http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56333
Looks like I got my wish. :sweatdrop:
Printable View
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56333
Looks like I got my wish. :sweatdrop:
Well, I suppose it would be better for the game to be delayed rather than get released with lots of bugs and such.
Oh, thank God. If CA needs more time, then I grant it! :snobby:
As long as it's released by early summer...
Good. One month to fix MP? :grin2:
Noooo....I won't be able to buy it in March :drama1:
Nice find, Sheogorath! I hope you don't mind, but I've altered the thread title a bit and am going to pin this at the top of the forum for a while. :bow:
Seconded. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TevashSzat
S'alright, Martok.
Furthermore, this is my second sticky on the org. I feel special :laugh4:
And I think I made my feelings clear on this subject a while ago in a separate topic, but, to clarify, I do indeed approve of all necessary delays such as should be required in order to provide us with a superior gaming experience.
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56333
At least it will give them a bit more time to polish the game up.
Great news, good.
If this means that they will manage to build the game to even a bit more closer to being a "complete" game, then it's all good.
I hope that even after this, if the game is still not ready then that the publisher will push the release date even further. I mean Mercenaries 2 supposed to be released almost exactly one year before their actual release, and when they released it despite the extra time given it's still incredibly uncompleted game.
Hmm :inquisitive:
Delays this close to release smack of the game being nowhere near finished.
I have a nasty sneaking suspicion that CA may have made the game too ambitious, and bitten off more than they can chew.
Well, well, well, all this delay......it better be worth it.
Missed the sticky, guys? :P
Delays are never good, not for the company and not for the customer.
Project plans should be set in the beginning that are achievable and any movement of those plane shows that something is not going as expected. If CA set a release date of February then they obviously thought they would have a complete game by then, if they have had to move it back then they've obviously encountered problems. So saying that a delay is good is a load of rubbish really.
I dont know what you people think about this game but for me it seems that this would be the greatest strategy game EVER, it is the most compleate game ever and I am so excited to play it, and if it means they would fix all problems and give us the best, then hell ya, prolong it for five months.:shame::2thumbsup:
By the way, does anyone know would it be possible to play the game after 1800, couse that is the most chalenging years:help::help:
I think it's until early 1800s.
Still... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I was gonna save my money from Christmas for this. I just know I'm not going to be able to resist MoH Heroes 2 till then. *dribbles*
RexCroatorum, the game ends in 1799 and a winner is declared, but we can continue to play as long as we want but there will be no Tech advances or Character aging and such.
Their delaying to add a campaign 1 vs 1 multiplayer mode WOOO!!!
"Significantly the additional time will also allow us to implement the underlying technology for a much desired feature (thanks to your feedback!); a multiplayer campaign mode. An opportunity to participate in the 1 versus 1 multiplayer campaign mode beta will be made available to all Empire Total War buyers post release."
from http://www.sega.co.uk/empire/gameinfo/news.php?n=2775
They are delaying ETW to add this new mode!!!
It's only going to be 1vs1 though, but better than nothing!!!
http://www.sega.co.uk/empire/gameinfo/news.php?n=2775
:balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2:
MP campaign....hmm....I hope it comes with a save feature, not everyone can play a whole campaign in one sit down but it does sounds like an awesome feature.
fantastic news. :)
This is great news. It's about time.
I guess I win the pool.:idea2:
a reply from a thread back in jan. 2008. Folks were hoping back then for a 2008 release.Quote:
March 2009 might be a better guess.
very interesting news...1vs1 is be a great start, maybe multiple players in an expansion pack
Brill news! This new feature sounds really cool actually lol. A Multiplayer Campaign mode sounds so much fun! And great to see their taking the extra time to make the game perfect as well!
Good. I hope they do better on balancing and bug fixing this time around compared to their last few installments.
Oh, that's where the thread went. I thought this one was a bit different, and was wondering why Martok deleted my post...:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheo
EDIT: Wait, now the threads are merged. Heh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Except when you compare CA's polish with Blizzard's. Almost all the posters here know that Rome and Medieval 2 should've been delayed by at least a few months to fix all sorts of balance issues and bugs. Hearing that Empire is delayed gives us hope that CA is now really trying to give this game some polish instead of releasing something early in an unfinished state.
Although if there are in fact problems, a single month is hardly enough time to resolve them properly.
that is A GOOD THING. much betterr to wait a month or two for a better, less buggy game than to have M2TW pre-patch again..
multiplayer campaign mode i just :daisy: my pants!
I will destroy you all!Quote:
Originally Posted by darrin42
What I do wonder is how they will solve the problem of time. There will obviously be a lot of AI factions and having that in mind, how fun will it be for me as to wait until a 1 hour battle between my human opponent and my AI opponent takes place? Will I be able to observe their battle? Or is it the old fashioned "Tea time, call me when you are done".
Like everyone above, this seems really neat and may help revitalize a what I perceive to be small TW multiplayer community
2 things:
1. Do you think it's likely that it will just be autoresolved battles to start with? Or do you think they would do battles by agreement?
2. Im a bit worried by the phrasing here. In particular, "allow us to implement the underlying technology", and "will be made available to all Empire Total War buyers post release." This suggests to me that it wont be available upon release, but in a patch or something. Yet again, i may be completely wrong. Whats everybody else's opinions?
Still, it looks very promising, especially as they are calling the 1 v 1 a beta. We can but hope for more...(dramatic music) :laugh4:
I wonder if you actually fight battles head to head or if it's just like hotseat...
....
[Martok is speechless]
:jawdrop:
By the way, I'm merging this with the thread announcing the delay. The two topics are closely interrelated, plus this is also a sticky-worthy announcement. :yes:
Thread merged with existing (stickied) thread on the same topic. ~:)
Sorry but not behind this not in the slighest.
First there is the obvious fact that you need not give out concreate dates if you expect delays. Which leads to the idea that CA has either made a mistake or taken on more then they can.
Either way, it's bad. I never had a single problem with MTW, MTW 2 or RTW that was insurmountable, I may be in the minority but judging by reviews I read in magazines, I doubt it. If someone took all the comments, improvements, and ideas that this forum had for games and put them in pre release it would take YEARS, to do a game that would even please 20% of this forum.
Then you look at the very idea that the so called "Vaulted feature" has no implementation upon release and is nothing more then a poorly made side feature that will be poorly maintained. I think you will all be very disappointed.
This would be the equivelent of players asking for naval combat in MTW 2, and the devs saying, sure, 1v1, post launch. Before empire's engine, before they took time to research, before they took time to playtest.
Again I am not against Multiplayer Campaign maps but so far CA has had a "We won't put it in, unless we put it in right" kind of attitude. Why change now?
I am highly disappointed. The actual month in and of itself is irrelevant, the reasons behind it stink of SEGA's hand. (The guys behind Spartan and Viking)
Maybe this is a rant, but I still think this is a bad move by CA.
The way I read it, and the way it is explained here for those who speak German:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael
http://www.gamestar.de/news/pc/strat...total_war.html
It is indeed only the foundation that is being laid in the game. The actual Multiplayer Campaign will come with an additional patch some time later. Maybe Summer 2009 or something like that. I hate to spoil your fun guys, but so far it's one month delay without an immediate result. Just more waiting it seems. Well, I have time! :beam:
There must be other problems that require a fix before release. The fact that they are putting in a beta version of a multiplayer campaign is just a way to ease the sting a bit, I think.
The trouble is that CA is so closed mouthed about it… So we will see the game in March…maybe…
It would be better if there was a little more in depth information on the thing. It could be that the modifications are all in conjunction with making the game operate with the multiplayer mode or it could be other problems. Either way it would just be nice to know.
It doesn’t seem that any of the CA people are rushing in to explain though, does it?
I love this Sires and think that CA does an over all, outstanding job, but being a loyal fan it would be nice if they shared a bit more information with us on the reason for the delay.
Yes, so how many weeks has it been since we were supposed to get dev diary 4, 3? Who thinks they are keeping it to themselves just to prolong marketing as now they have a whole other month and no public advertisment to feed.
Sorry to double post but I just read the German Article.
From what I get from it, (and my German is far from perfect) it says they wanted the additional time to look for bugs and balance the game…possibly because the multiplayer mode is going into the game???
The multiplayer mode will not be include in the release but later added, but they found it good that CA was adding it from the wishes of their fans.
If the multiplayer campaign is implemented correctly then I may consider falling back in love with the Total war series. Even if the MP campaign is only 1v1 at least I will be able to crush my brothers empire beneath my bootheel. :)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC
One good thing that could come from a 1 vs 1 campaign is that we will be able to see poor, hapless fools attempt to take on Askthepizzaguy and his insane, bloody blitz tactics. Truly a glorious and gory spectacle the likes of which hasn't been seen since Rome decided to pit lions against helpless christians. :laugh4:
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/938/938189p1.html
:grin: one v one but a good start
yup but adding it also delayed the game one month.
small price to pay IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by Belgolas
LOL i realize theres already a thread on this, sorry, either merge or delete, thanks
No problem. Threads merged. ~:)
After this all the "perfect "AI" pipedreamers can stop whining....
After this all the gamers who actually wanted a release date on time as promised and a campaign multiplayer that actually works will keep whining.
Oh, and on release day, when the multiplayer add on is not released and wont' be released till July, the other whiners can continue on again.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, this is a unwise move on CA's part in my view. Of course they can do what they want, because they have no competition in this game market and even if they delayed it a year people would still buy it cause it's the only decent turn based strategy game being made.
I just expected more out of CA, sadly disappointed. For those of you saying it's only a month, keep in mind this is the FIRST delay, there's nothing to stop them delaying it another month.
I would take a delay over a rushed half finished product any day of the week...Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
That's the whole point, if they would have alloted thier time correctly, they wouldn't need to delay because it would be a finished product. Now you have no idea your getting a finished product, even if you wait a year, whatever the problem in question is, may still not be fixed.Quote:
I would take a delay over a rushed half finished product any day of the week...
The prefectionists can praise this delay all they want, just don't expect the rest of us to be happy about it. (I am a naysayer, I admit. :no:)
That's amazing. I don't know if it's been answered, but we definitely need a save. Will all battles be auto-resolved unless you're fighting against the other person?
I believe that will be a key question. Whether or not we can manually fight out battles -- and if so, which ones -- is going to be a big determinant of how the MP campaign plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius
but its only a month for tons more experience! if it was going to add 3 months or more i would be very unhappy about it, but its within a proximity i can cope with, longs it isnt delayed too much more, all games tend to be later than there target anyway, im not to bothered about prefection, but maximization to an extent where possible is rather nice :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
i imagine its all over an online lobby where the players do most of the campaign in one sitting, though i'm sure they'll be battles and a save facility, if CA know anything about there target market, they'll know this is important too :yes: regardless, i'd still go online for the campaign alone, and mods/patches will likely expand it to more than 1 v 1, though IMHO it would be too much hassle to have more than say 4 people, as getting turns done would be as tiresome as hot-seating
a good idea to me would be that all battles against the computer are auto resolved, and battles between the human players are fought, so players arent waiting endlessly for the other player to fight against the CPU
It would seem kinda pointless to me to include a feature that the fans have been crying out for since Shogun and then water it down by removing half the experience of the game - fighting the actual battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
@Wishazu
Yes, I agree. However, if all battles are playable, then the multiplayer campaign will most probably be a very time-consuming affair. Is that good or bad?
Simmer down. Let's take a leaf out of Methuselah's book and look on the bright side of the whole situation: this gives you one more month (maybe more?) to enjoy wine and girls before ETW clutches your heart forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemist
Besides, as long as the game is released by summer, I'm not whining. If everyone else is, well, it's not my concern. :clown:
Good or bad? Awesome! I want one game to last for months. This shouldnt require both players online at the same time. The game running constantly one month is not an option. What they need to do is to let the player install a puny software that sleeps until the other player is done doing his turn. Then, if the other player isnt currently playing, the ending of a turn will notify this puny software which then alerts you. Sort of like an email. "Its your turn"-message, even if you are not playing the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
This way you could have lots of different on going matches with several players, and the tiny puny small software will alert you when its your turn and in which save it is in your turn. Possibly launch the game just by clicking on the "alert"-thingy.
i agree with him :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by 777Ares777
@777Ares777
But I want to fight the AI. I never trusted Auto-Resolve battles before because I could win a battle easily where the auto-resolve would lose. Not kool.
I've always been wary of Autoresolve. I dont use it unless it's like, less than a quarter red and the enemy is all mounted archers while I have only infantry or something like that, which would involve hours of chasing dudes around the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
It doesn't seem to like me, for some reason. It hands out 'LOL DEVASTATING DEFEAT' more often that I care, and applies casualties to random units. Which annoys me. Especially when it spares the newly trained peasants and takes out half a unit of elite archers.
I agree howeverQuote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
1: you'd still be able to fight against the human player, the VITAL feature :yes:
2: you could easily put the battle differculty on easy, same with campaign if it works similiarily, meaning greater chance of winning auto resolve while having a challenge against your human opponent
3: the AI is being re vamped, so the auto resolve feature could be improved to be fairer
4: vitally, the other player wont have to wait ages on turns where you end up having 1 more or more battles, if these campaigns are to run smoothly, long battles where the other has finished there turn long back would annoy me massively and waste time
I think the good outway the bad, as there aren't many other suggestions that i see working, still get the good fights, but by making AI easier it solves those auto resolve problems and increases the campaigns speed :2thumbsup:
I can attest to this - Nothing is more irriating to lose men from units you'd have not used during the battle (I usually have an elite reserve) or lose to a stack half the size of yours (or worse, losing to a stack 5 times your size when you know if you fought it you'd win :wall:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
And I've had worse then 'LOL DEVASTATING DEFEAT'. I think the computer said "roflcopter" once late at night when I was tired and just wanted a campaign to end so I was in an autresolve frenzy - one autoresovle later and I find my frontier in shambles and the interior of my Empire in danger...from frenchmen...
But still, the idea of online multiplayer campaigns is worth drooling over. I honestly want to see more on this though before I drool further - because if history tells, I'll be wiping that spit away and burying ETW somewhere in the nether realms of my CD rack...
Yeah i'm with YLC and sheo, on Rome total war with carthage or selucids, don't you notice when fighting auto-resolves when u have elephants they always do loads of damage to them
i.e
one battle i outnumber romans carthage vs scipii
i win, but out of my 2 units of elephants, lose at least 3/4 of them, my other units are barely touched, lol
That's because the A.I recognises the ferocity and strength of the mighty war elephant and rightly focuses their pathetic power into defeating your heroic pachyderms.Quote:
Originally Posted by 777Ares777
Sure they might lose the battle because of it, but they can die with the honor of having defeated the mightiest beast of all.
When you're playing as a horse-archer faction, auto-resolve is out of the question. Losing a completely one-sided battle against a half-stack of untrained peasants and militia is ridiculous, especially when it could have been a victory in less than 5 minutes had you played it out yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheo
:wall:
No man can ask for a more honourable death. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I hate autoresolve with a burning passion. But i'll be damned if it isn't much much better at taking cities than I am. Taking a huge city with cannon towers and a few hundred archers as defense? No problem! We'll do it and only lose one man!
I would love to know how the A.I thinks that is possible. Because I've yet to be able to do it. It can even take cities when 99% of its army consists of cavalry, and the rest in one unit of peasants with a ladder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
:inquisitive:No! It really just depends on what your units are and what is there. Most of the time Auto resolve is better than attacking, but some units it just rates too high. Never ever auto resolve against their darned elephants, and if you auto resolve against dismounted knights and their ilk expect to pay a heavy price.
I once attacked Jerusalem with two or three stacks and auto resolved. They didn’t seem to have any full units there and only about a half stack at that, but what they did have were a couple of elephants. I had the right men for the job and should have been a walk in the park. Instead I lost three generals and most of my troops. I took like 2000 casualties to those two elephants that I hardly noticed when I attacked…and of course all the javelin throwers were skirmishers so in the auto resolve they counted for almost nothing.
It is some what the same with armored swordsmen. It doesn’t seem to matter that you have 10 crossbowmen and some good cavalry, they are going to cost you disproportionate casualties.
I expect that Empire will be no different than the other TW games in that regard…there will be some units that you just should not auto resolve against.
:wall:
There is no need to auto resolve battles at all with a 1v1 campaign. Simply have the other player command the AI faction`s army for the battles. That way no one is going to be sitting around doing nothing. The other player will certainly be trying his hardest to cause as much damage to your army as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
Under most circumstances, yes, but if both players are dealing with the same Faction, then the one who gets to control the AI army will try a more Pyrrhic battle IMHO, rather then play his best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishazu
Hmph, don't try this on Stainless Steel. Basically, anything less than overwhelming odds in your favour, and an autoresolved assault which looks good on paper is likely to end in "Crushing Defeat".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
But I would certainly like for autoresolve in Empire to be a bit smarter than it is at present. At the moment it seems to place too much emphasis on bare stats and not enough on factors like range and mobility, hence why units like horse archers and artillery are so weak in autoresolve.
It would also be nice if I could give the "autoresolve commander" at least some rudimentary instructions, like "in this routine field battle against a much weaker enemy, do not send my only artillery crew to get slaughtered, since I can't replace them and will need them for the next siege. Send in the expendable heavy infantry first."
In fact, something after the fashion of the promised strategic priorities for the battle AI might be good; so you could direct whether to inflict a few losses as a show of resistance and withdraw, or fight to the last man.
So I have to wait 1 month so they can add something I do not have interest for, nor have time for? :laugh4::inquisitive:
Hontestly, could be good idea and bring up the MP community. But we said that about RTW and M2TW, and look how they turned out....
I think many people will come around, since this, after all, is what a lot of people wanted.
Indeed. I'll probably be one of them. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88
My old roommate (who's also a TW fan) is already teasing me that his Grande Armée is going to beat my Redcoats into the dirt. Of course, he's gravely mistaken. ~D
I think CA understands and most players will find that the main attraction as Martok stated will be friend v friend. So you can settle that score about who's the better general you've had since shogun :laugh4:
Random players against each other always presents challenges. Do you put time limits on turns? Time limits in battles? Because in the end if there is not some way to force Player B to end turn, battle, etc, the turn will just never end.
Friend against Friend is easier because you can just harass them over chat to hurry up :2thumbsup:
Yeah, he's gravely mistaken. My Mohawk warbands will have overrun you first! :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Of course, the one bad thing about this is players who are spoil sports and quit too easily. They'll hate being vassals, minor powers, or giving up their colonies and trying to claw their way back to the top, so they'll leave. ArgH!
I`ll only ever be intending to play a 1v1 campaign with my brother, father and maybe a few people from here. Against my brother will always be a bitter fight to the very end.
I'm feeling pretty positive about the delay. On the one hand, yes, it could mean that CA are in a complete mess and have bitten off way more than they can chew, but on the other I think it can be looked at as quite promising.
I don't think we need to be worry so much about bugs from the previous games, and I would be surprised if the multiplayer feature is going to be tacked on in this one swift extra month (it's the shortest month of the year, people!) or so.
I might write a blog about this actually, it's really quite an interesting topic.