he means MTW2 should be MTW with splendid graphics and solving some balance issues MTW had. Instead it's RTW with a medieval theme.Quote:
Not sure I am getting this - are you saying they have not done that?
Printable View
he means MTW2 should be MTW with splendid graphics and solving some balance issues MTW had. Instead it's RTW with a medieval theme.Quote:
Not sure I am getting this - are you saying they have not done that?
Yes, that was it, what I wanted to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
Fair enough. But for me the question is will the game after modding be comparable to MTW, but with better graphics and some balance issues solved. Based on the RTW experience, I am pretty confident it will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
RTR PE and Goth mod for BI have both already surpassed MTW in my estimation. EB will probably top them both when it gets to 1.0. Now those are pretty big mods and we've had to wait a while for them. But people are churning out smaller mods at a fair rate now and solving some of the key issues will probably be simple. Kind of like the 0.1 mod for Alexander that just cut the speeds and added 10 to the morale and the defence.
The TW engine may have lost a few features (enumerated by Puzz3D) moving from MTW to RTW, but with modding it is still capable of giving a similar SP experience to MTW. Read any of my battle reports in the Throne Room and tell me I'm playing a RTS clickfest. Here's one:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=11
Modding the game will work wonders....for SP; most of us agree on that. Given the issues with hosting modded MP games, what chances are there for this experience online?
........Orda
And that's just it, hmm? They're not reaching all kinds of players. They are only reaching the gimmick kids, arcade runts and gamey fanboys. Meanwhile, they've kindly put the veteran -- just as much a lover of the series if not far more so -- out on the street with no company but the wind and the weather and the eyesore that was RTW gameplay.Quote:
[...] CA wants to reach all types of players [...]
I find it so disappointing. Many shreds, yes, but they add up. This is but the latest bit. The surrounded penalty was already taken out in the RTW engine. Little hope that they'll put it back in with this revved up version of the former. What that points to? A game with little tactical depth in its battles, relying on gimmicks such as elephants with cannons and cool-looking sieges to carry your average twelve year old through the oh-so-hard battles.
We better hope to God that CA don't decide to make MTW2 the same "modder's paradise" as RTW was. Remembering my EB days that means a severe limit to our capabilities to actually improve the game. :wall:
Is that not the problem here, Appleton? We are the ones with the responsibility to take the game back to the level it had possessed earlier on?Quote:
But for me the question is will the game after modding be comparable to MTW, but with better graphics and some balance issues solved.
I don't agree. Stacked units in RTW perform better when they should be performing worse. I successfully defended a city center with two inexperienced basic phalanx units against two strong AI units which would have easily beaten me if I hadn't stacked my units. In the STW/MTW battle engine, men who have less than 1 meter of space fight at half strength. Also, since there is no LOS for individual men in the RTW engine, it make no difference in their effectiveness what formation they assume or whether there are units standing in front of them. The only thing that happens is on low trajectory weapons you have friendly units getting hit in the back. M2TW is going to have guns which are very low trajectory weapons. Just imagine what's going to happen if they fire a volley with a friendly unit standing in front of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
In the STW/MTW engine, only the first two ranks had unobstruced view in a close formation. In a loose formation, the first 3 ranks had unobstructed view, but going to loose cost you 2 points in morale. Deeper the formations suffered more inaccuracy, but if you placed a deep formation on a downslope, then more than the first 2 ranks had unobstructed view and accuracy improved. Considerations like this are gone in RTW. Another issue is that arrow velocity is so high that archers shoot men in their own unit on low angle shots and make rediculously high angle shots over obstructions such as buildings at far too great distances on units that it has targetted but which retreat out of normal open fire range.
In SP, the AI turns its units backs to ranged fire even when the unit has a shield. No mod has fixed that. Also, CA made 3 attempts to fix the suicide general. Why would anyone think it's going to be fixed in M2TW which would be the 5th time its under consideration if you count RTW v1.0? I find it hard to believe that most players don't notice the suicide general or that it doesn't make any difference.
agreed on everything you say, except for this. Individual soldiers do check if there are friendly units in front of them. The NTW2 mod would've been impossible if that didn't happen.Quote:
The only thing that happens is on low trajectory weapons you have friendly units getting hit in the back. M2TW is going to have guns which are very low trajectory weapons. Just imagine what's going to happen if they fire a volley with a friendly unit standing in front of them.
I believe it didn't work in RTW 1.0 though, it was fixed in a later patch.
Slingers aren't fixed even in RTW v1.5. They inflict substantial losses to friendly units standing in front of them. If slingers skirmish back behind your front line, it's best to stop them from firing.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
That is because the trajectory of sling stones is high enough to go over the friendly units in front. But since those stones have a random modifier to their aim (looks like cannister fire) some will hit the friendly unit. With high velocity bullets the trajectory is much flatter and then units indeed refuse to fire if a friendly unit obstructs view.
A fix would have been more accurate sling stones and a smaller attack value to even out.
In the video with the Pavia battle you can see Handgunners reloading behind, I believe Pikemen, it is not shown wether they actually fire, but it doesn't look good.
Ok. I'll strike LOS off my list. Are you saying the whole unit refuses to fire or only the men who can't see a man to target?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
Interesting point. Even bad strategy will win if you can win every battle.
Of course, if I designed a shooter there wouldn't be any health packs and you could bleed to death even if you were shot in the arm. What fun am I?
No, that is where R:TW shows its geniality... If a few soldiers have clear line of sight then the entire unit goes through the firing animation but only the ones with LOS actually fire. Although it may also be that if you order to fire the unit will always go through the animation (this doesn't mean that the unit fires) regardless of LOS, I don't remember it precisely, but it is not really sophisticated.Quote:
Are you saying the whole unit refuses to fire or only the men who can't see a man to target?
And another thing, didn't units in R:TW go through one entire blank (as is not firing) reload/aim/fire sequence before actually firing? I believe it only happens when ordering an unit to fire.
Then don't stack. It's not something I exploit nor something the AI exploits against me. Over-stacking was never a big deal in MTW, as I recall. It probably only kicked in regularly for me in bridge battles and those are still murder in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Not a big deal, IMO. If I can work my missiles round the backs of the AI, I deserve to do some damage. Ditto if the AI can do it to be me. But to be honest, it does not happen much. When I do get rear shots, it's typically because I've pinned the AI with a melee units and worked a peltast around its flank. (I do tend to limit myself to 1-2 bows/slingers per stack.)Quote:
In SP, the AI turns its units backs to ranged fire even when the unit has a shield. No mod has fixed that.
RTW has much less of a suicide general problem than STW and no worse a one than MTW. Most of my battles are not decided by decapitating the general - if anything, it seems less significant than it was in MTW (I can't be the only one to remember those waves of reinforcements in MTW that would never stand because their general died in the first wave).Quote:
Also, CA made 3 attempts to fix the suicide general. Why would anyone think it's going to be fixed in M2TW which would be the 5th time its under consideration if you count RTW v1.0? I find it hard to believe that most players don't notice the suicide general or that it doesn't make any difference.
I can only speak from my experience, which is that it is possible to have long, satisfying battles in modded RTW that are very comparable to those in MTW. I'm sorry you have not had that experience, but I suspect a lot of RTR and EB players have, which is why they are playing those mods and not MTW or STW. If there is a problem, it is that the RTW strategic engine does not deliver those kind of battles as often as the STW and MTW one. I think that's largely a function of the switch from the Risk-style map, but the RTW AI shows signs of starting to catch up with the switch.
Hi,
I found an image in the screenshot thread, that confirm my fears. After buying of 4068 soldiers the battle exceeds recommended size :oops:
One army has 1000 men (20 possible units). This means maximum 2vs2. :wall:
The pictures were made from the full version.
If this problem is also in the final version, our clan will play mtw 1 for a while and then we say good bye to Total War. Well that's life. Sometime anything is over.
Here you can find the image:
http://pff.swrebellion.com/index.php?topic=4626.0
Was it? I was under the impression it was an unfinished product?Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
The screenshot says that the recommended size for the detected settings has been exceeded which might result in performance problems.Quote:
How can this be a surprise, that you might run into performance problems at a certain point?
Obviously you will not be able to play 10000 soldier battles on all PCs without any problems - what did you expect?
This message does not say anything about whether 4 vs. 4 is generally possible.
4vs4 means 8000 men. And 4vs4 is what we expect. And I don't wanna play with a 500 soldier army. In mtw 1 an army has 860 - 1000 soldier. And mtw 2 has 4 slots more (20 instead of 16 units).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
It was the full game but not the final version because merchants weren't in yet according to Callatian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringeck
I think optimisation takes place at the end in games(correct me if I'm wrong).
It does not say anywhere that you will not be able to play 4 vs. 4 with 8000 soldiers - it only says that with the settings that were used when the screenshot was taken you might have performance problems.Quote:
4vs4 means 8000 men. And 4vs4 is what we expect. And I don't wanna play with a 500 soldier army. In mtw 1 an army has 860 - 1000 soldier. And mtw 2 has 4 slots more (20 instead of 16 units).
As does streamlining (usually), at least from my experience as a beta tester (Wee! A grand total of one!) - which means it's probably possible to get more lil'men into battle in the final game.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
I got the same message in Rome with 3500 soldier. This message means LAG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Get a better computer then and you can handle more ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
I bought a new computer for Rome :embarassed: But it was not fast enough. :dizzy2:
Oh that sucks :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
I got a 2.3 GHz Celeron, 512 MB Ram and a Radeon 9800pro 128mb and I can have 6800 guys before Rome gives me that message.
I guess with M2TW that would be around half for me.
I have a 3000+ AMD with 1gb RAM. 3500 - 4000 was the limit. Tried again after some patches but the same. I deinstalled the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
I heard people with simular problems. Their comps are a lot better then mine (athlon 1800+ GF4 Ti 4200, 768mb ram), but perform worse in RTW.
I also notice how decreasing GFX detail hardly makes me get a better performance. I have the feeling MTW was programmed better then RTW. The battle engine seems to be more complex (individual range checks for units etc) yet it puts less strain on my CPU. Obviously the RTW battle engine might be more complicated then I think, but that would bring us back to the topic: then why does it have much more flaws then MTW's?
It's probably caused by pathfinding and collision detection which seems more complex and detailed. Although I prefer the movement of units in M:TW despite being simplistic, at least it works!
I believe you can notice it by playing with loads of soldiers in M:TW; it will only lag when the units are in view -> graphics puts a big strain on the CPU and not pathfinding. When doing this in R:TW you will see that the lag will remain even when you have turned the camera away from all units -> pathfinding and collision detection continue to be calculated and causes lag despite not seeing a single unit.
So the computers that can handle large soldiers well are probably the ones with processors that can quickly calculate the pathfinding and collision detection algorithms. Does anyone happen to know wether certain processers are better at that?
Im getting the warning at 6.5K but I can still play with twice that amount at around 15 fps and no input lag. So I dont think that particular warning in the screenshot is anything to worry about as you dont know what machine it was used on.
This game use same engine as RTW so should put same stress on the cpu and more stress on the vidcard if playing at the highest gfx setting.
CBR
The RTW experience is not the same as STW/MTW. In STW/MTW, units moved if they were overlapping until they no longer overlapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It's a big deal for me. I'm seeing the AI move a unit towards my line and then turn it around and walk back to its line. This happens many times during every battle. This is on the BI.exe v1.6.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The RTW suicide general is definitely worse than MTW. I'm winning many battles becuse the RTW AI throws away its general. I use the BI.exe v1.6.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'm using a good mod for RTW/BI, XGM. I played this for over 150 turns, and now I'm about 200 turns into an original STW campaign, and the STW is better especially on the battlefield. In particular, the morale system is very well balanced, the AI varies it's battlefield strategy and uses trees and high ground well. It uses the various unit types properly although it doesn't flank with cavalry (that came in in MTW), and the suicide general is a problem that ruins many battles just as is does in RTW. The MTW battle AI is best, but the large maps coupled with the reenforcement system made the battles too long. A solution might be to substitute small maps which I intend to do for STWmod for MTW/VI, but unfortunately the weather effects of STW were lost in MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
might be true, but I fail to see what this was necessary. Pathfinding shouldn't cause much slowdown cos it's only calculated for moving units, and RTW maps don't have much complicated maps (siege maps use a preset pathfinding system). And collision detection seemed fine in MTW. It's not like RTW calculates whether a soldier is hit in the head or torso.Quote:
It's probably caused by pathfinding and collision detection which seems more complex and detailed.
When I hear about these individual animations and soldiers actualy looking at their opponents I wonder why we need all that. More useless eye candy that slows down the game (yes we asked for that, but not like this) while the battle engine remains inferior to S/MTW.