Here you go
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...16#post6864016
to everyone who has played DMUC, you'll know that this guy knows what he's talking about.
Printable View
Here you go
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...16#post6864016
to everyone who has played DMUC, you'll know that this guy knows what he's talking about.
Maybe tempered by the knowledge that this is the chap who didn't get a job with CA and threw his dummy out of the pram about it.
I must be one of those "dark matters" that prefer "simple" games - patronising? :inquisitive:
It is also the most critically negative review of the game.
It makes some good points but it is also colored by some personal opinions.
From what I have seen those who like the game enough to say so is about 95% of postings.
Those who dislike it seem to be a very small minority, even if they try to be very vocal about it.
I am sure that within a week we will know of any and all major flaws in the game.
There are some people who are never going to admit to liking or even being indifferent to the BAI.
It has been a complaint for ever. And there are a few who love to hate CA so much they invent problems or blow out of proportion everything they deem a bug or historical mistake.
In the end no review is going to tell you if you like it or how much you like or hate it. It is all personal and subjective.
For my part I think they did a decent job, but I miss the wider scope and field of ETW.
Well, say what you will, but the AI obviously still tries to flank charge regiments in the middle of a line, and that is not very flattering of it's capabilities. That's not an improvement. The screens from the battle are a real killer for me. If he had decided to move his line and envelop the clusterflip in the center he would've crushed that attack. It also looked like the AI sent a lone infantry unit way way out on the flank around the ends of his line, that unit could have easily been defeated since it was so isolated, and he didn't even need to lure it out there. It seems like the AI tries to make some sound manouvers, only it performs them at the completely wrong point in time. I'm almost impressed it made it into firing range in a coherent fashion, before entering barbarian horde mode.
well, I am sure there are different opinions, however, what I liked about the review is SCREEENS. it is not some "bah CA s*cks", "never liked them anyway" rant. Based on screens and actual battles.
i do agree there is a lot of personal opinion there; i do not always agree with those opinions, but I love the fact that the author also stresses that those are nothing but opinions. contrary to people shouting their opinions for a fact.
to all the happy campers I would like to note that there are different demands people have for their games; especially expensive ones.
I felt IGN's review sounded more balanced, but I've still to play the game.
The review smacks of bitterness. And just goes to show once more that the following quote is true
"It's harder to persuade a man than a whole nation."
99% of the people agree with Darth, but most people failed to notice that he's actually encouraging people not to buy Napoleon TW just because it's bad. He's basically implying that "with me on the team, it would have been much better." And there's many reports of people not experiencing the melee bug...
Not convinced by his review.
It is still just opinion (mine) but I would say this is a fair review.
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/n...ar/review.html
loony, I agree with most of your last post. :bow:
The thing I find most disturbing about Darth’s post is just that little bit about he didn’t buy the game and he won’t until there are mod tools...He reviewed a free press version...and he won’t be working on anything to improve NTW.
That just smacks of so many things at once, and none are exactly complimentary.
Don’t get me wrong for even a minute; I want the mod tools too, it is just the way it is done.
He said he got a copy from a friend, Fishy.
As for the rest of his review, he's approaching it from an absolutist point of view. He's measuring it up against a hypothetical perfect game while others are comparing it ETW and others to other games.
Darth was interviewed a couple of years ago, and didn't get a job as you say. His version of events has been on TWC. Professional courtesy and a respect for confidentiality means we can never say anything substantive about the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
To be honest, hate is the only thing that keeps me coming in to ruin the game and individual lives every single day. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Indeed. But his friend happened to be an editor who was sent a review copy of the pre-release code. I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
That sounds much more like a Sergeant Major than a Captain...Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
Or a Colonel with a riding crop....
:laugh4:
But that also means that he may not be experiencing the same things as others who have the game because he does/may not have the actual release version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
To be honest i didnt agree which much of what Darth said but then again i rarely ever agree with reviews.
Ne
Hello,Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Learn the facts first. The "chap" is one of the most respected and capable modders the community has produced. CA have produced sub standard games since the release of RTW v1.0. It is the efforts of the modding community that has turned these games around and made them half decent.
Nonsense and a gross generalisation. Those criticising CA's work are not motivated by simple hatred - that is in fact slander. The issue is the decline in quality of CA's games over the last few years. Games like TW will attract criticism, both positive and negative. This is being marketed as an historical wargame - expect criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Perhaps you're confusing bitterness over the state of "the game" with the supposed "bitterness" that you know nothing of and are therefor not qualified to comment on?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
No need to to attack the fellow's argument with such insinuations is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
He approaches it from the best point of view. Simply comparing the game with another game makes for a flawed review. This is a review by an expert modder with a lot of experience and should be taken as such. A comparison of the game "as is" compared with the hypothetical capabilities of the engine is a better type of review, as a comparison of RTW and RTR/EB is also a comparison worth reading.
Ah, so you distribute special versions to the reviewers? Perhaps that accounts discrepencies between reviews and end user experience with ETW eh...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
In short "There is definitely two sides to the story and we are in a position where we cannot comment." or implied as much. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
This unfortunately, made me laugh. :laugh4:Quote:
To be honest, hate is the only thing that keeps me coming in to ruin the game and individual lives every single day. :laugh4:
Was there a big difference between the two versions?Quote:
Indeed. But his friend happened to be an editor who was sent a review copy of the pre-release code. I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.
I spilled my drink over my keyboard in laughter and disgust at the same time. That's enough for a reply to your "qualifications".Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
Honestly, I've found each TW from STW to MII has been better than the last, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
My main qualm with Rome was simply the hostile and untrustworthy campaign AI combined with the relative lack of flexibility in diplomacy, but I still enjoyed it thoroughly after MTW, even as I got wiped out in game after game, and I was just as impressed by MII when I first played it.
They all have flaws, and the modding community has done much to fix them, but there's really no other game like a TW game.
And what part of “And there are a few” makes it a gross generalization?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I was speaking of a small percentage who either never like anything or rant on about some perceived flaw that tends to mystify most of us. Frankly I even wonder if they know more about the game than the title.
That was not directed at anyone but it seems to have struck a nerve with you.
Why so?
So in your opinion the gentleman is simply "bitter" because he didn't get a position with CA and that's where all this has come from? I take it you know the full facts and have inside information from CA on this? Or perhaps, just perhaps your opinion is based on idle rumour and gossip...? Dispense with the formalities and speak your mind - preferably to the man himself. (terrible waste of a drink, though glad you found it somewhat entertaining all the same).Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
A "small percentage" eh? Do you have the facts and figures to back up your statement - or did you dream up this "small percentage" out of thin air? In fact please do name these individuals so that they can come forward and defend their positions. Who are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Let me explain it to you in simple English: Your statement is in fact a typcast of a supposed small number of people that have only ever wanted to see the game franchise (TW) improve.
The supposed "CA hate" is your unimportant opinion and is simply your take on all of this. You dismiss those that don't like the game as a "small minority", that's a in fact a generalisation of this group of people - and an uninformed one at that. You like the game, carry on I don't care either way. The fact remains, that for those of us that started playing STW in 2000, the TW franchise has gotten worse. Bugs, crap AI, pathetic diplomacy and almost non existent MP support have plagued the series. The MP community that existed at the time of STW/MTW is dead and gone. And now finally, the one thing that salvaged these games modding is also under attack. This company have proven that they simply don't want modding. When will you get that? This is not about CA hate, but that the company has been turning out crap for the last few years.
Personally, I have found each TW release more enjoyable than the last, and I do not buy the decline in quality. At worst, they have remained static (fixing some problems and introducing others), but even in the case of the much maligned BAI, I think there has been an improvement from RTW to ETW. I actually took bigger issue with the diplomatic over-agressiveness of the CAI and its almost pre-programed decisions to start a-historic wars (pitting England-Austria against Prussia-Poland in 1700) than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I feel we are losing focus there; this is not a rant against CA+SEGA killing modders. This is about a quality review with a great deal of irony in it.
While I am not as strict regarding some issues (like the interface? hobbits? wha?), I can hardly find any flaws in the methodology of the review. It is done well, although the topping (i.e. bitter irony) is somewhat distracting.
AI being unable to rout an army that does not move is one crapy AI.
CAI being sripted to defend and not DOING ANYTHIN for 50 turns is a really crappy AI and a cheat for that matter.
Eliminating fire by rank sound dumb and unrealistic; maybe fire and advance does not work for a unit with good accuracy and reload skill but poor melee ability?
Reload time of a musket being less than 15 seconds is unrealistic and skews the tactics towards the defender.
Musket accuracy being effectively independent of range is not just unrealistic, it is plain dumb.
and so on...
Also, please note that Darth is not comparing NTW to some "perfect game", rather to his own mod "DMUC".
@Yoei
I am sorry you have a basic misconception here.
I was not talking about legitimate complaints when I brought it up.
There are and always were people who make things up. They like discontent.
Real and honest complaints are a whole other issue. I complain as long and hard as anyone when I think something is wrong, needs changing, needs fixed, or what ever. Without trying very hard I am sure you can find my post ranting about one thing or another just like anyone else.
But I have found enough good in the games to keep playing them. If I didn't I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince anyone else not to spend money. People tend to make up their own minds what to do with their time and money and it makes little difference what others think.
At the moment we are talking about NTW and I don't see a large number of those who own the game being too disappointed in it.
It is not the same as talking about what has gone on before.
I don't see much point in carrying a grudge against CA if I am still buying the product. When I do, I won't be buying. It is that simple.
I have not always been happy with what they have done. At times it has seemed they were doing more wrong than right with their patches and balancing. I know they usually release buggy programs that take fixing. I was very disappointed in how they left ETW and I would love to see mod tools. The number of players who had issues with that game is not small. But that is a different forum.
If we are talking about who agrees with Darth's post and who doesn't, that is mixed, but many who agree just have not tried the game.
So, who are you more likely to listen to; Someone who has tried a particular thing and has an opinion, or someone who just has an opinion and they don't want to hear anything else?
Some people want knowledge or opinions, while others just want someone who agrees with them.
One can be bitter or optimistic. It is unlikely that anyone is going to change their positions on an issue based on either.
People still make up their own minds.
Good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by loony
Thanks for bringing us back in focus.
The other point is that the version he played may not have been the retail version.
After the first review they went back and redid some of the game.
I wish I remembered where I saw it and what the link was...
And it is not that the review was not well done.
It was just the underlying feeling of an agenda in it.
Unfortunate.
Thanks for instigating me to "revolt" but I've handled much worse trolls in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
What idle rumour and gossip? What in the world are you talking about? I've played all TW games from their release day (and I'm not exxagerating over here), and all I can say is that Darth's review is too bitter regarding the whole package. I'm not saying he's wrong, on the contrary, he's right on many points and I give him that, but calling NTW crap is too much of an overstatement. From my part, I enjoyed ETW (ok, I quit the first day, reinstalled after 1.5, so I'm only talking about 1.5 which is what is was supposed to be) and I enjoy NTW as well, seeing it as it is a much better variant of ETW.
And one last thing - no sane person will compare STW/MTW with ETW/NTW. They are miles apart when it comes to AI, campaign planning and all of that.
And I agree with the modding bit, they want us out of it, but out of all of this, M2TW is the best platform for modding.
What?!?! We are not here in a court, to hear arguments based on facts and people defending their positions. What kind of a reply is this? Pathetic.Quote:
A "small percentage" eh? Do you have the facts and figures to back up your statement - or did you dream up this "small percentage" out of thin air? In fact please do name these individuals so that they can come forward and defend their positions. Who are they?
Setting aside whether there actually are such people for now, my point is that you appear to be insininuating that the gentleman in question is one such individual?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
We seem to be at crossed purposes here. You have labelled the individual in question as "bitter", others have posted in this thread and attacked the man, and not his review of this game. When you say "bitter" I assume you are referring to his "biterness" at not getting a job with CA? This is the "idle rumour and gossip" to which I refer to. Some of you here claim that he is biased, yet don't you think it is also biased to juge the reviewer on this basis alone?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I'm not sure what you mean? For example two games in the TW series, i.e. STW and ETW cannot be compared due to being so diverse in terms of AI and campaign? I disagree strongly and there is no logic behind such an argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
And? You don't see a problem with that? How long will modders continue modding M2TW?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I rest my case at this point. If you can't see what's wrong with attacking the man making the review instead of the review itself, then I doubt you'll see sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
For what it's worth I too can see the bias in the review, but reading between the lines, I can also see points of interest about the game itself. The review is written in a somewhat hotheaded manner, from the perspective of one that is annoyed that many of the issues are still unresolved. I think many of you here are too forgiving. They've had about 7 years to improve on these basics and get the new battle engine up to the standards of the old, they haven't. They've also had as long to impliment a fully functional diplomatic model, they still haven't. CA sold it's fans, supporters and customers down the river with ETW. The release of NTW instead of the customary expansion pack/fix is yet another kick up the arse for paying customers.
You can accuse others of being "CA haters", in the same way that such people can accuse you of being "CA fanboys/apologists".
I will be back for the usual "I told you so" threads.
Yohei
He checked the official release as well:Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
"My main test version of the game was the “Dev Edition” which was pre-released for the journalists. I also have checked the retail version from a friend to see that the main problems were still evident (The Dev version lacks only some minor fixes to graphics, sounds etc. if it is not completely identical)."
Good, you see it too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
That seems to be all they are saying. I don't believe anyone here claims the entire review is a steaming pile of blessed camel offerings, but i think its a fair call to say that his overall view has been clouded by bias. I have done a bit of modding, nowhere near the level of him, and I dont doubt for a second that the things he has said have solid ground beneath them. But please, name a game that has come out in the last 10 years that has not been full of bugs. (You can exclude Blizzard from that list)
I have not, and will not, read his review on N:TW (1. I'm not getting it 2. I see him as a modder not a reviewer) but given his post on his application for a job at CA (which i did read) the bias is there.
Because 2d sprites are as easy to code and program for as ranged 3d models on a bigger, harder engine? They've gone through two completely new engines. Stuff takes longer, and is harder to do. Have you done any level of programming?Quote:
I think many of you here are too forgiving. They've had about 7 years to improve on these basics and get the new battle engine up to the standards of the old, they haven't.
Now I've not played S:TW, but I do own M:TW and I may be wrong, but the diplomacy in M:TW is a lot simpler than E/N:TW, no? Many times its been stressed how much harder it is to get it doing what they want on these campaign maps.Quote:
They've also had as long to impliment a fully functional diplomatic model, they still haven't.
I dont agree with their current business model either. It doesnt make sense. N:TW has been officially named the evolution. Which means the next TW game is a revolution (new engine). Yet this ties into the past revolution and excludes an expansion pack (that DLC campaign can't count, thats 1/4 of Kingdoms, and I hated that...)Quote:
CA sold it's fans, supporters and customers down the river with ETW. The release of NTW instead of the customary expansion pack/fix is yet another kick up the arse for paying customers.
Yup, thats always gunna happenQuote:
You can accuse others of being "CA haters", in the same way that such people can accuse you of being "CA fanboys/apologists".
Will be lovely to see you then. ~:wave:Quote:
I will be back for the usual "I told you so" threads.
Yohei
I've been around since the massive amount of hate threads and CA bashing at the pre/release for M2:TW. E:TW had nothing, and N:TW is like silence compared to that.
We want quality products. Thats not unfair. I would have preferred CA have the time and combine what ETW is now and what NTW is, and release now. Sure they'd lose a year, but it would be a polished product. However, they dont have that option, SEGA is the puppet master. If CA were blizzard, they would not release until it was done to their satisfaction, but most studios dont have that option. They must publish, get the money to stay alive, and publish again to stay alive. Lower quality products, but the amount of money it costs to make a game now... We already lost enough studios.
I think you misread it or read more into it than was there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I try not to bash people. I do sometimes attack concepts or ideas or vigorously complain about aspects of games. But when it is fixed, and sometimes when it is just beyond hope, I move on.
No Darth is not a CA hater. He is just saying he could do it better if they gave him the tools. He wants to put his mark on the game.
Most everyone on the forums would like the tools.
We just have to see if Sega lets CA spend the time and money to give us any.
:inquisitive:
Let ‘em.Quote:
You can accuse others of being "CA haters", in the same way that such people can accuse you of being "CA fanboys/apologists".
I will be back for the usual "I told you so" threads.
Yohei
I have been accused of both.
It doesn’t matter to me.
:laugh4:
Its still too early to judge community concensus for NTW. Some of the aspects of the review sound alarmingly true to me (i am not buying the game in any case), like say that units behind the front one shoot their backs. This was clear from the screenshots already. Many of the malee/blobbing problems in the review were present in ETW, and to be honest with you they were problems the AI always had since STW. Napoleonic TW 1 uses the MTW engine to re-create the Nap. wars; unsurprisingly the AI was terrible and the game shone in mp (although it had a campaign). Anyone who has played tw long and hard (including multiplayer) knows that the AI was is and probably will be inept at using hybrids (melee/missiles). When the so-called meleebug and other such terms started circulating among TWC SPers it was clear that even they knew that CA just took what it had in the past, gave it a graphical upgrade and released it as a gunpowder era game. Playing ETW in person confirmed that beyond any doubt. Also the fact that the pace of the battles (unit speeds, firing rates etc) seem wrong also sounds very much like CA. They did the same thing in RTW; they created a fake challenge that hid the AI's ineptness by making the game too fast. CA is simply keep milking what they've made in 2000 with upgrading primarily the looks and feel of the game to be as mainstream and contemporary as possible.
STW took 3+ years to make. It was to be released after a short time of development as a C&C clone, but CA took the risk of making it more deep, historically accurate (by hiring Prof. Turnbull, known international authority in Sengoku) and polished, delaying release for years. And to answer Darth's question, yes the person responsible for the (creation and tweaking) of the tw battle engine and battle balance did retire sometime during the development of RTW. It has been also leaked that part of the employees of CA resented the direction the company took from RTW onwards (so much for those who "dont buy into it") against the will of the admins and heads to go ahead with the plan anyway. Since then, (certain) CA developers post strategically in community forums where and when complains are voiced, in order to hype-up and create hope and anticipation pre-release and in order to subtly discredit "whinners" post-release. These are facts and not opinions (mine or otherwise), and i've seen them first hand over the last 7 years or so, here and elsewhere. It doesn t mean that there are not whinners that simply like whinning - there are. But there are plenty of others that have valid complains and they do express them because they like tw and not because they hate it. And these people are shot down in some forums systematically even, because they are not "constructive", because of the "hate" etc. Most of this is part of a ruthless war in image and public relations, and for those who think that such a thing is fantasy, just think what Mike Simpson's blog meant to address: low user ratings on metacritic.
Very insightful, gollum, thanks.
Where was it named as the official evolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Link, Link old friend!:inquisitive:
@gollum
nice post
As posted by IGN on August 19th, 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Revolution: S:TWQuote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Evolution: M:TW
Revolution: R:TW
Evolution: M2:TW
Revolution: E:TW
Evolution: N:TW
Re reading through it:
One wonders if this is still correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Thanks pevergreen.
:bow:
Hello,Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
No. NTW is not the "evolution", of ETW it is the "expansion". The difference is that it has been sold as a stand alone this time around. This is because CA do not want to put off potential customers that did/do not want to buy ETW.
The "evolution" title is yet to come (though of course it may be marketed as the "revolution").
Yohei
Lets hope the next is an evolution rather than a revolution.
I think they need something stable, playable, and solid from release rather than something ambitious, innovative, and broken.
:laugh4:
It'll either be a WWI or RTW2 - but i'd bet on the WWI scenario. There is no reason why to throw away the expertise on gunpowder, cannons, hiding in buildings etc All these features point towards that way. If so, it would be certainly an evolution over ETW/NTW.
All of the polls go for Rome 2 of course.
I hope it is not WWI
I would be much happier with a Victorian or Colonial Period TW.
I know WWI is popular with a lot of people but the tactics and technologies of the period just leave me cold.
Throwing mass waves of men in suicide charges just doesn’t inspire me. Nor is sitting static until the tank is invented.
Oh and lest we forget, poison gas...a waist of time for the most part. Wouldn’t you love the models of gasmasks for horses and dogs?
I know of no way you could use infiltration tactics in a total war game. Which would defeat the point of the era.
I am sure loads of people just want to see airplanes and submarines.
I don’t see a good way to pull it off.
I could be wrong of course, but it could also be a goof that would dwarf what happened with ETW and I don’t know if they really want to risk something like that before they have another success.
Possibly who knows. NTW is the most evolved expansion I can remember in total war. It also seemed cheaper than Empire when I got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I hope they don't make a Rome 2, I did not get on too wall with Rome but the main reasion is a lot of people like Rome because of how it is or they like a mod on it but a Rome 2 would not be Rome it would be different in some way and I doubt it would be BI or something so I expect people would be disappointed, also we look back with rose tinted glasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
But I don't think total war should to go WW1 or WW2 may be a game going from 1900 to 1950 but I don't think one can realy look at WW2 with out looking at WW1 as I think both conflicts are related. There are how ever there are a lot of World War games Total War should probably go else were for the next game. I would like to see something in the east.
In my view both are inevitable.
Jack Lusted hinted that the work on artillery for ETW/NTW will be used further and judging from the polls for the next TW that CA gave out sometime during teh latest stages of ETW WW1 will be the choice and not the Victorian or Colonial periods.
As for R2, it is such a strong period in terms of fanbase and the precedent that CA has with it, that from a marketing perspective it is simply too good an option to discard. I am very firmly convinced that CA will do sooner or later R2.
:bow:
Right, because the quote in my post is not from a proper preview of the game, and Kieran is definately not directly quoted saying this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I dont see how it can be clearer than that.Quote:
"The way that Total War development works is we do a kind of evolution-revolution cycle. We create revolutionary technology for one title - in this case Empire, which had a brand new engine written from the ground up - and all new AI. Then, for the next game, we take that technology and evolve it - in this case with Napoleon. We've taken everything we've achieved with Empire and Empire's engine and just pushed it to the limit. Napoleon is essentially the culmination of what we wanted to do with Empire, given the time to take it further."
I personally don't believe what Kieran says (in general not just this), and also i avoid reading his posts and interviews, listening to his interviews,presentations etc in video or otherwise.
Probably you can, we judt don't have access yet...Quote:
Indeed, the game will mix and match different body parts to make soldiers look individual and unique, with 64 different faces on offer even on the very lowest settings.
It's called marketing young man, marketing...Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Yohei
This. The things that made WWI unique (at the time) as a war: millions of men armies, continuous front, large scale trench warefare, static lines, planes, tanks, infiltration tactics just do not translate well into a TW engine. RTW2 or some sort of Victorian-Era game would be a much, much, better use of the engine than WWI. I have a feeling that a TW:WWI would be a horrible disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Atleast the AI would be pretty good as all it would do is throw a million doods in a single direction.
An interesting feature would be the ability to use airplanes to survery battlefields and then having to preset your massive pre-attack artillery barrages before you actually initiate the assaults.
I think American Civil War would come before any kind os 20th century game, especially since it would play to the somewhat Avalon Hill-ish precendent (though I think Napoleon in Russia came after Gettysburg, I didn't really play much Avalon Hill...)
I doubt I'd buy a purely WWI TW, I'd buy Rome 2 in a heartbeat.
Biased review or not
the technical arguments he makes are valid
the screenshots are damning!!!
case closed - if Darth (aka the man who saved ETW) says it suxs ... then it SUXORZ
and the fact he used his review as a platform against the anti-modding stance of CA - good on him
was tempted to buy by the napoleon statue.. but more etw rage.. no
I wont be hanging around to dis people that do buy the game and want to rave
but Darth nailed it... so dont go acting like he's so blinded by rage he cant see... sadly it is all crystal clear
this was the review Ive been waiting to read so thanks for posting it
edit: for my part the lack of any discernable battlefield tactics is the real dropped ball here, I always understood that this was what defined the warfare of that era, Napoleons columns comes to mind - it appears they havent even attempted to include this - so its ETW scripted campaigns with napoleon in name only - whatever *shakes head*
Column gets surrounded and shot to pieces or blown to hell with explosive shells.
...or should push through a firing line. Lord Yunson has a point, ETW makes incomplete use of the 3 infantry formations of the age -beyond the line and square, the column was used (afaik) by infantry to break through a defensive line.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Setting a column up in ETW is tedious micro-managing and I've not noticed any actual advantage to it (e.g. as a square formation gets bonuses to fighting cav) beyond faster unit turning speed and the simple fact of having more men in a concentrated area. I'm guessing NTW is no different...
I've watched many mp battles in ETW, and in none columns are useful - basically its far better to charge line infantry at the same depth they fire. A column button could prove useful, but at the same time fire lethality and fire rate would need to be calibrated. Despite what was promised pre-release the game isn't historically accurate in its gameplay; its just what the tw engine could do all along with more advanced artillery options.
this is also the 'critical' review i was looking to read. maybe it will go on sale shortly? ;)
they will probably never redo shogun eh? i've had enough of muskets and cannons.
I have found that the AI deployed my forces in an attack columns several times in ETW and I have had them used against me...but always at the wrong time.:dizzy2:
I still say the one button they need most is in the naval battles. A formation “Turn About” to reverse the formation rather than sail from Jakarta to Cape Horne making a turn with the whole line.:inquisitive:
:laugh4:
Against a human player with artillery being actually good now. It would be hard to get an AI that would be able to use it effectively without dying horribly. Even the British figured out how to counter them by the end of the period.
Probably not, i'm afraid.Quote:
Originally posted by t1master
they will probably never redo shogun eh?
Afer reading Darth's review I have to say he makes alot of good points. I'm usually disapointed in games and how the AI works. Most of all I'm let down by the people who created these games with such dumb things such as one turn equals one year, how stupid is that! I wasn't going to purchase NTW but I did even after reading Darth's review, I guess I wanted to see for myself. I like the new time having turns by month. I'm not a Modder or a programmer but I've been playing games for ever. I have all of the TW games. Each one should get better but they do not. I've just started playing the Battles of Napoleon and I'm at Egypt. So far the cannons seem to be fine but game crashes alot. Again the time limit seems to make the game less enjoyable. I just get the Army up to snuff and the game ends. Not much time for tactics. I will continue to play and post comments. But again Darth is correct the AI really needs a big overhaul. It upsets and frustrates me when the AI sends one cannon unit and one cav. unit to attack and army of 12 units or more.
You make some good points also! Darth's review seems to say the cannons are really uneffective. I found the cannons to be awsome especially if you have 3 or more and they have gained battle experiance. I've been able to do some big dammage as should be cannons were a big part of Napoleon's strategy. I would like more time to play the different campaigns of Napoleon too short a time limit for me and I never have liked time limits. I really like this period in history. That's why I broke down and made the purchase. I use to play a Dos based game called Waterloo it took the player through 4 battles leading up to Watterloo and they were not tied together like I thought they should have been (meaning the outcome of one should have affected the other). You also could not build troops you got some reinforcements but that was it. My point is I guess they just do not make perfect games. We all like different things.
The biggest fun part for me is the fact that SIEGES ARE FINALLY WORKING. :)
A dead on hit from a howitzer makes a big hole in a unit and drops their morale by half. Cannons are better than ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Royce
Most North Americans and Europeans know at least something of European history.. far fewer know much about Japanese history, making it a tougher sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
That said, I'd love a Shogun 2 set in 1560 or earlier, when Japan was still broken up onto 48 states like in the Nobunaga's Ambition/Lord of Darkness series.
That said, China hasn't gotten any TW love either.
It was pointed out by Captain Fishpants that Darth may not have had the final version.
I think that his evaluation of artillery and its effectiveness is a confirmation that, indeed he did not.
Remember also that Darth compared NTW with his own mod. While NTW’s behaviors might not be what Darth would want from his mod, that mod also reduced or eliminated a number of game features that CA may not have wanted to compromise.
Besides, BAI behavior could be a mute point for many people who play mostly with drop-in opponents.
I don’t think the game is perfect but I think it is a very good expansion for ETW.
In what way? The BAI being a bit more coherent or the forts themselves not some completely fanciful notion of vauban inspired star-forts?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
How can you have Napoleonic infantry without columns?? i take your point about the AI, but that struggles with almost anything bar suicide. In any case, had they developped infantry formations further, they could have had an added interesting scissors/paper/stone type element decisions & tactics -which (if you've watched Sharp) seems to be at the core of basic strategy of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
fisherking,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
from darth's own hand... ;)
My main test version of the game was the “Dev Edition” which was pre-released for the journalists. I also have checked the retail version from a friend to see that the main problems were still evident (The Dev version lacks only some minor fixes to graphics, sounds etc. if it is not completely identical).
CA gave up on strengthening the RPS gameplay, in favor of diversity, many units etc.
TW is still an RPS game in battles, but the gameplay is poor because the system is watered and so tactics aren't razor sharp. We had at the org a number of people that made the point repeatedly, however eventually SPrs (mostly) told them to bug out, and shut it concerning the RPS, that nobody wants to play RPS anymore etc.
CA by taking the direction it took, attracted casual gamers and from other genres that had no interest in deep tactical dimensions. All the wanted was to see "realistic" battles in 3D. That's what CA did and it got very succesful. Most people who play pc games, do so in order to pass the time, and escape/be immersed; as long as the game is immersive, however mediocre, they are happy because immersiveness is teh point for them.
Players who want a deep tactical dimension have a completely different goal; they are competitive and are not afraid to challenge themselves, their skills etc. their enjoyment comes from a genuine battle and the learning curve that goes with it, and no battle can be genuine if the game is poor tactically or poorly balanced.
ETW and NTW have to do little with genuine tactics of the era, its simply Shogun gone Napoleonic as are all CA games - CA would never go into the trouble of re-creating the game from scratch. It just cashes the original concept.
Now if anyone is brave enough, go and post this in TWC :)
:bow:
He claimed to have tested both the pre release and a full release version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I think the criticism was AI handling of artillery, not "effectiveness" as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
"Expansion" (rather than "evolution") is the right word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Yohei
@ Yohei
Your first part, wasn’t it he asked a friend if it was the same?
Your second, it could have been but I am yet to observe anything the AI is doing poorly with its artillery...so far as any AI goes that is.
Third, we agree. It lacks the dept and scope of a complete game, unless of course you are only interested in the battle rather than the wider range of management.
The Campaigns from 1805 to 1812 are okay but even for Napoleon they don’t handle the full scope and if Bonaparte had defeated Russia and Spain there is little that would have deterred him from turning his attention back to a Navy.
It sort of leaves you feeling unfulfilled.
To be honest, scope wouldn't have been a problem for me. As long as the campaign is well balanced and challenging. But i will (unregretfully) never know - tw as an ongoing thing is dead for me.
:bow:
Sorry to hear that, though you may have said it before...don’t remember...
Your opinions and thought on play and mechanics have always been insightful.
Anyway, I think you had ETW but I don’t know if you played 1.5.
There is the news of the unexpected next patch for ETW but I don’t know how much that will cover.
Back to the point of the thread though, NTW, for once seems to live up to what they said it would be, and in play it is the best they have done so far.
You could even say when they billed it as the best total war ever their was some justification for what they said, even though it is more expansion to me than full blown game.
Adding mod tools is still important. I hope they come through with more than just the uniform editor...
I couldn’t believe the block-headed ness of the fans that thought that was the most important tool when they conducted the poll.
I had ETW, yes, and played 1.5. I thought that it was only fair to give it a chance, although M2 was very poor imo. Unfortunately ETW just confirmed that there is no turning back for TW in terms of the tactical/strategic depth, imo.
1.5 was much better than 1.0, but nowhere near what tw was in terms of quality. I got rid of my etw copy and i;m not buying NTW or anything else further more, unless its clear from reactions/videos/screens that the game has drastically improved and does not have commercial goals above all others. Of course this is not going to happen.
I also hope the mod-tools come out, the modding community is a big part of TW, especially given how much unfinished, uncalibrated and unoptimised the vanilla versions are. However its clear that most likely they are leaving the option to themselves for dlcs - which again doesnt endear ca/sega to the community.
My interest is purely academic in future tws, and yes i won't post that again here.
:bow:
I believe he actually played on a friend's copy in order to verify that the bugs in the pre-release were still present in the full release? I must admit his wording on that part is not at all clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
His claims were that artillery were still hitting his own men and being "stupid" in not calculating a good trajectory. He also mentioned that it went "wandering". He seems to have been misquoted/misrepresented here as stating that arillery were "nerfed" or ineffective. I have not seen that part of his post? Is the AI control of artillery good or bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
A game that leaves one feeling unfulfilled can't be a good game in my book. From my perspective this should have been an expansion and patch up for those that bought ETW, not an expansion that masquerades as a full game. The whole thing smells like an attempt to sweep ETW under the carpet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Yohei
Personaly, I find the resistence to RPS gameplay somewhat hard to understand. The best way I can interpret it is a desire for absolute realism, with little apparent concern for the inevitable and unbalanced "stack of doom" type army or unit a player ultimately generates. I see RPS as a convenient trick to add some balanced tactics to gameplay, but I am also very keen for the RPS elements to be at least plausible and as realistic as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
I'm sure CA would argue differently to that but ultimately I agree with you: it's not apparent that the "revolutions" in the game engines are designed from the gorund up for a specific type of combat -or that could very well just be ETW's epic failure in the transfer to gunpowder & artillery, specificaly the tactics which evolved to counter gun-powder and artillery.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
Oh my!
Two excellent posts guys.
Gollum,
I hope you don’t mean you aren’t posting at all?
Yohei,
The cannon may be a bit better than ETW but they still act a bit the same. May be a little better but still something you have to keep an eye on. I have not had them pivot on each other and kill one another any way. But hitting your own troops has been a problem in all the games and I don’t think they want to stop FF if someone goes in front of a unit of any type.
Both of you,
I don’t want you to have the opinion that NTW is not an excellent game, because it is the best I think of the 3D games they have done.
This one does not have the, just another knock off so we can get paid, feel to it.
I was very suspect of just that with the timing of the game and making it stand alone.
I understand there were technical reasons for doing that and not making it retro-fit with ETW was a big letdown for me.
That is part of my lack of enthusiasm for NTW.
It is an excellent system. It has everything going for it except scope. While the European map is large it just does not have a big feel.
Rome’s RTR was huge. I know it was a mod but just the same.
I came near to hating M2TW though the mods, especially the mods using Big Map saved it for me.
I saw ETW as having huge potential but with all of the stability problems it made it fall short. Most of the rebalancing was not productive up until 1.4 and 1.5 and I still have issues with the rebalance of the ships and some of the things that got nerffed.
I thought I was going to end up hating ETW the whole time from 1.2 and 1.3. I thought it was still broken and most of the changes made diminished rather than helped the game.
They also cut some features and eliminated some things, that while not missed in the end, it was more because of all the other problems that I feel they were cut out.
I though 1.5 was a huge improvement but it still had more to be done.
NTW is a big leap forward.
It wouldn’t have happened without what went before, so maybe some of the teething was necessary.
I was not even going to buy it but my wife got it for me.
The last expansion I liked was Viking Invasion. I have not bought one since BI.
And you know what?
I like it. I like it a lot...but is still an expansion that makes you feel limited after the fullness of its parent.
But even at that, I have to say, if feels like it was made by gamers for gamers, rather than by CA for Sega.
What I mean by the last is that it doesn’t feel like it was made only for commercial value by one company for its corporate management. It was made for those who buy games.
It feels like they put care and feeling into for the first time in a long time.
You can say that they had to, and maybe that is so but I am going to judge the end product for what it is, more than any motive I could read into it and it is a good solid game.
I don’t think I am being too forgiving. It is not an EPIC game because of scope but it is well crafted and I do like it.
There are still tactical elements that aren’t perfect. Like most games it could go deeper but where do you draw the line? Tactically it is better than most RTS battles. You can tell that CA made it. It is not a totally new approach but it is a vast improvement in its feel.
First of all "RPS" is a description not a fact. This however does not sit well with most people. What RTS stands for in reality is that units:
a) Have specific roles.
and
b) These roles do not overlap.
If so, the game becomes interesting tactically as success lies in combining and coordinating the units. Pacing also comes into it, ie unit speeds, rates of fire, melee rates, morale levels (how fast units rout in general), match ups (how fast rock beats scissors etc) etc etc. Not an easy job.
However what happened to TW is that the game was addressed to the SP market that wanted "realism" ("in real life armies were never balanced", "historically cavalry domnated the medieval battlefield", "HAs did the Parthian shot" etc) and "veriety" (= more factions, more units, bigger maps and timelines etc).
The first trend introduced gameplay mechanics that hurt balance or pacing or both. For example everyone knows that HAs rule in RTW/M2TW, and unlike MTW you don't need any skill, micro or tactical to do so. In M2TW cavalry had such a powerful charge that dominated anything and armies are based around cavalry for the most part.
The second, apart from sales, brought units that have duplicate and overlaping roles ie they blur out the very heart of RPS. In doing so, the game stops being fun because all its needed to do is find the most efficient units in terms of performance/price ratio and bang on the AI. In terms of mp this led often to rush on rush games, basically both players just lined up and charged as the defender did not had time enough to react (bad pacing too).
To top it off, CA on purposely changed the pace again to the benefit of the "casual SPer", by either making the game too fast (speeds and melee in RTW) or too slow (melee in M2), clearly making gameplay bowing to the intended effect: melee animations, making the game more accessible to younger players.
TW was is and always will be RPS as long as it stays in its original format. The question is not that, but whether it will be a working or watered down RPS.
:bow:
PS No, heaven forbids no. You ain't getting rid of me that easily :) As long as i post, i'll drop the odd post here too.
:bow:
I'm glad you enjoy NTW Fisherking. Through you description it sounds inviting.
:bow:
I think the question is, do you want your historical battle sims to be physical, visual or both?
Just a quick question, what do "RPS" and "HAs" stand for? I guess HAs would be heavy artillery(s), but my brain keeps trying to parse RPS as Role Playing Shooter, so it' hard to put gollum's post into context. XD
Personally, I'm very satisfied with M2. Cavalry is powerful, but I havent noticed it being more powerful than M1. Much like M1, I just find they make Spearmen mandatory parts of my army, and they make English Longbows and Italian Arbalests worth the cost. Of course, I'll admit I haven't logged that many hours on it yet, and most of my experience has been as the English and the HRE, so possibly I'm just plain wrong. :)
@Madoushi
RPS is Rock, Paper, & Scissors. Just like the old hand game.
HA in this context is Horse Archers.
That totally makes a lot more sense, lol.
I will say that I haven't played it long, but Empire does seem to have somewhat of a lack of RPS. Just take as much shooting infantry as possible, form your army into the longest, thinnest line possible, close on the enemy, stop, let them approach your center, while your flanks move to envelop, win.
You know, I haven't played N:TW yet, but this review just smells to me. I mean, a 6/10 for the interface because he finds the color bad? Seriously, if that's the only thing wrong with the interface, its a 9/10.
As for his complaints about Gameplay and Balance, most of them seem extremely nitpicky if not historically incorrect, but then again, I have not played the game, and I am merely comparing what he says to my experiences in Empire.
Oh, and his comments about casual gamers is rather offensive.
Hard RPS can suck big time if you have too much diversity. It works great in simple gameplay like STW or MTW. TW's have always had the infantry > Cavalry > skirmisher/ranged > infantry soft RPS system though.
ETW has an RPS:
heavy line infantry armies are vulnerable to arty and long range rifles.
Long range rifles and arty are vulnerable to cavalry.
CAvarly is stopped by robust line infantry blocks.
The long line is to maximise the lines that fire and avoid casualites from massing troops in multiple lines, because bullets can have back kills even if they miss. It also helps create enfilade fire ie two units fire in a slight angle to the edge of an enemy line and rake in kills faster.
With ranged warfare the player who can take a kills advantage first has achieved much, because that same small advantage is translated into a big one eventually, since gradually less and less enemy return fire. So the player who is lossing the shootout, is forced to either rush or take up position in highground or forests.
:bow:
There is another explanation for the relative (to ETW) lack of criticism Fisherking , I - and many others - said in the ETW fora that we will never buy again until we have been convinced by those who do that the game is actually worth the playing (and buying).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
So maybe the most vocal critics of ETW are not critiquing NTW because we haven't bought it .
From what I have read here and elsewhere, there _are_ a few improvements, but given the limited nature of NTW and the cost (US$80 on steam so likely AU$100 in my local shop), think it's way overpriced and very limited in scope.
The 'praise' I have seen is fairly faint and often accompanied by negative comments about it's nature - including those from yourself :)
So I wont be buying this, so wont be complaining about it either, I think there's a lot more like me. w
e cared enough about ETW - having bought it - to plead for changes. These were valid issues as you well know and 1.5 has gone some way towards fixing those.
From DV's comments and others it appears the 'melee bug' has been improved but still occurs in some circumstances, as 'Naval Invasions' were 'improved' but still rarely happened in ETW 1.5 ( and from some comments this has not changed in NTW either).
Now if they had applied the fixes (if any) to the ETW BAI and CAI and offered NTW as a dlc expansion at US$15 I would definitely have tried it out.
Regards
LV