....
Quote:
...Experience was another crucial element in this battle. Hannibal's men were veterans of at least two campaigns against the Romans. His African troops had been with him since he touched Italian soil. His Gallic, Spanish, and Numidian troops were fierce fighters that had been with him for at least one season of fighting....
Quote:
...Rome's levies were fresh troops. A majority was untested, thus increasing the need for quality leadership. That, coupled with such a large number of troops, played a factor in the events at Cannae....
Maybe the author is incorrect[?], but he has referenced his writings.
Sooo, ahhhh, what execuse now for the lame battle speed CA has implemented?
RTW = LCD [Lowest Common Denominator]
LCD = Dumbed Down
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
What do you mean "cut the swing rate to 50%", and how did you do that?
I've been thinking about adding an extra hit point to all units to make the battles last longer, but I want to play one or two campaigns right to the end before I start making changes.
The swing rate is in the export_unit_desc file in the Data directory.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
I believe the Romans troops in that battle were NOT "seasoned". Please see the link I provided in my previous post.
Maybe the author is incorrect[?], but he has referenced his writings.
Sooo, ahhhh, what execuse now for the lame battle speed CA has implemented?
RTW = LCD [Lowest Common Denominator]
LCD = Dumbed Down
You're talking to the wrong person:
1) I know nothing about the battle of Cannae. I merely commented on Lord of the isles post. He asserted that both were seasoned armies. If that were true then one would expect a longer battle than with two unseasoned armies.
2) As an ex soldier I'm quite aware of the value of professionalism/morale etc.
3) I've commented in many other threads about the inappropriate battle (overall), killing, and movement speeds.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.
Just didn't want anyone to use that strain of logic in order to justify vanilla's battle speed.
See the bold type. A bit confusing. My apologies.
Lord of the isles is indeed the one applying strained logic using assumptions of fact:
Quote:
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
Regarding the outfitting of Hannibal's army:
Quote:
...Due to the successes Hannibal had attained in earlier battles, his African soldiers were outfitted in Roman armor, used Roman scuta, and fought with Roman swords. As was their custom, the Gauls were "naked" ....
Further:
Quote:
Hannibal divided his 40,000 infantry into four sections....In all, there were approximately 20,000 Gauls and around 4,000 Spanish infantry deployed by Hannibal into the center of his formation.....
Hmmm..... seems like 20,000 naked Gauls (along with a few Spaniards) held off the Roman frontal attack long enough for 5000 Africans using Armour and Swords taken off dead Romans to Flank and envelope, while the Carthiginian Heavy Cav hit the Romans from the rear, *AFTER fighting successively on each Flank.
Nothing about the Battle Speed Settings (catchall phrase) is realistic or based on realism.
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Lowest Common Denominator.
[* EDIT]
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Lowest Common Denominator.
You can make your point without being NEARLY so condescending. Many others have already done so. You might think about learning from them.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Lowest Common Denominator.
[* EDIT]
AMEN
Hellenes
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetMonkey
This might be a little cynical... but does anyone else get the impression that the wrong game version got sent to the CD factories in the first place? After this patch it rather feels like we've been playing a beta these past few months.
It's happened before...
I agree with you completely. You are not cynical, cynical is: It seems CA is burned out, they just do it for money, no longer enthusiasm which is in STW and MTW. These days, I believe they would cut MTW down, releasing half of high and entire late era as an expansion.
As to the patch, AI is unable to handle sea warfare, enemy is willing to load quite large army to single trireme, despite he must know of my fleets patroling the sea.
Btw, if you look at the details of RomeTW.exe, in comments is: "Undoutedly The Finest Strategy Game Ever". Cha, cha.
:(
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Long time Grog here just don't like to post much. I'm not even touching this patch until EB, SPQR, or RTR are done. Really can't wait for EB. I've got MTW with, BKB Super in my box now.
Nice description about Cannae Toranqaga, you pretty much nailed it. I caught the H. channel the other night with the Hannibal episode detailing his battels. Cannae king of remids me of Zulu battle field tactics. Anyway in my humble opinion the killing speeds are set up to hide the weak battlefield AI. They put too much effort trying to make this girl look good. Ya just gotta make sure she keeps her mouth shut when you take her out.
For those who think creating a battle field AI with the current tech. available think again. Mad Minute games has produced a low tech $ 20 game with MTW style graphics that has A very competent and challenging AI. It's not perfect, but it's damn good.
Rome Total war will have fewer battles with more stategic signifigance. Who remebers that bull!
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obex
Crud, I didnt think about this.
It's okay, you didn't have to. I was wrong. descr_strat.txt was not affected by the patch. But it's good practice to always back up your entire data folder right after a fresh install/patch.
-Simetrical
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
The swing rate is in the export_unit_desc file in the Data directory.
I can't find a file called export_unit_desc. I assume you mean the file called export_descr_unit?
Also, I couldn't find anything about a "swing rate" in there. I did find a variable called "stat_fire_delay" which might be what you are referring to, but from the description it sounds like something that only affects missile weapons, because it refers to volleys, ie "Extra delay over that imposed by animation, between volleys".
If this is the stat you are playing with, are you sure it also affects the kill rate for melee weapons?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond. I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.
So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
Just didn't want anyone to use that strain of logic in order to justify vanilla's battle speed.
See the bold type. A bit confusing. My apologies.
Lord of the isles is indeed the one applying strained logic using assumptions of fact:
Well, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread ToranagaSama, but I'd better defend myself on this charge. What I wrote was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
I stand by that: both side at Cannae were composed of seasoned OR trained OR well-equiped troops. Hannibal's were seasoned, and sometimes also trained and/or well equipped. The Romans were well equiped (what Roman army wasn't), even if they may not have been seasoned or trained.
Since the phrase "seasoned, trained or well equiped" might have been read as "all were seasoned, and one or more of trained or well equiped", I added "either" before the phrase, to make it clear that I meant "one or more of ...". But I failed I guess. ~:)
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Does this imply that you think that if the "Battle Speed Settings" were reduced to what we think is a more sensible level, the good points of the tactical AI would show through? This is the optimistic view.
To be honest, it seems to me that from what we've all seen and heard, (the AI not being what we would wish of it) isn't it more the case that the "BSS" actually mask the inadequacies of the tactical AI ? This is the pessimistic view.
The result is the same regardless of the reasoning.
Cheers,
Rob.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond. I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.
So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.
Quote:
A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond.
You know, in a certain way, you're right. In that, if a player attempts to use any *real* and/or sophisticated flanking manuevers, especially any sort of disgusied movement(s) (hiding in the woods doesn't count), the player will lose. (The worst part is you won't even know WHY you lost, just that your line crumbled--Pathetic.)
But, here's how things get rather simplistic, if not down right easy. After losing in the above fashion a few times, it becomes rather clear that the key to winning, in RTW, is a rather straightforward strategy of bring *more* and *stronger* to the battle. Doing so, a player is rather assured of victory. This is the mentality behind EVERYTHING RTW.
Think about it and examine it, what does it sound like?
Sounds to me, directly, like Real-Time-Strategy, build faster, build more, build better---->then *Steam-roll* the AI. THIS is the Germ of ALL RTS games.
Total War games, STW and MTW, were about a GREAT deal more. Simplistically put, in previous incarnations, a player could NEVER be assured of victory, simply by bringing *more* and *better*. There were just TOO many variables involved in battle, AND on the Strat Map as well.
---
THIS, simplistically, is how CA/Activision has (dumb-down) made the game easier for the non-grognard:
Just about everyone is familiar with the basic method to RTS success, as I've described above. With this *new* TW model, anyone familiar with the RTS success model can load up RTW and apply that model and have relative success.
If one applies the RTS success model to STW, or, even more so, to MTW, they will LOSE--->allllll dayyyy. To The Creative Assembly's *great* credit (someone do me a favor and name the CA member directly responsible, cause I forget which one of them is), the A.I. is just tooo good for such simplistic (RTS) approaches. Particularly, the A.I. in combination with those GREAT Shogun Maps---where TERRAIN was king.
(For those unfamiliar with Shogun, its maps were MUCH harder to deal with in that the terrain is less flat, and the AI would make good use of it. If a player didn't master the use of Terrain, his success would be limited.)
---
From the outset of TW, CA/EA/Activision had a problem, the Grognards (and those with grognard tendacies (me)) had no problems adjusting to the *intracies* of TW, cause all those tabletop games, and computer emulations of the tabletop games, involved even GREATER intracacies. So adapting was a no-brainer. In fact, TW was like an orgasm for such folks because TW brought to life the things they desired (for the most part).
BUT, for the non-grognard RTS player, ignorant of the above intracacies, they'd try the Demo and/or buy the game and just not be able to grasp the game and/or adapt from the *known* RTS success model. In effect, the game was *too* hard!
Known RTS success models didn't work and TBS (Turn-Based-Strategy) success models were unknown to the average RTS Computer Gamer. BTW, Total War games are TBS games, not RTS games.
The simple solution, and the one CA choose, was to make the game more RTS -like, which would, consequently, make the game *easier* for the non-grognard.
It appears to have worked!
(If you can't bring the gamers to the gamer, then bring the game to the gamers.)
Quote:
I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.
Have you played the earlier titles?
The game is MUCH more accessible---MUCH.
Shogun, believe it or not, is more accessible than Medieval. I remember the day I loaded up MTW. *Me* a seasoned veteran of Shogun, and all I could do was simply *stare* at the Campaign Map. The scope of the Map was OVERWHELMING! I had NO idea how to begin. I had to gradully *feel* my way into a Campaign. ALL of the Veterans felt the same way, we talked about it----Overwhelmed. Of course, given a bit of time, we all became comfortable as heck.
Now these are SEASONED players. A Newbie would stare at that map all day and get nowhere. Do a search go back look at the Archives, NUMEROUS newbies would come to forum and the first question would be:
"How do I Start".
Personally, someone chime in if I'm incorrect, but I don't recall ANY such Newbie threads in the Colliseum----NONE!
Veterans would take Newbies in, and teach them about Tactics. What flanking is, what troops were good for flanking, what troops were good for Holding, etc. I don't see much of this going on AT ALL. Certainly, not approaching anything that has gone on before. The reason I believe is apparrant----there's no need to teach what's not needed.
Newbies and Vets, alike, are on fairly equal footing, in terms of the Battles and Campaign Map; and, Newbies are grasping the methods of success pretty much on their own.
Easier.
Quote:
So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.
I think I've made my argument.
The proof is in the Sales. RTW is a runaway success.
Shogun while critically acclaimed, and I believe a money-maker, did not receive the popular, nor financial success it deserved. Medieval, while more popular and financially sucessful than Shogun, still didn't achieve the sort of success that the good RTS and FPS games did.
I mean really, The Creative Assembly are the equal or better to Valve, Id, or Blizzard. Yet, they haven't been getting their due, neither financially, nor in acclaim---hence we have RTW.
The hope for the true Grognards and those with Grognard-tendancies (me), is that RTW is a *Ploy* by CA to wrest control of TW and their little company from the grubby hands of producer/distributors----and provide them with, Valve, Id, Blizzard, Sid Meier like industry CLOUT and FINANCES. Which they can then use to truly create the greatest game of all---Shogun on Steroids!!!
~D as well as the holy grail of Totalwardom---->a persistent world of Campaign Multiplay.
Hope springs eternal, for surely the creators of the SHOGUN masterpiece can't be happy with the compromise that RTW represents....
~:eek:
~ToranagaSama
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles
Well, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread ToranagaSama, but I'd better defend myself on this charge. What I wrote was:
I stand by that: both side at Cannae were composed of seasoned OR trained OR well-equiped troops. Hannibal's were seasoned, and sometimes also trained and/or well equipped. The Romans were well equiped (what Roman army wasn't), even if they may not have been seasoned or trained.
Since the phrase "seasoned, trained or well equiped" might have been read as "all were seasoned, and one or more of trained or well equiped", I added "either" before the phrase, to make it clear that I meant "one or more of ...". But I failed I guess. ~:)
Yesterday, I think I must have been a bit too miffed at the Newb comments, cause the blood in my eyes made me blind!!!
TS bows humbly with apologies. I think I read that all wrong!!!!
Dude, SORRY.
:bow:
Dont'cha just love the Org. Factual intelligent presentation will beat the name calling everytime.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Some interesting comments Toranaga. Not sure if I agree with all of them though.
I suppose on Easy and Medium, the battles are probably a bit of a pushover, I don't know, because I've only ever played on VH, and I know how diabolically hard it is to manage, with ridiculous kill rates, infantry that run like gazelle, and armies that crumble from broken morale two seconds after contact. I suppose if on the easier levels this is happening to the *enemy* army rather than yours, then you could argue the game has been "dumbed down" for a mass audience. It's just that I can't imagine how anyone could regard a two-second battle in which you don't get time to do anything but point your troops at the enemy and charge, as any kind of *fun*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
(For those unfamiliar with Shogun, its maps were MUCH harder to deal with in that the terrain is less flat, and the AI would make good use of it. If a player didn't master the use of Terrain, his success would be limited.)
Yeah, this is one area where the game has definitely been dumbed down, where so many imponderables have been reduced in their effects. In STW and MTW, terrain, weather, morale, fatigue, all had very marked and noticeable effects on the outcome of a battle. Most of these effects apart from morale have been reduced to virtual insignificance in RTW, which is a real shame. (Mind you, I always thought that in the earlier games, fatigue had too *much* of an effect, but in RTW it barely even registers).
The thing I really can't understand about that is that they already included an "RTS" mode in which these variables are totally disabled. So why knobble them in real-mode as well? It's got me beat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
Have you played the earlier titles?
The game is MUCH more accessible---MUCH.
I don't know. When I first booted up STW and started playing, I was instantly hooked and couldn't put it down for weeks. Heck, I didn't even learn there was a pause button I could use for the first month or so, and somehow, I still managed to win more often than not. There was time to do stuff, to see what was happening and change strategies, time to learn about what worked and what didn't. In RTW it's just wham bam thankyou ma'am - all over in the blink of an eye. If I hadn't played the earlier titles, I can't help but think I would have thrown my mouse through the monitor in utter frustration within a few hours. In fact, even as a veteran of the previous games, I almost did!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
The simple solution, and the one CA choose, was to make the game more RTS -like, which would, consequently, make the game *easier* for the non-grognard.
It appears to have worked!
The proof is in the Sales. RTW is a runaway success.
Is that proof that the game itself is a runaway success, or just the marketing campaign? RTW got enormous publicity in the period leading up to its release, and then excellent reviews in most of the gaming mags, which clearly ignored all the obvious problems. Activision did its work very well.
But do high sales really equal satisfied customers? Will those who bought RTW be prepared to buy the next release in the series? Time will tell. But within days of its release, dozens of copies of RTW were up for sale on eBay. And at my local EB games store, RTW went into the bargain basement bin BEFORE Christmas - as a half priced game. I don't think I've ever seen a major release slashed in price so quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
The hope for the true Grognards and those with Grognard-tendancies (me), is that RTW is a *Ploy* by CA to wrest control of TW and their little company from the grubby hands of producer/distributors----and provide them with, Valve, Id, Blizzard, Sid Meier like industry CLOUT and FINANCES. Which they can then use to truly create the greatest game of all---Shogun on Steroids!!!
Hope springs eternal, for surely the creators of the SHOGUN masterpiece can't be happy with the compromise that RTW represents...
Heh. Nice idea. But I think I should point out, the creators of the wonderful title that was Shogun are not with the company anymore. If you look at the credits of both games, you will see that not a single programmer who worked on Shogun worked on RTW. In fact virtually the whole original Shogun staff has apparently moved on, with the exception of a couple of head honchos.
Maybe that's one reason so many things about the game have changed...?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
That's too bad.
I guess CA isn't really what I thought it was, just a face on a company of people that once made great games that now are somewhere else.
Kinda like getting Bangled a la ne BMWs
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
This thread is becoming negative. Here's a small positive contribution. I've got further on my med/med Julii campaign - 220bc reached enough popularity to make a bid for power.
All the factions I have defeated - Gauls, Spanish, Britons and Dacians - have fielded bigger and better quality armies than pre-patch. As a result, there have been some epic decisive battles. And I have not even started on my formiddable Roman rivals - Scipii has N.Africa and Brutii have all Greece/Macedon and are finishing Thrace.
I really like delaying Marius - triarii are actually very good against barbarian noble cav - and also the date is not so long that you can't use legions. (By contrast, in MTWs patch the wait for longbows etc was a little long.)
I am still not bothered by the battle move or killing speed - from STW onwards, I've used pause so I guess it is not an issue for me. I actually appreciate it - I've fought 140+ battles, many minor. If things moved at STW or MTW speed, I suspect I might have burnt out.
The key test for me will be after this campaign. I also had a blast pre-patch as Julii and then my interest in RTW just fell off a cliff (too easy?); I hope this is not repeated. I may have missed this, but does anyone know what if anything the patch has done for the difficulty levels?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
I agree - the AI armies are much better and I get attacked by double stacks now.
Also, the drip feed or AI control of reinforcement is cool...I've used both!
If you sandwich an army with two full stacks you can use AI reinforcements and the enemy get's clobbered.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
I guess CA isn't really what I thought it was, just a face on a company of people that once made great games that now are somewhere else.
Actually, a lot of the people involved in Shogun and MTW are still with CA - just working on different projects. It's natural that after doing 5-6 years of the same kind of work people might need a little variety, and some have moved on for various reasons - although if you look closely at the Rome roster you'll note that most of the key design influences are still there (with a few additions). The world doesn't stand still while we make these games, you know ~;)
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
And a big hurray for that! ~:cheers: It started to get very depressing in the 1990s as we saw closure after closure of companies - notably SSI and Talonsoft - that made some very good computer wargames. TW is arguably better than what those good folk made and certainly light years ahead of other mass market strategy games.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity.
Yeah but it doesn't matter how mainstream you make the game. The fans of the strategy part are gonna turn away if CA keeps simplfying the AI and dumbing down the game. Don't you see? TW has developed a fanbase that will buy the games no matter what, so anything more is just icing on the cake really. The game might have sold even more if it stuck to the formula more.
Please don't dumb down the game, please... I like it when a game is as mentally challenging and realistic as this.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
Don't you see the catch-22 of the situation? The more "mainstream" you make the game, the more you alienate the people that liked the previous incarnations (generalizing, of course). The people who loved STW and MTW aren't going to care if you make enough to put out another TW game if it continues to move in what they perceive as a bad direction.
The initial success of the TW series was that it wasn't mainstream.
Bh
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Don't you see the catch-22 of the situation? The more "mainstream" you make the game, the more you alienate the people that liked the previous incarnations (generalizing, of course). The people who loved STW and MTW aren't going to care if you make enough to put out another TW game if it continues to move in what they perceive as a bad direction.
The initial success of the TW series was that it wasn't mainstream.
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
I agree, can we have a ARCADE, NORMAL and FULL REALISM modes in the expansion ??
uhm, does we need to start a threat "if there isn't a FULL REALISM option in the expansion I won't buy it" ???
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_ver_est
FULL REALISM modes in the expansion
What you mean like big hairy barbarians coming round to your house to give you a good kicking just because you stiffed them with a dodgy out of date map in exchange for a bag of coins??? ~D
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
No, I agree, it doesn't have to be that way. I'm simply commenting on their actions todate. Their next version could introduce options that make both crowds happy.
Sadly, I doubt that'll be the case. I wouldn't be surprised to find the next TW coming out as a console game (with a PC "port", of course). What lure does a solid strategy game have vs the almighty buck?
Bh
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I'd be happy to see that.
There is another way for CA to keep us happy. The easier it is for modders to get into the workings of the game and change things, the more likely it is that they can produce something approaching the game we want. So a more mod-friendly game would be good too.
Speaking of which, I used to play the TWR mod but moved to the SPQR mod when it came out. The current release is incompatible with the 1.2 patch but testing of a compatible version is underway (see: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showforum=61 for 20+ pages of battle testing results). Looks very promising; I urge all grognards to try it when it gets released.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
Couldn't it have been both ways? What do you think of the following approach:
I've been thinking about this since WesW did the MedMod. The key I believe is in the Difficulty settings. Rather than taking the standard approach toward Difficulty levels by giving the A.I. gradually increasing *Advantages* over the Player, which a lot of people don't care for and feel is unfair. What not do something a little revolutionary by creating *True* Difficulty. For example:
All comments will be in relative comparision of STW/MTW, the MedMod and RTW (Meaning the relative differences between each).
Easy: RTW as it exists presently, with the fast Battle Speed Settings (catchall phrase "BSS"), RTS/Arcarde-like *candy* (green arrows, etc.).
This setting would serve its intended purpose to pull in and provide a satisfying game experience for the "mainstream" audience and causual gamers.
Medium: This setting would be the equal of STW/MTW in its *Vanilla* version.
At this setting somewhat (for want of a better term) Slower (and more challenging) BSS settings would be introduced, along with *Tactical* Theory. BSS would be just slow enough so Flanking could be achieved with a Unit of than Calvalry.
In addition, the full *Elemental Effects* ("EE") such as, Fatigue, Morale, Terrain, etc. (all that existed in STW) would be introduced; along with a good Tactical Tutorial.
Both BSS and EE might at a somewhat relative adjusted setting in comparison to STW/MTW, and would serve as a gradual stepping stone for the Mainstream/Casual gamer.
Hard: Full BSS and EE allowing for HIGH Tactical Manuevering, with equivalent Elements of STW:MI and MTW:VI, an example of that would be the :green generals" setting of VI. In general, additives would consist of *things* that would provide greater CHALLENGE, as opposed to tradditional Difficulty (if you get my drift).
Very Hard: Along with Full BSS and EE, Unit Stat adjustments, Map Adjustments, in effect, this Difficulty Level would be the equivalent of Wes' MedMod done by CA with input from the community.
In general, additives would consist of *things* that would provide ever greater CHALLENGE, as opposed to Difficulty (if you get my drift).
For example, the Zones of Influence that WesW *successfully* introduced in the MedMod, that the Total Realism guys are having difficulty introducing in their Mod, etcetera.
This level would NOT be for the average mainstream casual gamer, but for the HARDCORE fanatics. This level would be a THANK YOU from The Creative Assembly to the Fans who have been at the core of TW's success. Thank you very much!!!
Also, it would be nice to have a **Series** of Unofficial Patches addressing whatever needs to be addressed as things arise. We, the Community, could do the Alpha/Beta/Whatever Testing. That is Activision (or whomever) is out of the loop. This would be Direct---CA to its Hardcore Fanbase. Other Developers do this!!! I don't know about the rest of the TW Community, but don'tcha think the Org members can handle this....
Such Unofficial Patches shouldn't be touched by the Mainstream/Casual gamer, unless it has the "Tested by The Community" stamp of approval. The Patches could be supported by the Forum (with just a little input from CA to those out front in the Community doing the supporting).
In fact the Patches probably should not even be posted over at the .com, the Official site, but come thru the Org. maintaining the unofficialness of them.
I digress.
Anyway, I believe the Difficulty concepts outlined above can be the *bridge* between the Mainstream and the Hardcore whereby everyone will find satisfaction.
The point of it all is that Everyone could find a satisfactory Level of Play for their Preference and/or Skill level and the overall game would have the accessibility *necessary* to meet CA/Activision's financial aims.
Mods could be aimed at specific Difficulty/Levels of Play. Broadly growing the scope of the game. In fact, I would suggest that the term and concept of Difficulty Levels be scraped altogether, in favor of *conceptual* "Levels of Play". Obviously, this is just a semantic, but nevertheless effective in terms of how one might view the game. No one wants to admit they prefer the *Easy* Level. So new *conceptualizations* would be necessary to equivocate the Standard Levels outlined above.
Mr. Grasdyke or any other CA member, I know its difficult for you guys to comment on such things, but would it be possible for you to comment simply on the conceptual reality of the Outline. Does such an implementation make any sense at all? Is it at all in the realm of reality (not necessary for TW but for any game)?
So, what do you Org members think? I mean there's got to be some Medium for us all. Feel free to expand adjust my thoughts, as you can see they're listening....
~ToranagaSama
P.S., I didn't even get into how Game Economics and Empire Management could be introduced and adjusted to the varying "Levels of Play" I outlined. Please somebody fill in the blanks. Thanks.
---
BTW, hey Simon, is this 'postive' enough for ya.
[TS, strains and refrains from making any negative **Pauser** comments. :jester: ]
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places.
Je'Rome, awesome. Thanks for sharing an honest point-of-view. However, at least give us the choice such as kill-rate and unit speed sliders etc!
Right now, I'm wishing for better competition to force CA to make these changes. Imperial Glory for example aced RTW in sea battles and use structures in battles but they lag in number of troops, province numbers and the campaign map. ~:) :charge:
Quote:
All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
You probably are already making the next game aside from the expansion pack (or two) that wasn't announced in previous threads. ~;)
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
Hear, hear.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Anybody notice you can now replace conquered temples by building your next level of temple? For example, a level one temple of Freyja can be replaced by a level two of Ceres? Prevents the hit to happiness when you demolish one type to start building your own.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Awesome. Thanks for sharing an honest point-of-view. However, at least give us the choice such as kill-rate and unit speed sliders etc!
We had guessed that you guys would probably be better at making the game you wanted to play than we could be, with the commercial restraints we have, and so we've tried to extern as much stuff as possible via the text files to give you the chance. The movement speeds are tricky to mod at the moment for various engine-architecture reasons, even for us, but we're looking at it. So, no promises, but we do read a lot of your posts - here, on the .com and even at TWC - and although we're not always around to post, we do take on board as much of it as we can and these things do get discussed inside CA.
BTW, Toranaga's comments correspond quite closely to what we were trying to do with the arcade battles, although that system never got the love it deserved and consequently may have been pitched a little incorrectly. Maybe we'll extend it in future products ~;)
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Is there any chance of the Horse archers not firing on the move problem being addressed or could you give us an idea on how to alter that behaviour in the game?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_ver_est
I agree, can we have a ARCADE, NORMAL and FULL REALISM modes in the expansion ??
uhm, does we need to start a threat "if there isn't a FULL REALISM option in the expansion I won't buy it" ???
Yes.
And thanks for the feedback Jerome. I guess next time when I hear something on the forum I"ll check it for myself before relying on it as fact. :bow:
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
I wouldn't be surprised to find the next TW coming out as a console game (with a PC "port", of course).
*in a nightmare*
'No CA nooo! Don'd turn the game into a PS2 game. NOO!!!!'
*Wakes up and screams*
Omg that was the most awful nightmare i have ever had.
Yeah I know it's lame but if they were to turn my beloved TW games into brain drained PS2 games Im gonna be in a nightmare.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
*in a nightmare*
'No CA nooo! Don'd turn the game into a PS2 game. NOO!!!!'
*Wakes up and screams*
Omg that was the most awful nightmare i have ever had.
Yeah I know it's lame but if they were to turn my beloved TW games into brain drained PS2 games Im gonna be in a nightmare.
What's worse is it will be a third-person shooter/beat-em-up set during the War of Independence of America, with the English as super evil Satan worshippers and Americans as God-fearing angels. And it will have dragons in it.
By this point CA will have been bought by EA Games.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
What's worse is it will be a third-person shooter/beat-em-up set during the War of Independence of America, with the English as super evil Satan worshippers and Americans as God-fearing angels. And it will have dragons in it.
By this point CA will have been bought by EA Games.
Did you forget the Orcs?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malrubius
Anybody notice you can now replace conquered temples by building your next level of temple? For example, a level one temple of Freyja can be replaced by a level two of Ceres?
That's always been true for similar gods. Freyja and Ceres are both fertility god(desse)s, so you can upgrade one into the other.
-Simetrical
-
AI battles
First impressions about the AI and a battle report by OA
I play a vh/vh Scipii campaign right now to determine what has changed, and I definatly think that it is a nice patch with only a few troubles. The batttlefield AI has been improved IMHO opinion, for example his use of ranged units is far better. Here is a nice battle report:
Sardis, 227 BC
The greek are isolated in Pergamon, but a whole stack of them without General attacks the nearby city of Sardis. I only noticed Hoplites and was pretty confident that my all Merc army with my new two star general and many Cretans and Rhodian Slingers would behave very well. I streched my Merc Hoplite thin and spread the skirmishers out, positioning the archers and slinger in front of the Hoplites. My two cav units guarded the rear.
The enemy streched his army in a single line and had to my horror no less than six militia cavs, three on each wing. The phalanx line was long indeed outflanking mine considerable, even if it was deeper than mine. All of them advanced, the cav got wide indeed. The slingers and archers did less damage than in 1.1 as far as I can tell and were forced to run quit early as the Hoplites run in the standard modus.
Things turned very bad in very short time. The Militia Cavalry had not only outflanked both of my wings, but some of them even have positioned themslelves behind my rear, skirmishing the strong and charging the weak. My cav was too weak to counter the Militias, my frontline to slim and my skirmishers were always on the run. A quick glance at the tatical map revealed that there was little hope indeed: white arrows where all around my little blue ones. White flags where popping up with incredibly speed. The frontline was overrun, and in no time some 2000 Scipii where dead with only some 300 kills. Was my Cannae in RTW so far...
Cheers
OA
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Jerome, reading your post above almost scares me. The speeds ARE historically accurate. You guys got it correct the first time around. Once a battle is joined, it's pretty much out of the general's hands. Besides, just how long do folks figure a human can participate at that level of extreme exertion? Ever wrestle? Exhausting! Ever watch a fencing match? Slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Routing after 25% loss? Heck, yes! Most would. If you guys change the speed to make it "more fun to play", or easier to play MP, fine. But please do it with a slider, so that those of us who prefer the historical accuracy won't be abandoned.
PS. Also for historical accuracy, archers should be penalized, not bonused, for fighting in woods. Almost impossible to fly an arrow through tree limbs, LOL.
Second also, you guys did a great job with the patch. Most of the little things you guys did haven't been mentioned by anyone; they just notice what you DIDN'T fix. I have noticed, though, so thank you. For example, I reeeeaaaaly like the new cities scroll. Everything you ever wanted to know in one simple place. ~;)
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Yes.
And thanks for the feedback Jerome. I guess next time when I hear something on the forum I"ll check it for myself before relying on it as fact. :bow:
Actually, I did say the original crew had *apparently* moved on. But in any case the substance of my post was correct - the crew that worked on STW did not work on RTW. And Jerome confirmed that a number of the original crew have indeed moved on.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ovaat
Jerome, reading your post above almost scares me. The speeds ARE historically accurate. You guys got it correct the first time around. Once a battle is joined, it's pretty much out of the general's hands. Besides, just how long do folks figure a human can participate at that level of extreme exertion? Ever wrestle? Exhausting! Ever watch a fencing match? Slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Routing after 25% loss? Heck, yes! Most would. If you guys change the speed to make it "more fun to play", or easier to play MP, fine. But please do it with a slider, so that those of us who prefer the historical accuracy won't be abandoned.
No way. Many battles lasted hours and it was not unusual for them to end when the sun set. Some were short when one side broke quickly, but there were relatively few casualties until they routed. Real battles weren't all a mad dash to melee. And that is where the disconnect comes in with RTW. The AI doesn't like to skirmish (it charges its velites and archers into your men with regularity.) In real battles there were phases, not just a mass clash and 5 minute fight.
As for how long can one participate at high level of exertion? A lot longer than the 20 second melees we have now. You see, when you have men with shields and armour and pointy things, they tend to fight defensively to stay alive. They don't kill that fast. And there is depth to the formations, so each man would not be giving 100% all the time. In real battles they could slug it out for a long time. My boxing experience showed me that I could do quite a few rounds although I found it more exhausting than running 5 or 10K's but less so than longer distances. Most 1vs1 contact matches have bursts of exertion with lulls to catch your breath. You can't afford to get into severe oxygen debt (like you would running at RTW speeds with armour--oops.)
The routing with fairly low casualties is accurate, but incurring those casualties in a few seconds is not.
And since you seem to be a on a "reality" kick. You realize that for larger armies it took hours just to deploy? Why? Because the battle front was often miles long. You can't cross that in 60 seconds. So we get into the scaling issue...if you have high movement speed and high kill rate with units 1/10th normal size...the battle ends rapidly and there is little manoeuver.
The size of the engagements meant that generals usually had to give instructions in advance and rely on subordinates to excecute. But the generals still gave wide ranging orders like telling skirmishers to disengage/re-engage, or charge by one flank/section/or cavalry/or general advance. Much of the rest of the battle plan would be carried out by lower level commanders, although the general often would move to specific locations to direct portions personally. None of this is reflected in RTW, nor would it be simple to do so. As a result the player is both the General, and unit commander for each unit. If the AI was better it could be allowed to handle some units. As it is that is not an option. To have it your way the general could essentially take a nap once battle began...hogwash.
Let's recap:
1. Battles often took hours and involved numerous movements.
2. Physical combat could last hours and was not so frenzied as in RTW--not everyone was necessarily engaged at once.
3. Battles were usually fought in stages, beginning with skirmishing that could last hours. It wasn't a mad dash to melee unless there was an ambush or one side had no respect for their opposition and felt they could over run them.
By the way, archers shoot worse in the woods (and at targets in the woods.) I have tested this. Archery is definitely overpowered, so it is difficult to see this, and I have other issues with archery as well, but they take penalties in the woods.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Redleg, this is my last post on this subject--it doesn't deserve more. While I respect your right to an opinion, I certainly don't have to agree with it. I usually don't. A slider would satisfy all, I would guess, but I take it you don't want the rest of us to have that option? Interesting. Then, perhaps you could find it in your heart to allow others an opinion? BTW, the archers are still listed as "bonus in woods". (or whatever) If it's not being applied, then it should have been corrected and the "bonus" eliminated. And as for my opinion on the speed issue? I still stand by what I said, but will give you that the game itself isn't an exact science, so to speak. But I've been snipped quite a few times by the AI's skirmishers. It often seems to know when it can "outgun" me. Ain't figured that one out, yet. Whenever I have "long range" archers, the AI attacks immediately. Then again, that's it's best course in that circumstance. Again, it's smart enough to know it.
Lastly, generals did not have control once the mayhem started, and yes, they did use subordinate commanders. What else would one expect? This is a game that feigns reality. That's why I have always, and always will use the pause key. My troops don't have subordinate commanders. But, then we have a school of thought that thinks it's a "cheat" to hit pause. In SP? Give me a break. My troops don't do much of anything unless they're ordered to do it. The bottom line is, a slider would satisfy most folks. Any other way will ruffle a lot of people in either camp. Lord, there's a lot of people who are very happy with the increased presence of rebels. I'm still working on modding them down. Personally don't want to fight them 4 or 5 times a turn. There's no real point to it. But, that's my choice.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
thanks Red Harvest for writing all that so I didn't have to
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Lord Ovaat,
Assuming that you were referring to me...a slider for some of the speeds would be fine. WE DON'T HAVE THAT and you are telling me that I have a problem with wanting it limited to my preferences. Yeahhh...riiiiiigggggggttttt. Who wants to pause every 3 seconds? It is not a cheat, if just sucks. Breaks up the flow of the game. Might as well go back to hex based move system. A lot of us ASKED for a speed slider when we saw the demo...yet here we are without one. Our difference is that you see slowing the game down as being "less historical", probably 90% of would disagree with that assessment. I'm all for having a slider. It worked well in MTW.
Yes, the AI attacks long range units immediately in many cases, often with a suicide charge. It will charge its general and other cav right into your line to do so. It is daft, but at least someone is happy with that level of AI. I would rather see the line advance in order under fire and engage. Let skirmishers take the beating taking on the archers so that the line could advance. But the AI likes to "lead with its head" as we call it in boxing. Of course, if archery wasn't on steroids...then skirmishing would make more sense and the need to charge immediately under archer fire would go away. But hey, we are back to the kill rate problem at the core again, aren't we? Darn that realism again. And how about those archers charging up to my melee units?
If you want a game without control by the general, fine. Seems a bit boring and pointless to me. You could just use autocalc.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
By the way, archers shoot worse in the woods (and at targets in the woods.) I have tested this. Archery is definitely overpowered, so it is difficult to see this, and I have other issues with archery as well, but they take penalties in the woods.
What makes you say archery is overpowered? It seems ok to me, but I know little of archery from a historical point of view.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
We had guessed that you guys would probably be better at making the game you wanted to play than we could be, with the commercial restraints we have, and so we've tried to extern as much stuff as possible via the text files to give you the chance.
Well, making the game so moddable should please the most hardcore and is a great feature. But personally, I would prefer to play CAs' version of a realistic game than a modders' version. In my experience, modders end up changing so much, players have to virtually learn a new game. And modders' judgements about history are often at least as contentious to a true grognard as CA! (True grognards grumble about everything and are unlikely to agree on key issues. For example, I never could bring myself to fire up Napoleonic Total War after the modders announced Napoleonic British cav was inferior.)
Quote:
BTW, Toranaga's comments correspond quite closely to what we were trying to do with the arcade battles, although that system never got the love it deserved and consequently may have been pitched a little incorrectly. Maybe we'll extend it in future products ~;)
Yes, I think this is the way to go. Allow the modders to design wonderful skins, new units, whatever. (There have been some wonderful exchanges on the EB sub-forum about the right metallic/rusted colour for chainmail etc). But sneaking in some "greater historical realism" options in CAs own game design would be appreciated, if the commercial restraints allow it.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
I was pretty impressed with the patch during the initial stage of my campaign game. I've actually had a prolonged skirmish engagement with the AI, before it decided to commit its main body. And it seemed to attack in cohesive manner. The campaign game now makes a lot of sense, as the auto resolve is now more balanced and considers the winning factors more accurately. But my first disappointment came with its inability manage a larger army. The individual units would break formation and holes would appear all over the line. Don't understand why it is such a difficult thing for CA to make the AI stay in formation and attack in masse, instead of individually selecting its opponents for each of its units. I don't have a much issue with the rate at which the units route as long as the AI has the smarts to not expose gaps and flanks all over its line. So what’s the purpose of having a tactical battle single player, when the fight becomes scattered all over the map? Just may be better off playing an arcade style game.
The effect of shock, or attack bonus, in this game seems too abstracted in its basic design, which requires the mouse clicking of each unit to their charge targets… instead they could have applied virtual physics (weight x speed), perhaps to factor in the number of men/their equipments (heavy or light) as the weight of a unit times that by the speed in which they hit their object. The only thing maybe this counts for something in the current game is the cavalry charge. I don't know, maybe I missed something.
The battle engine overall has so much potential to be something bigger and more involving for a longer game play. Maybe the crudity of it is due to being the first of its kind... enough with the complaints... in spite its many down sides, I still enjoy playing this game--not as much anymore, even with the new patch--leaving much to my imagination or role playing and giving the AI a lot of handicap, for it will not take a genius or a witty tactician to figure out the AI and conquered the world in matter of days after purchasing this game.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Well, making the game so moddable should please the most hardcore and is a great feature. But personally, I would prefer to play CAs' version of a realistic game than a modders' version. In my experience, modders end up changing so much, players have to virtually learn a new game. And modders' judgements about history are often at least as contentious to a true grognard as CA! (True grognards grumble about everything and are unlikely to agree on key issues.
Ah, therein lies the rub... the more popular the TW series become and the more expensive each TW game costs to produce the less likely CA is going to pull out the stops to make subsequent TW titles more realistic and historically accurate. So you have Rome Total War with its horribly anachronistic units (i.e. most of Egypt's units), watered down names ('Armored' Hoplites instead of 'Agema' Hoplites, 'Naked Fanatics' instead of 'Gaestae' warriors/whatever, etc.) and other equally offensive measures (Marian Reforms in 220 BC, overpowered elephants, chariots & archer units, jumping horses, etc.), which drive the historically and realistically minded of us bonkers.
Personally I'll take a conscientous, educated modder's view of history over the market driven vision CA is forced to produce to fulfill their contract with the Great Sata.. err, Activision anyday. Modders are unfettered by the same creative limitations facing developers and are answerable to no one but themselves. Sure modders can make questionable decisions but they're no less offensive than the market driven decisions developers make everyday.
Besides, learning a new game per the all encompassing changes made by modders is half the fun!
Quote:
For example, I never could bring myself to fire up Napoleonic Total War after the modders announced Napoleonic British cav was inferior.)
That's a strange reason to avoid a mod, especially when it is so easy to change what you don't like! But seriously now, British cavalry was inferior... inferior to that of the French, Austrians and a few other Germanic nations anyway... ~:eek: ~;) Welly himself thought British cavalry was only good for the initial charge and after that would not stop for hell or highwater, essentially rendering them useless for later action. British cavalry, especially the heavy variety, was horribly undisciplined when compared to many of their continental counterparts. Not that Brit cavalry was qualitatively terrible and not that they weren't tough hombres but they simply didn't know when to stop!
"Our cavalry officers have acquired the trick of galloping at everything and then galloping back as fast as they gallop at the enemy. One would think they cannot manoeuvre except on Wimbledon Common." :charge:
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ovaat
Redleg, this is my last post on this subject--it doesn't deserve more. While I respect your right to an opinion, I certainly don't have to agree with it. I usually don't.
Looking back at this post, I am wondering if you are actually talking to me or somebody else that you think is me. Regardless, it certainly adds nothing of value to your point. But since most of my "opinions" are related to how the game does or not do something, and I use testing and numbers as well as doing some historical digging to draw my conclusions, it reveals your "opinion" in a shakier, subjective light.
If you want to discuss why some aspect is right or wrong, great, I'm up for it. However, there is a 100% fatal flaw in your logic about how the slider alone would fix it and those of us who would prefer it slower are wrong: we have 3 speeds in RTW already--fast, super fast, and Warp 5. Notice the problem? There is no slower speed (something like MTW.) So there is no way to have it play more slowly. Give it a slider with the current base speed and you effectively accomplish nothing. That is the rub. I have no issues with folks wanting faster gameplay. Once I give my march commands I sometimes speed up (I did it a lot in MTW, very little in RTW.)
And a corollary: The other problem is that movement and kill rates need not be using the same slider. I would not have a great issue with the movement speed if the kills speed were more historical.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
I don't think that just having a speed slider is an adequate fix.
CA have already got the basics of the fix we need - and that is that they designated something as an RTS mode.
What I want to see is an RTS mode alongside a historical mode. And in the RTS mode it can be as fast and as easy as those gamers like, with no complications at all like morale or weather or height or anything else.
And then I want a historical mode that doesn't compromise in the slightest toward the "twitch" gamers. Why should it? They've got their RTS mode already.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
The movement speeds are tricky to mod at the moment for various engine-architecture reasons, even for us, but we're looking at it.
Oh I'm glad you're looking at that. It's good to see that you hear and take notice of what your customers have to say.
It would be cool if you could slow down the infantry a bit to more realistic speeds. But cooler still if we could mod all the unit speeds to suit ourselves!
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
I've read the thread and been playing with the patch since the first day of availability. I think the patch has made many improvements, As I predicted in other threads, the battlefield AI is essentially the same as it was. Generals are less likely to charge the first thing that moves, but they usually will die before a battle is one third over. The system still relies upon bonuses and penalties applied in different measure, dependent upon the difficulty level chosen. None of this surprised me. I liked the game before, and like it even more now.
I was ROFL when someone complained that they couldn't execute all the moves to reenact Cannae in this response to the patch thread! Did anyone really think that would happen?? It was gratifying too, to see a CA staff member come out and state that game design is driven by marketing more than a desire to create a West Point quality reenactment program. It validated my point that those few people complaining most bitterly here represent a tiny fraction of unpleaseable people that would only waste your time and resources to try to cater to.
The remark that Red Harvest made about ignoring the "core" and "putting a gun to their heads" and committing corporate suicide was so assinine, I just couldn't ignore it, but it really pales now that RTW has proven itself in the marketplace and received GOTY honors. I really don't see how anyone can cogently argue that CA's GOTY sucks! So those of you who still think it's awful should have a pretty good idea of what an insignificant percentage of gamer marketplace you represent.
The key thing about all of this is FUN! Games are designed to be fun for the greatest number of players. Those of you who want full historical simulation won't find this game fun, so if that's your bag: Don't bother!! If you want a different game: Build one yourself! Most people, (believe it or not) actually LIKE the game. I want to congratulate CA for a job well done and thank them for producing the most enjoyable PC game I've ever owned.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
No doubt, old Celt.
CA absolutely deserves to be commended for developing this groundbreaking game, which I was thoroughly impressed and immediately fell in love.
After playing countless hours and becoming really familiar with its patterns of play, am I asking too much if I want the AI too be more challenging and less stupid?
The basic principles it seems, in the way the battle play is designed, are supposedly under subject to realistic battle conditions; that is to avoid being attacked on flanks and rear, which means for one, staying in formation. But the AI just fails to do so and its units break out of formation to chase whatever target they feel is lesser than them. So I’m thinking, what’s the purpose of having a game that’s intended to apply the real mechanics of a battle, when the AI just refuses to apply its units to them? Hence they route easily not so much due to low morale or kill rate but because it has the worse possible general that could ever lead an army, which was designed for cohesion and not just an all out wild goose chase. I actually feel bad now for wiping out thousands of AI men without much muse with only a hand of my not so well led soldiers.
The latest patch has brought much anticipated changes to the game and renewed my fanaticism and I started playing again. Yet it has served to be another tease in that the AI is still really, really thick.
My apologies if you found my criticism marginal and offensive. I didn’t mean to ruin the fun for you.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
The remark that Red Harvest made about ignoring the "core" and "putting a gun to their heads" and committing corporate suicide was so assinine, I just couldn't ignore it, but it really pales now that RTW has proven itself in the marketplace and received GOTY honors. I really don't see how anyone can cogently argue that CA's GOTY sucks! So those of you who still think it's awful should have a pretty good idea of what an insignificant percentage of gamer marketplace you represent.
Old Celt,
You like shiney marketing baubles, don't you? You must have an extremely limited time horizon, as you completely missed the point. I've watched a lot of companies slowly disappear after abandoning their core customers. CA appears to be headed in the same direction. If their attitude matches yours, then the sizzle will slowly fade to fizzle. GOTY in a stale sector? Forgive me for not getting all giddy. If there were any real competition, then you might have something. Do you think I doubted they would get some nice awards? LOL, you really are naive!
I haven't said the game is crap, etc. Nope, I've said that its gameplay is surprisingly weak compared to its siblings, and it lacks the staying power (longterm F-U-N rather than short term pizazz) of its predecessors. They fixed some of the problems, but the core battlefield AI is still badly flawed. The patch had some good improvements, but it didn't fix nearly enough. I can't see that they changed the core of the AI at all, just a few facets of unit balance and abilites. I doubt they will change it for the expansion pack. As it is, unless they can straighten it out, I'll wait for the expansion pack to hit the bargain bin if I buy it at all.
So have fun with the easy to beat battlefield AI, and easy to beat strategic AI, the scarred generals, broken horse archers, and town militia/warband/wardog opposition. As for me, I'm making a last stab at modding it to actually face decent opposition and fix as many of the bugs and errors as I can. We clearly differ on our approach to software development, I believe it is possible to develop a better product by listening to your core customers, and you don't.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
The answer to all this, if there is one, is the ability to customize the game. I would be much more pleased if I could modify more things to make it a more enjoyable experience for myself, either through (simple) file editing or sliders. That way, I'm not detracting from anyone's enjoyment, such as those who like the 10 second fights, and adding to my own at the same time. I don't see that anything could be wrong with wanting that - the (marketing) company and all who are so inclined get their gamey version, and I get my hardcore one. I'm even willing to concede that the massproduct should be a default setup, and I have to work for mine - np, I know what I want and am willing to work for it.
I do, however, not only see something wrong with but also don't appreciate when people start saying that I should just shuddup and take it unless I'm just an average consumer-minded... well, consumer. Tolerance is a virtue.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I doubt they will change it for the expansion pack. As it is, unless they can straighten it out, I'll wait for the expansion pack to hit the bargain bin if I buy it at all.
Red:
It is surprising that my friends feel the same way about the expansion pack.... They seriously doubt that it will have the fixes needed to make the game play lasting, especially for the AI.
I'm really curious though.... do we represent only a small portion of RTW patrons?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Red:
It is surprising that my friends feel the same way about the expansion pack.... They seriously doubt that it will have the fixes needed to make the game play lasting, especially for the AI.
I'm really curious though.... do we represent only a small portion of RTW patrons?
Considering that CA had not even located the pri/sec bug, and they broke HA's with the FF fix and again failed to notice, I find it highly unlikely that they will commit resources to getting the AI above Forrest Gump level. Playtesting does not appear to be a core competency at CA, and getting good AI takes good playtesting. The AI doesn't seem to be a priority and the time schedule looks too compressed. (I hope very much to find out that these assumptions are wrong.) It is unfortunate because there is much to the game that is beautifully done. I have praised and will continue to praise aspects of the game--a lot of the historical unit choices and rendering are well done (until you get into battle.) The potential is there, but there is still the little problem of the elephant in the living room, I can't just ignore it.
From what I've seen we do not represent a small portion of RTW patrons. If you look at any of the major sites, including this one, the concensus is largely the same: great graphics, lots of potential, but it is falling short. These sites are where the core TW players visit. There is a lot of effort going on to improve the game by players. The masses are another matter, a large number of folks who buy a game based on buzz and hype, and drop it after a week or two. (Before anyone takes offense let me point out that being very happy with the game does NOT put one into that category.) For the short attention span crowd you have to pull a rabbit out of your hat every time. With a core group you can make incremental progress and be sure your buyers will be back for more.
I don't expect any TW game to have AI that I can't beat handily with even odds, nor have I ever felt this way despite Old Celt's misguided protestations to the contrary. However, I do expect it to be able to win when the odds are heavily in its favor. And I do expect it to be competent enough to make logical deployments and reactions in most situations. Others have done so--it doesn't take a military budget to do so, no matter what BS Old Celt spouts to the contrary.
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
I think it's funny when someone puts down RTW and someone else says "omg can't you see what a groundbreaking game this is? give them credit"
Yea, that already happened....
...back when it was groundbreaking.
http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/g...un_175x189.jpg
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Will this thread be the first one Nelson gets to lock down? ~;)
Rome has good eye candy, and sold a lot of copies. This does not necessarily make it a good game. Lots of people go to SFX-filled blockbuster movies, that does not make them good. Entertaining maybe, but easily forgotten.
The patch fixed some issues (and broke others), but did not go as far as the "community" really wanted. I didn't really expect it to, the serious AI fixes would require a lot of development and testing. The Org community wants a game that can entertain them for years, they have come to expect this from Shogun and Medieval. Maybe CA did too good a job on those titles.
My $0.02 is that CA tried to do too much on Rome. It's fun, looks great, and has tremendous potential. But it clearly exhibits the "second-system" effect ("The Mythical Man-Month", Frederick Brooks, if you write software, this is a must-read). Not as much work was put into the guts and details of the game, and comparing it to the previous titles clearly shows this.
By moving to 3D combat and the expanded strategic map, the possibility for bugs and issues exploded. The one thing I don't understand is why Act/CA didn't distribute a beta test version on a large scale. They had a large core of players familiar with the franchise, and a real need for testing a completely new engine. Read back through the Shogun and Medieval forums, individuals obviously spent a huge amount of time playing and analyzing these games. How many of them would have jumped at the chance to beta-test Rome?
But hey, what do I know? I'm only at ~100 posts. Now, where do I get a refill on the kool-aid?
-
Re: Initial Patch Thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
It validated my point that those few people complaining most bitterly here represent a tiny fraction of unpleaseable people that would only waste your time and resources to try to cater to.
You are, unfortunately, completely missing the point. Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say that a company made some great RPGs in the past. They had a solid core of supporters who were big fans of RPGs. Unfortunately, this solid core wasn't terribly large. So the company decides they want to attract more customers. They design a new game, telling their core of supporters that they will really like it.
So the game comes out, but instead of being a RPG, it's a FPS. Now maybe it's a really good FPS. Maybe it's one of the best FPS on the market. But the core of supporters aren't interested in playing a FPS. They want to play a RPG.
It's the same thing here, on a less wide scale. CA made a game that's aimed at a different part of the market than their previous efforts. There's some overlap, but in general, a large faction of their previous fans aren't interested in an arcade style combat system like RTW sports.
Now you can act all egotistical and superior with your idiotic comments like the one I quoted, or you can take off the blinders and see what happened. No one is denying that a portion of the gaming market likes RTW. As you say, it's obviously successful based on the sales and the awards its one. What we are saying is that it's moved away from the people who enjoyed the previous games. If that's the way they are going to go, so be it. But don't expect us to be happy about it.
Bh