multiplayer interface = horrible

why does the Multiplayer interface of VI suck so much?

here are the things that i REALLY hate which i'm sure CA could EASILY fix with a simple, small patch:

1. you can't choose your team til ALL PLAYERS are in the game. that's nonsense. i don't like having to stare at the screen constantly until the game is full, only then to have to click READY. the entire step of having to click READY in this situation is a wasteful and needless one that should be removed outright. i want to be able to choose my army AS SOON AS I ENTER THE GAME, that way i can go watch TV or whatever til the game is full and everyone else has chosen their army and is ready to start - without me having to stare at my monitor constantly for no good reason at all; as i do with the current dumb setup

2. you can't GO BACK one step if a player drops during army selection - MAJOR WTF? you should NOT have to re-host in this situation - that's idiotic. yet in the current setup, you MUST re-host

3. why can't the host set TIME LIMITS for ARMY SELECTION and TROOP DEPLOYMENT. i really do not ENJOY having to wait 15 minutes for everyone to select their army, then another 15 minutes for everyone to deploy. that is total BS - there NEEDS to be host-selected time limits in place for these things. this is ESPECIALLY ANNOYING since it usually takes about 30 minutes just to get a full 8-player game from the time the host offers one.


all these changes are simple common sense that would make Total War MP a million times more fun and less aggravating to play - so what's stopping CA from implementing them, exactly?

Well, the going theory is that the CA staff is a bunch sadistic freaks that get their jollies from the screams of frustration in the lobby and in TW forums. I'm sure they are all high-fiving each other after reading your post.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

As for selection and deployment, everyone works at their own pace. Some are fast or use standard armies every game. Others are slow and/or meticulous spending every florin with great care. Army selection and deployment can often spell the difference between victory and defeat and not too many are crazy about that defeat option.

Think about a typical RTS like Starcraft/Warcraft, where instead of starting with nothing and building up your base/armies over the course of the game, you had to purchase all your buildings and units before the game started and then place those bases/armies on the map before the game began. I think they would take just as long to get started as the TW games if that were the case.

BTW, I think you'll find most people agree that the online interface does need quite a bit of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Well, the going theory is that the CA staff is a bunch sadistic freaks that get their jollies from the screams of frustration in the lobby and in TW forums. I'm sure they are all high-fiving each other after reading your post.

---

ROTFLMAO

I play a lot of MP and I must agree that there are many, many things that CA and GS could/should fix. But I usually only spend 3-5 minutes waiting for players once a game is hosted, and another 3-5 minutes during army selection. While waiting I usually engage in thrilling conversation (AKA XSBS) with my mates, or make new friends (and occasionally enemies).

I used to carpool with a buddy to go skiing. I was a newbie and he was an expert-expert. Every morning we would arrive at the ski resort and I would get ready, then spend 15-30 minutes waiting for my friend, because he was very popular and had to chat with almost everybody, so it took him forever to get ready to ski.

One day I complained to him that I was tired of waiting for him every morning, and that he should hurry up. He calmy replied that while I waited 15 minutes for him in the morning, he waited ALL DAY LONG for me (since I was much slower than he on the slopes).

I think that spending a little extra time setting up can really help once the game starts.

ichi

i can agree that choosing armies/deploying in Total War is a time-consuming process and give some leeway due to the nature of the game.

however, in all the games i've played so far people have always been taken this concept to the EXTREME - which is VERY frustrating.

btw i am 100% convinced that the LOUD GONG just before a the map is loaded in MP is to WAKE EVERYONE WHO HAS FALLEN ASLEEP UP

waiting around in Total War MP = magic-cureall for insomnia

If it's so simple to fix, then why don't YOU design a solution and submit it to CA? If you knew anything about systems design in an open multi-user environment, then you would know why the things you hate are the way they are. Sure there is room for improvement--there always is, but so many still play (and have FUN) regardless of the minor annoyances. If you hate it so much, why don't you (do us all a favor and) quit?

Maybe your armies wouldn't rout so fast and you wouldn't lose so often if you spent more energy studying the game and focusing on intelligent practice, instead of wasting your energy on so much expressed negativity and hatred here. Maybe it would help to see past your own preconceived notions and realize that TW games are indeed superior to most other pc-based tactical battlefield games.

Maybe I wouldn't get so annoyed if I didn't have to read your extraordinarily negative posts here. Hmm, come to think of it, I don't have to, and now I won't--when I see your name I'll know to look elsewhere. But it sure does feel good to express MY annoyance for a change. Do be careful, I wouldn't want you to burst a blood vessel in your brain from all that anger (sic).

GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/angry.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ April 18 2004,20:08)]why does the Multiplayer interface of VI suck so much?

here are the things that i REALLY hate which i'm sure CA could EASILY fix with a simple, small patch:

1. you can't choose your team til ALL PLAYERS are in the game. that's nonsense. i don't like having to stare at the screen constantly until the game is full, only then to have to click "READY". the entire step of having to click "READY" in this situation is a wasteful and needless one that should be removed outright. i want to be able to choose my army AS SOON AS I ENTER THE GAME, that way i can go watch TV or whatever til the game is full and everyone else has chosen their army and is ready to start - without me having to stare at my monitor constantly for no good reason at all; as i do with the current dumb setup

2. you can't GO BACK one step if a player drops during army selection - MAJOR WTF? you should NOT have to re-host in this situation - that's idiotic. yet in the current setup, you MUST re-host

3. why can't the host set TIME LIMITS for ARMY SELECTION and TROOP DEPLOYMENT. i really do not "ENJOY" having to wait 15 minutes for everyone to select their army, then another 15 minutes for everyone to deploy. that is total BS - there NEEDS to be host-selected time limits in place for these things. this is ESPECIALLY ANNOYING since it usually takes about 30 minutes just to get a full 8-player game from the time the host offers one.


all these changes are simple common sense that would make Total War MP a million times more fun and less aggravating to play - so what's stopping CA from implementing them, exactly?

---

1) If the florin allocation were changed to be per player, you could purchase your army before other players had joined, but I wouldn't do that because I want to know who is in the game and what factions they are using, i.e. "know your enemy". One thing I don't like is a 4v4 that turns into a 3v3 with extra florins. I usually ask players to spend the original intended amount when that happens so that I don't have to waste time rehosting at lower florins.

2) If someone drops during army selection, you don't have to rehost. You do just go back one step to the screen where you are waiting for players to join. You do have to pick your army again, but that goes fast because you already know what you want. If someone drops during deploy, you have the option of continuing the battle, and one player on the other team can withdraw to make it fair.

3) I don't see how you could have a time limit for army selection. That would ruin the game with players possibly sent to battle without all their units. You could say the same for deployment time. Sometimes a player is taking a long time because of an interruption at home. Starting a battle without the player being at his computer isn't such a great idea. I'd rather wait until everyone is ready than have the battle ruined.

CA has already announced that they consider the game finished and there won't be anymore patches to mtw/vi.

It's true that a 4v4 can take 30 minutes to get started, but it doesn't always take that long. I would say an average time is more like 15 minutes. I have my stereo system set up at my computer, and combine listening to music with playing the game as well as conversing with other players. In anycase, I do agree that it's a big time investment to play this game online. I don't go online to play unless I've got at least one hour free. You have to decide if it's worth your time to play it.

The setup and play bits are just mior annoyances that I get used to, like Puzz I have my audio system set up and i play whatever song i feel in the mood for. I have some set unit selection written down for different types of map and no of players so i can get an army ready ASAP. But in order for me to do this i have had to spend lots of time in the unit selection screen to perfect the unit choices. I dont mind careful people, the game sort of suits them with all the flanking and ambushes involved in MP. (In one recent battle my opponent reeled me around sop that he could get me from behind using 2 units of Chiv Kinghts he had hid during deployment.) Also with Togakure's point that TW is more complex than most of the other games out there (except the HoI series i think) and it's worth spending a little more time and patience (from all players) to get everything perfect for the perfect victory. As well as those points i would also like to point out that the extremely long Pav battles during the game (esp some 4v4's) are probably more boring (and imho pointless as both sides usually end up with basically none left) than the unit selection screens (at least you can chat to clan mates and other friends you might have on the foyer.)

Wow Ojo, rare to see you get your dander up. You must feel pretty strongly about this topic. I disagree that you have to offer practical solutions in order to criticise. I can watch golf on tv and say "that was an awful shot and a lousy swing," even if I couldn't do any better.

I personally don't mind waiting a little bit for a good game, but the interface is awful and we've seen little if any improvement since Shogun was released years and years ago.

I suppose my criticism of the interface has more to do with in game commands (such as all these "hidden" alt right click type commands) and other in game issues, but deployment and pre-deployment problems do abound.

Preselected armies, per player (not team) florin allocation, pre-set custom deployments, etc. would be a huge plus--but we've been begging for those for years to no avail.

One of my pet peaves is in the host setup screen--you can't tab between the entries (def. florins, att. florins), you have to manipulate the mouse to navigate in the host setup screen...which gets annoying after doing it ten times a day every day for 3 years. But anyway...I'm still here, so I guess I can handle it. Too bad so few have stuck around.

[edited to fix italics]

I personally have no problem with the pre-battle screens.

(1)If you could spend your florins and then bugger off until everyone else had come into the game and chosen theirs, when would you know when to come back? Wouldn't the game then be waiting for you to come back and deploy?

(2)As response above, you do not have to rehost, although choosing an army again is a faff - maybe this could be rectified in RTW.

(3) Time limits just disadvantage careful or new players - i have just-about set armies for different factions at different florin levels, which means i can generally choose very quickly, but if i play a different faction from normal, or a different florin level, it will take me longer to choose. You can always make sarcastic comments to those players taking their time if it makes you feel better.

RE: in game controls - i agree some of these aren't intuitive - proved by the amount of MP players who are still finding out about groups and formations months (years) after they started playing. I've always thought that being able to tell a unit to form up into a set no. of ranks by hitting no.keys 1-6 would be sooo much easier than having to mess-around with alt-left-drag thingummy.

As I see it, the annoyances experienced in the foyer when getting a game going are more the "fault" of players and not the interface. Games take a while to fill, players join and then drop out, players who lack experience or don't do their homework, or who tend to socialize a lot, take a long time to choose armies and deploy effectively. How could the interface be improved to better this situation? Better to ask: what can players do to improve it ... .

***

It was the manner in which the criticism was offered that got my dander up Bacchus, not the criticism itself. The same malevolence was present in other threads, and laced with WTF's, BS, suck, gay-this and gay-that, etc. Such consistent lack of respect gets on my nerves. The mods and admins here might as well allow these acronyms to be spelled out--I don't think anyone here has any problem interpreting them. And in the same vein, why not allow the open use of words like n*gger, sp*ck, k*ke, g*ok, w*p, j*p, ch*nk, and sandn*gger et. al. while we're at it ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/angry.gif.

We shouldn't need such restrictions--most people possess the consideration and self-control to avoid such social disgraces. But alas, so often today we find ourselves having to limit freedoms because of the "lowest common denominator." Some will retort: just ignore it m8. It is my opinion that ignoring such behavior contributes to its perpetuation and indirectly exacerbates the problem.

In some circles it is often considered contemptible to criticize a thing publically when one has limited understanding about, and experience with, it. In these circles, it is usually considered ignorant and disrespectful because the person criticizing is not considered qualified to judge in the minds of those who are. I am reminded of a first-term college art student getting blasted by an instructor for venomously criticizing Van Gogh, when his experience with art in comparison was like that of a babe's experience in life compared to a grandfather's. In today's modern youth circles however, such consideration and respect has been sorely lacking for several generations--generally speaking. On rare occasions like last night, I allow my temper to get the better of me and post before temperance kicks in, and I become little better than the culprits.

point taken.
*bows*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (TogakureOjonin @ April 19 2004,14:59)]In some circles it is often considered contemptible to criticize a thing publically when one has limited understanding about, and experience with, it. In these circles, it is usually considered ignorant and disrespectful because the person criticizing is not considered qualified to judge in the minds of those who are.

---

That's interesting since that very reason was used by some veteran players to try and stop me from commenting about the gameplay.

*bows back* to Dionysus9.

Player-defined armies and deployments that could be saved and re-used would be a WONDERFUL improvement indeed, and would speed up games significantly. I would think that this would be rather easy to implement on the client side (end-user's PC) from a programming standpoint (in case folks wonder about my qualifications to comment on this--I programmed for over a decade professionally and last occupied the position of Enterprise IT Architect for a department of 13,000 California government employees). Was this suggested to CA before the release of MTW and the latest patch? Is it being considered for RTW?

***

They though YOU had limited experience with gameplay, Puzz?? Hmm ... well, I think perhaps they were a bit jaded--you seem to understand gameplay quite well, and the game's inner workings better than most. I've noticed also that you are explicit in your point of view, you focus on the issue at hand, and offer viable alternatives. And most important--you are courteous and respectful when you express you opinions.

My understanding of the situation of which you speak is that some did not leave here of their own volition, but were prohibited from participation because of consistent poor behavior on the forums and refusal to capitulate in the face of (just, imo) consequences. Others who sympathized with their point of view left for reasons of "loyalty." I doubt that many, if any, left because you chose to express contrary opinions.

all three laments could be fixed with the simple: load army from a file thing. And save army to a file. So simple, so easy. And it's actually will help online campaign design.

So, here is my wish (just reiterate the community wishes for age):

1. Save army selection to a file; Custom battle may save the army for you. We can provide tools such as our FF's army builder tool (somewhat widely distributed in the community) which could save the selected army.

2. Load army selection from a chosen text file. The format of the text file is simply 16 lines one per unit, a column for unit type, columns for valor/weapon/armor upgrade. A checksum and amount of florin spent is included. You can chose among several selections, same way as you chose maps when host.

3. Smaller fonts and decoration, lol. The chat window is so small when a circle of friends are around you, are are drown of traffic. Anything to facilitate flirting...

Annie

@toga guy: i am a pessimist who sees the world with a negative outlook. i am also very blunt and brash. these characteristics in and of themselves are not something that need to offend you, but if they do then that's too bad because there is not anything i can do about that. it's like the guy in Star Wars IV who tells Luke in the bar: "I don't like your face" and all Luke can do is say "I'm sorry". he can't change his face. same deal here

as for comparing internet slang swear word abbreviations with racial slurs; that argument is nothing short of ludicrous and does not merit any sort of response other than: simply ridiculous.

about me "fixing the problem myself"; not my job. it's CA's job, and they can and SHOULD fix it. i am not a programmer, and even if i was i don't have access to the source code which i would need to fix the prob. i put the blame for these problems squarely: [A]where it belongs; and [B] on those capable of fixing it.

saying i shouldn't be so negative about the game: i disagree. you see, i've seen this game get an average review from professional critics in the upwards of 90%. a game which gets a score that high should NOT have all of the many issues i've listed in various threads/posts on this site. i feel mislead that Total War VI is nowhere near as polished or "great" of a game as the critics/fanboys would have a new customer believe.

now back on topic:

i didn't know the Florins was not allocated per player. seems very dumb to me that it's not.

about saying "some people take longer than others to setup" - i agree with that, however that does NOT mean that those people should be allowed to hold up every one else for RIDICULOUS amounts of time. there should be time limits. they don't have to be "short" time limits - but REASONABLE time limits. it's like if an elderly person is getting on a bus you're on - and you're willing to wait the extra time it takes her to get on. now if that same elderly person has been trying to get on the bus for 10 minutes of your time and is STILL not on; i guarantee that 99% of more of you here would be majorally ticked off at the elderly person and screaming at the bus driver to just get on with it. this allegory can be directly applied to a time limit principle in Total War.

furthermore, players would be able to SEE the specificied time limits before joining a game and hence could CHOOSE NOT TO JOIN ONE with a time limit that was too short for them.

dude,

I agree there should be some fixes in the lobby (Points made by Anniep). BUT and this has been said b4, instead of ravenging about, try doing something constructive. If I host a game, I will patiently w8 for every player to select its army. Ill take the time to:
A - make myself another coffee (or a rum cola)
B - friendly Chat with my m8's inside or outside the game
C - Consider various armys and setups. Will I try something new, or will I get an army I know works.
D - Smoke a cigarette ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/gc-blush.gif )
E - After all that, ill think of a way to pound someone like you, swearing and nagging etc, into the ground and make your army follow your general in about 10 minutes, so I can enjoy another game that day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif

Then during the setup fase I would..

A - Deploy my army in the best possible way
B - Look for ways to ambush people
C - Look who is in front of me, and where the biggest threat will be
D - Make another coffee (coffee junkie yep yep)
E - Friendly chat with my teamm8's, and see if they need help

Then when game starts, Im fully concentrated. When all goes well, and I see the enemy routing, I know why I luv this game. If I see my own army routing, I know Ill have to try something else and I still luv this game.

You dont have to do all of the above offcourse, but if you dont want to shorten your live (heartdisease, Stress etc). I would suggest the following:
A - appreciate the game the way it is (next close to brilliant and highly addictive and rewarding)
B - Find another game

As I posted before the online community of Total War is one of mostly more mature players. They enjoy the game in there own pace, and will kick your butt, just because they actually think before they strike.

If you dont agree with me, find me in the lobby sometime and ill prove you wrong (Kenchi_Sulla is my name)

One last note: I would classify your post as letting of steam. However this is the 2nd post Iv seen of you. The first was about getting help etc I believe? Well, m8, you wont be getting help from a vet with this attitude. Mark my words.

Sulla

my posts always tend to have a negative tone since i'm a pessimist. i am not trying or intending to agitate anyone with that tone, it's "just my way".

about "finding another game"; the problem there is that i paid good money out of my pocket for Total War based on almost unanimous critical acclaim and so far it seems that those critics were mostly out-to-lunch. IMO Total War deserves a score of no more than 75%. certainly not the over-90%'s it's gotten.

until i get my money's worth out of the game and/or am reimbursed by someone for the purchase price of the game - then i intend to keep playing it until i have gotten my money's worth. if i must seek advice/complain during that time; well then that's a necessary part of getting my money's worth.

i too like to think before i strike but it doesn't take 15-20 minutes worth of "thinking" for every single step in the Total War MP process. Total War is really not that deep of a game so that it requires thinking for THAT LONG. which is to say, as long as you have the basic array of unit-types, it won't really make much difference if you take "Sword Unit Type A" instead of "Sword Unit Type B"; therefore to spend excess amounts of time thinking about such a decision is a waste of time.

Heartdisease

Ignorant

LMAO, spamming the boards with complaints about the game, untill you get your money back... Go spam mail Activision then. Im sure they will luv what you write.

for the record, sometimes micromanagement is REQUIRED. You will understand when your skill level rises. IF you play the game that long.

Gone within 2 months, but thats just my guess.

Prove me wrong, with fun games and some constructive posts. (or dont, I wont follow this thread anymore)

Sulla

ps reason that I reply to this post. I dont like people who can only complain. There is a community behind TW, and that community does its best to make the game enjoyable for new and old players. Go read the posts scattered across the boards. Then come back... There is something for everybody.

O and btw your 75%. for me its at least 85% *and thats good*

And also, you cant fool us, The price on viking and MTW isnt so high anymore. Unless you have purchased it somewhere for the full amount. In that case next time also study prices http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif

Sulla

Sulla - i fail to see how i have ever spammed these boards. my posts always have "meat" in them and are on-topic therefore i would like you to justify how anything i've ever said here would meet the univerally-accepted definition of spam. just cuz you don't LIKE my posts, that does not mean they are spam.

micro-management in Total War is a joke. i know this cuz i am an RTS vet - i KNOW how to micro. my micro skills are immaculate in fact.

when you try to micro in Total War then the computer AI slaps you in the face for it by routing your unit right off the map and saying it's been "Disenheatened by constant retreat". of course, i was NOT retreating, i was MICRO-ING. but in Total War, as you can see - microing is a BAD THING. for you to say micro is part of Total War is to me, a very silly statement based on my personal experience in trying to implement my micro skills in Total War and then being slapped in the face by CA for doing so.

i do complain a lot; that my nature. if there are complaints to be found, then i'll be one to make them. especially since these complaints were "mysteriously absent" from all the Reviews of Total War which i have read.

i did get the Battle Collection at a discounted rate from the original Retail price - but that's still more than half of the "normal" price for Medieval that i paid and hence a substantial sum that i want my money's worth for.

you say Total War has "something for every one". i have not found that to be true. i came to Total War expecting TACTICAL BATTLES and instead i find it's a game where the outcome is largely random and often determined arbitrarily by the buggy computer AI rather than the skill/tactical implementation of those on the field.

Regardless on what one thinks about another's opinion, one has to respect it first.
And although I don't agree with Navaros' opinion on several points (money's worth etc.) and (initial post) with the way he phrased it, I can respect his opinion and his right to voice it here.
You should do the same and also bear in mind that when criticising, it is not always possible to reach a consensus or a change of opinion when starting off from certain different standpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ April 19 2004,19:46)]i came to Total War expecting TACTICAL BATTLES and instead i find it's a game where the outcome is largely random and often determined arbitrarily by the buggy computer AI rather than the skill/tactical implementation of those on the field.

---

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/gc-toff.gif Navaros, are you descended from Albert Einstein? That must be why your opinion of TW is right on and the opinions of the "professional critics" and other 5000+ people here are just way off ... (resists embedding rolleyes smiley ...).

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you've come into the TW world with preconceived ideas about how it should be, which interfere with you seeing things as they actually are? Have you considered that maybe TW games are deeper than you expected, and that understanding them and becoming good at them might take a significant investment of time, focused study and practice? Try LETTING GO of your prefab attitudes and inferences regarding the game (and for that matter, regarding yourself)--they do nothing but distract you from your apparent goal: to get good at the game and get your money's worth out of it.

GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...c-confused.gif

My comments earlier regarding racial slurs were not pointing out racism, but prejudice. In your other post where you ... ask for help improving your skills, you referred to gamespy as "gayspy." Prejudice is implicit in the use of such terminology, and I find any prejudice of this nature to be offensive. Fortunately for this community, our mods and admins are on top of things--your post has already been edited, and the offensive statement rendered civil. Thanks Org Staff (Rob the Illegitimate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif )--I for one appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ April 19 2004,20:48)]Regardless on what one thinks about another's opinion, one has to respect it first.

You should do the same ... .

---

BrutalDX: Respect is bloody earned No, I disagree vehemently with your opinion m8--I most certainly don't have to "... respect it first." Anyone who comes into my eye/ear/mind space spouting unconstructive negativisms dripping with sarcasm and laced with vulgarities and implicit prejudice will earn nothing but my contempt and ire. Being civil and respectful is not that difficult. Anyone who practices this earns my respect. Those who don't, well ... no need to repeat myself.

DOUBLE GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/angry.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]1. you can't choose your team til ALL PLAYERS are in the game. that's nonsense. i don't like having to stare at the screen constantly until the game is full, only then to have to click "READY". the entire step of having to click "READY" in this situation is a wasteful and needless one that should be removed outright. i want to be able to choose my army AS SOON AS I ENTER THE GAME, that way i can go watch TV or whatever til the game is full and everyone else has chosen their army and is ready to start - without me having to stare at my monitor constantly for no good reason at all; as i do with the current dumb setup

---

I would be curious to know why you consider this a waste of time. I put it to you that you dont really understand the concept of teamwork, if so, then just do 1v1's where you dont need to spend so much time 'waiting around' (also doing the rest of us a favour as you sound like you prefer your own style and sod what the rest of your team thinks).

In a larger game, the time should not be wasted. If you are new to online playing, you should select the ally chat and ask them questions about their armies, what tactics they like to use, do they know this map, do they know the guys you are all facing and if so what armies do they like to take/gaming style/etc. In war, this is called 'intelligence', it means you have some 'ideas' before you go into game and can start to plan 'strategies' once you see your terrain. Unlike other games such as Warcraft, you are likely to see the same people many times - we are possibly the closest gaming community out there. You will be judged on your conduct as much as on your gameplay.

Oh, and if the other team spends a long time 'deploying', dont be fooled, they are planning/communicating, as teams should (as opposed to going to watch a bit of TV).

Ill explain myself the following way:

1st First of, I could respect your opinion if:
It was constructive (and without the *** and **** , you know what I mean, Thanx for explaining that Togakure)

2nd If it was written by someone who has extensive experience in the online world of TW. Not that someone with less experience shouldnt comment on stuff like this (hell, compared to some players, im still a newbie, iv only been around for a year now) but ahum a rephrasing mite be better. For example.

Could someone explain to me why there isnt a time limit on army selection? I would personally like this function because.....

THEN we can communicate. And the result could be, hey this dude has a good idea. Maybe we could do something about it?

I mean, picture yourself in a meeting, and some guy comes along and says, the way this works SUX.
Or he would say, well iv been studying the following, and wouldnt it be better IF?

1st all would agree with me I think

2nd, now why is that? Let's say that 70% of the peeps thought the same way as navaros (and it could be so),and all would post the way he does. What would the org scream out? Total war Sux This only shows the negative side of the TW series. I understand at times it can be frustrating, but imo navaros "reviewed" the game and he doesnt really like it because it isnt warcraft...

Now about the micromanagement. Im sure your a excellent micro player in "for example" warcraft. There you can click away because that game doesnt care about morale.[B]

Morale is everything in Total war. Picture this. Your the general and your giving orders to your troops. a mouseclick is a shout. FORWARD, CHARGE, FIRE. etc. Now its commenly known that troops dont respond well to orders like RETREAT, and again RETREAT, RETREAT RETREAT. At some point they say, the hell with it and, Suprise, rout...
Its the same reason why units rout if you try to disengage them, while they are fighting. Lets say they are loosing the fight and get flanked. your unit is at half strength, they lost 30 of there m8's in battle. Now the general tells them to RETREAT. The dudes panick, and the result is a rout.

This is the totalwar system, and I think CA did a excellent job. Offcourse its not perfect, but then again, define perfect?

Anyway, to explain myself further, I see this kind of posting as an insult. Why? Cause I know so many people are giving up free time, to write a lot of things down, create great tools, try to further better the system. Not that he attacked the community, but cracking a game we all like and luv, isnt very nice is it? Well, at least not IMO.

regards,

Sulla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ April 20 2004,03:55)]2. Load army selection from a chosen text file.

---

Yes that would be great. Of course we still have to wait 15 minutes because of those damn newbies..only takes one to spoil the fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Anything to facilitate flirting...

---

mmm flirting..



CBR

Well we simply cant have a time limit of army selection/deployment. That would just be a waste of time to have a battle start when allies/enemies either with half armies or facing in wrong direction.

Sure its annoying when some games takes ages to start. But there is not much to do about it is there? We are humans afterall and as I understand it some people even have a life, and all that can cause delays.

Host smaller games or try and gather a group for a game so it will fill quickly.

Chatting and having fun with people before the battle actually starts, is nice too. Of course Im biased as I love a good chat http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif


CBR

note: One practical reason why you shouldnt select army b4 all players are present, and have selected faction:

If for example you and your allies select turkish in early and select your army. The dudes on the other side come in, choose all byzantine, get 4 byzantine infantry val 3 each
, a couple of varangians to cut up your heavy cavalry and flanking alan mercenary cavalry. In other words, your toast unless your skilllevel is a lot higher then your opponent's.

Often I select army's to match an opponent faction. For example, if you compete with 4 english guys, you know they will have A LOT of longbow's. If you decide to get 2 pavise xbows, and playing 10k your gonna have a difficult time, unless you rush. Rushing in a early stage vs xbows and longbows not fatiqued, a strong infantry line and good cavalry, in 10k. bloody, dont you think.

About the game randomness. yes, if you have exactly the same army as your opponent, charge head on it will be random.

But note: If a veteran player attacks a non veteran player with exactly the same army, who would win? That isnt random, its tactics, knowing where to hit your enemy and how to match units. Not random.

Sulla

Sorry, im flooding the boards :p. Only trying to explain a few things.

Well chatting in the lobby is a great way to keep up to date, see what's happening in the TW world http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif and you can also have a laugh or two http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif

Sulla

I agree in part with some criticisms that Navaros has mentioned and I would not advocate that he post 'positive' posts only. Why should he? I remember some time back being told to go find another game. Funny thing was, this was from a ( pardon me for I hate the term ) Noob....oh and not long afterwards the swipe was patched http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/gc-yes.gif
Guys, there is plenty that could be fixed with MTW/VI and that goes for single play as well, too many silly bugs.
There are things I don't like about the game, there are things I'd like to see changed. At the very least Navaros may feel he was duped by all the rave reviews ( IMO possibly justified ) It's the nature of this game that we enjoy not so much the game itself....come on guys, we all did our share of bitching about this or that over the years http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif I'll admit, I've been disappointed on the whole, with MTW and I'd defy anyone to say it's brilliant. Spears....who uses them? No this game is not brilliant...the concept is. Some complain louder than others, some express themselves in different ways.......being different from each other is what makes this life interesting, long may it continue.

Navaros complained without singling out an individual, so he is disgruntled and pointing out his annoyances. I can't find offence with this. Player X is slow as ****, a pain in the ***, or should go find another game....Yes, I could find plenty of offence with these comments. There have been direct, personal insults on these forums....I find a few rants about the game in general pale into insignificance by comparison.

.........and Brutal DLX was saying we have to respect a person's right to complain ( I think I'm right Brutal DLX? ) not that we must respect the way people complain. Navaros payed for his product, so he has the right to complain. To his credit he is honest and admits to being negative, pessimistic.....( realistic? ) Rather than claiming to be an Angel until you provoke me then I'm the the Devil Incarnate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Propoganda is never a good thing and only ever benefits those who spread it and not those who believe it.

In the end if Navaros has expressed his opinions of frustration, how is insulting him going to help?

Synical viewpoint......Carry on doing CA's work for them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif ....and for no salary too

......Orda

Orda Khan, hiya. Reason why I reacted the way I did, apart from allready stated reasons..

When I select an army, sometimes im finished within 4 minutes and sometimes it takes a bit longer, for whatever reason. Now a player comes along, who I dont know personally, and he doesnt like to wait. Now thats fine by me, but I know in my hosts, if you start pressuring guys "you dont know" into hurrying (maybe a newbie with a lot of questions) I will ask you to w8 for everybody, without commenting on people. That's the way it works imo.

Now that may not have much to do with his post, but everything in it points out, imo, he is not very patient. I have seen many newer players being insultive to other new players, and 2 or 3 of those insults resulted in a ban.

Sorry if I insulted someone with this, but he just got on my nerves. Allways pushing, must go faster. Let others enjoy there games also, isnt that fair? Some have difficulty with army selection. And some are fast clickers.

B4 you know it we will have only passworded games, 2 minutes to select your army 2 minutes to deploy, rush rush hurry, if game isnt over in 20 minutes the clock says the one with the most kills win. Cause I aint got all day.

My most epic battles have been battles of 50 or more minutes, where lines just would break, both parties regroup and go at it again. Most of the time, it was a 3 v 3 or 4 v 4, with 60% of the players allready gone, because they couldnt wait so long. (mostly the loosing party http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/flat.gif ).

Just a further explanation of my reasons.

And you would agree with me I also made some constructive posts Orda ;) or not?

Sulla http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg.../gc-juggle.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...-2thumbsup.gif

Maybe some preset armies could be supplied with the game, thus giving new players somthing to start with? Provide a little list that, when clicked, loaded the unit selection area with a prefab army (designed to be at least decent)? A player could make changes to it if desired, or just go with it as is, but at least it would give them a starting point to work from. Wouldn't be hard to include description text with basic information about the army's strengths and weaknesses, and some 1-2-3s on how to approach using it either.

Heck, armies are a very small set of data--why not create a way to exchange armies between players?

***

Sulla-san, right on in your expanation about why units rout when micro-managed too much. That problem routed my army yesterday in a great Shoggie 2v2. Good thing my teammate was Mimesaka Akechi, he managed to break the enemy flank and save the game for us. My efforts held and tired the enemy center long enough for Mime to come around and finish him off. My guys had been moving all over the place trying to draw out the enemy center, without success. When I finally ordered an attack, almost half my army was in flight before engaging the enemy.

***

Last night on STW I worked with two new people, showing them the basics both in pre-game and in-game. In the last game, one took 15 minutes to choose an army, and 20 () to deploy. The only thing I said was (at about 15 minutes of waiting for deployment to complete) "You still with us m8?" I wasn't playing, just hosting for them and watching. I was remembering this discussion, and reminded myself to be patient. I was amazed--the other new player (who chose and set up quickly) didn't say one word.

The funny thing was, the battle itself lasted 4 minutes and 23 seconds http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif The player who took a long time won decisively ... . Both players were very gracious and said thanks for the host and the advice. I do so love the rewards of being nice and helpful. Makes the costs worth it.

indeed, ogakure, indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...-2thumbsup.gif

I try to be helpfull whenever I can, and it just takes time. Or sometimes I get called away behind the computer for 5 minutes, that also happens. Anywayz, I like your idea of preset army, but I dont know if Ill let CA choose my army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif But I guess its good for the newer players, at least it will show us what CA thinks will work...

Sulla

Sulla-san, I believe that Orda's comments were not directed at you, but at me. He has made a habit of countering my opinions and being generally anti-Toga ever since I published a detailed Powerpoint Battle Report presentation at the Home of the Masterless, featuring a battle where Masterless Kas, Mimesaka, and I defeated Mizus Orda, Yuuki/Puzz, and Jochi in a 3v3. I also teamed with Yuuki/Puzz during that time period and attack-defended Aki, personally routing Orda off the field in that game as well. I was pretty much a "noob" at the time (I'll use the word for once since I am referring to myself). I think perhaps this has contributed to why he does not like me now.

For the record, I have ever respected the Mizu Clan members--for their gameplay, their knowledge and willingness to share it, and in particular--for the honorable manner in which they (usually) conduct themselves. I featured that battle because it was a great battle. It was the first time three Masterless ever took on three from another clan. The map was one that Orda made (a nice one). Kas and I were soundly defeated by MizuTosaInu and MizuYuuki in the Masterless 2v2 tournament that followed. The games were great, and our opponents the most honorable in the tourney, imho. There was no loss of face losing to such great players--and great people.

Though I "have never claimed to be" an Angel, many have unfortunately experienced the Devil Incarnate in me when I get upset. It is one of my many opportunities for self-improvement.

Yes Orda, I will continue to assist the community in whatever way I can. Most of the good I do in this world has no salary attached to it--only the pleasure of knowing that I have helped to improve things in small ways. For me, this is worth more than money.

Peace Orda. Antagonisms between you and I will yield nothing positive. As I said before, it wasn't the criticism or expressions of frustration that bothered me about Navaros' posts, it was the manner in which they were expressed.

Yes Sulla, of course you have posted positive posts and some nice informative ones and light hearted ones http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/gc-yes.gif
Like you, I don't care if other players in the game take a while...time for banter. I like the red bar and black screen too ( allows me to finish making tea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif )
I hate rush, rush, hurry, faster, rush too, more people should take the time to actually live their lives and appreciate now, unfortunately, these days, everyone seems in such a hurry to get somewhere else. I too like large 4v4 battles that last an hour and I enjoy being able to meet so many people from all round the World http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...-2thumbsup.gif . After 2 years of Total War it still amazes me that here we all are on the field...8 people, thousands of miles from each other....that part is really good, for me anyhow.

As for Toga and his last remark.......
Made a habit since a detailed what? I have no idea what you are talking about. The habit you talk of must be my one reply to your post in a thread.

Routed my army? Did you? Is that a big deal? It seems to be...for you. If I disliked everyone who beat me there wouldn't be many left, would there?

You must hold yourself in very high esteem if you think I have nothing better to do than monitor your posting. You surprise me Toga.

Ah well...like I said, people get personal

.......Orda

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif LOL. (*holds mirror up to Orda's face ...*).

Ok m8, done with you. Have a nice life, Orda-san (*bows*).

Personally I've had more time wasted by drops then in waiting for games to fill up and start.

Usually I'm first done in choosing my army and in deploying since I use preset armies and formation. But occasionally I am making a new army or am having trouble getting my army set up right. I appreciate the other players patience at these times and so don't mind waiting at other times.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/ht_bow.gif

you guys ever stop to wonder why there are hardly any players in Total War MP? by "hardly any" - i mean relative to other games of this magnitude, Total War MP has an almost insignificant population in terms of numbers. Total War MP is basically a "dead game".

i attribute that fact to many of the points i've listed in this thread. if time limits were put in place then that one change alone would make Total War MP A LOT more popular than it is now.

i fail to see what is compelling about "battles" in Total War when the entire "object" of the game is to "make the enemy army run-away before they make my army run-away". would have been MUCH nicer to see actual battles that were FOUGHT TO THE DEATH. it is not realistic whatsoever that in almost 100% of Total War games, the battle "ends" by one army or the other running away. in real-life there would VERY-OFTEN be soldiers that will stay and fight to the death no matter what - period. the fact that this is not reflected in Total War gameplay just makes the game all the more babyish, unrealisitc, and less-fun to play IMO

Well this game is a bit of a hardcore wargame with a steep learning curve.

It has no building up an economy and then waste the enemy gameplay as many RTS.

Even if some gamespy/cdkey issues are fixed we will still wont see thousands of players online. What games can you compare the Total War series with that has a lot more players?

If we talk about realism regarding morale I would say that we are having too high morale as units can take very high losses before running. Even a clean victory still means the winner has taken many losses. Yes some units fought to the death but morale in real life was very fragile, sometimes it didnt take much before an army would run.

In most battles you will see a huge difference in losses with a winner perhaps only had a few % losses. Most people where killed when trying to run away.

If you want I can provide lots of examples.

But if you want higher morale so units fight to the death then you can play with "morale off" That gives +12 morale to all units and you wont see much routing there. In main MTW menu click on options then game. Under realim settings you can switch off morale there. Then all your hosted games will be with that setting.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ April 20 2004,17:19)]i fail to see what is compelling about "battles" in Total War when the entire "object" of the game is to "make the enemy army run-away before they make my army run-away". would have been MUCH nicer to see actual battles that were FOUGHT TO THE DEATH. it is not realistic whatsoever that in almost 100% of Total War games, the battle "ends" by one army or the other running away. in real-life there would VERY-OFTEN be soldiers that will stay and fight to the death no matter what - period. the fact that this is not reflected in Total War gameplay just makes the game all the more babyish, unrealisitc, and less-fun to play IMO

---

lol, if you can cite 3 historical battles where anything like a "fight to the death" occurred, then I will agree with you-- but the fact is, most battles were decided by an flanking action that caused the main force to rout.

The battle of Gaugamela (Arbela), 331 B.C. is a perfect example:

Darius: 250,000 men
Alexander: 47,000 men

Darius (men who died fighting): 50,000 men
Darius (men who ran away): 200,000 men

Alexander (men who died fighting): 1,000 men
Alexander (men who ran away): 0

More often than not the battle was decided by a rout.

You've been watching too much hollywood b.s.

In the above example 200,000 men ran away from 46,000 men. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is how combat goes (even modern combat).

About the only example of a "fight to the death" that I can come up with was the battle of Thermoplyae...where an elite band of Spartans held out against the entire Persian army and were slaughtered to the last man. If you want to simulate that kind of battle, take 99,999 florins.

I agree with CBR's stated opinion. I was going to mention the ability to turn Morale off, but no need now. It's usually hard to find people willing to play games with morale turned off though ... .

Generally speaking, I think that some of the reasons why there isn't a larger population of TW gamers have to do with:

- the average age of most gamers (not just TW gamers),
- the typical attention span and levels of patience, open-mindedness, and self-discipline in this age group,
- the general tendency to judge quickly and negatively anything that does not yield immediate gratification (the pressing need to "own" in a game from the get-go, or it "sux").

For many: why invest a lot of time and energy in a game that bruises your ego initially and forces you to really think about what you're doing, that requires you to change your approach in order to be successful (so many dislike change and favor constant, predictable scenarios). There are so many other simpler games out there that yield a lot more "fun" and perceived power RIGHT NOW. These will be more populated I think, not because they are better games, but because they cater better to the wants of those who make up the middle of the bell curve. TW games will appeal more to those who are willing to invest time and effort to understand the complexities and learn how to exploit them. I think many enjoy TW games because they are more complex than the other rather simplistic war games out there.

I haven't met a new TW player yet that wasn't stomped into the ground by more experienced players for a while. The ones that ask intelligent questions, try the things suggested, and let go of their preconceived notions about the game improve rapidly. Those that don't usually hang out for a week or two, then quit (after flooding the foyers and forums with epitaphs about how TW sux, etc.).

Navaros: You have been in "real-life" combat? Is this why you can speak with such authority on what is realistic in war games? There are soldiers who fight til the end in TW games too. They're the ones who died. But as is true in the real world imo, the majority of troops are not heros--just ordinary people, with ordinary fears, and ordinary tendencies to runnnn awaaaayyyyy when the odds of staying alive are not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ April 20 2004,19:19)]i fail to see what is compelling about "battles" in Total War when the entire "object" of the game is to "make the enemy army run-away before they make my army run-away". would have been MUCH nicer to see actual battles that were FOUGHT TO THE DEATH.

---

The game you want only has "attrition". The game most of us play has "attrition" and "maneuver". Having two such elements together is more interesting than having only one of them in the gameplay. At the most common morale levels this game is played at, there is a lot of attrition. An experienced player will always take out more than 50% and usually more like 80% of the army he looses to. The last team game I played my side lost, but I still took out 1150 of the enemy before I was routed. That's a lot of attrition. Inexperienced players who don't understand the morale system can get routed after taking out only 20% or less of the opponent's army. Many inexperienced players don't know how to optimize their purchased army. As a result they sometimes take units which rout almost immediately. They have lost the game before the battle even started because they purchased too many inferior units.

I don't believe game magazine reviews. They have a vested interest in promoting games due to the advertising they get. They also as a rule don't get very deep into a game before writing the review. I don't recall a single comercial review that tested mtw multiplayer, and they didn't go very far into the single player campaign either.

i have been playing total war for years now and im still loving it

i found once or twice a unit does fight to the death but for the majority aslong as im not chain routing my army fights to around a 1/5th of its size

people are allowed to criticise but should do so when they have actually tested (whatever they're criticising fully) and constructive is good :)

Navaros, Iv seen another topic of you, and I get a feeling you seriously need to let go some things (and im not talking about your posts)

A You can only learn so much from knowing about moral, disordered, ordered formations etc. Playing the game, preferably with veterans, will help a lot more. After you grasped the basics, move on and deepen your knowledge about the smaller factors in the game. Basic rules are, dont get flanked, flank your enemy (rearing is the best), keep army's in close formation, find hills, ambush from woods.

B Dont try to grasp it all in one week. You can't, nobody can. If you want to learn about the type of battles (or at least what it's partly based on) in TW, look at websites containing information about historical battles, medieval tactics, Ancient times warfare etc.

C There is a huge variety of units in TW. Not all are useable in mp, but most ARE. Just know how to balance your army. I would advice you on getting this army in MP high age.

3 cmaa valour 2
3 fmaa valour 3
4 pavise crossbowmen
4 chivalric knights val 0
2 feudal knights/tempar knights/hospitaller etc. (feudals val 1 rest val 0)

after you grasp that basic army, start experimenting with different armies. press f1 ingame to see your units statistics. Note that small differences really do make a difference (cmaa val 2 slightly lower defense, you will be able to see this in battle). Try charging with different units (with templar's you will notice charge doesnt have a s much impact as a chivalric knight) and think how that is possible (templar use swords, chivie's use lances).
Only after my 200th game orso I started to understand what I was doing. (oké, maybe im a slow learner)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg.../gc-juggle.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg.../gc-jester.gif

But above all, have fun. Learning it is a lot of fun. If your starting to hate it, I would suggest you let it go. Offcourse its possible this type of game isnt for you.

Sulla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]if time limits were put in place then that one change alone would make Total War MP A LOT more popular than it is now

---

Test your theory. Watch and see how increasing difficult it gets to attract people to your games once they realise you have a clock running.

Have you ever considered the excitement to be found in a game where, after 90 minutes of play, a few of your exhausted and depleted units are left on the field, your allies gone, facing a few units which the enemy has left. At this point, having put your heart and soul into the battle, and would do almost anything to be the last man standing on that field.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Total War MP has an almost insignificant population in terms of numbers.

---

This is immaterial to us We dont measure success by quantity but by quality, as already mentioned. This applies to players as well as games. We welcome new people to the community and are happy to give advice, training, anything it takes; but the people have to be receptive to it, some are and some arent. This game was never meant to be compared to the Warcrafts or FPS games of the world, attracting thousands to online play for a few minutes at a time. TW has a cult following, a minority group of hard-line dedicated players, who enjoy longer-term strategy than other games.

As someone else said, if you drop your pre-conceived notions about what the game 'should be like' and play it for what it really is, you may get more pleasure out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (TogakureOjonin @ April 20 2004,23:24)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif LOL. (*holds mirror up to Orda's face ...*).

Ok m8, done with you. Have a nice life, Orda-san (*bows*).

---

That's right Toga....if there was ever any doubt about you there certainly is not any longer. By your flaming and making personal remarks on a public forum you have exposed yourself for what you truly are......You can *bow* as much as you like, the fact is obvious, your arrogant hypocracy is only surpassed by your selective memory. What a sad person you are

....Orda

yoho big babies, kiss and make up. or ignore each other or something

Sulla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ April 20 2004,20:40)].........and Brutal DLX was saying we have to respect a person's right to complain ( I think I'm right Brutal DLX? ) not that we must respect the way people complain.

---

Exactly.

And granting respect outright instead of letting it be earned is the better approach in my opinion, for we all know life's a constant struggle, so is there really any need to make it harder without any real cause?
It's a decision we all have to make for ourselves though.

Point taken Sulla. Option #2 in progress. Apologies to the thread readers for my part in the Toga vs. Orda thing.

Point taken BrutalDX. By default I am courteous to others. Respect is, as I said earlier, another matter. I do respect a person's right to speak their mind. But as I see it there are good and not-so-good ways to do this.

From my point of view, there is a "cause" in criticizing another's behavior when there has been a breach of courtesy in a public venue. Unless a person is the stubborn immovable type, or I have misperceived their behavior, they sometimes consider and adjust future actions, having been made aware that some found their behavior out of place. Not always, but often. Standing by and allowing the unpleasant behavior to continue unchecked indirectly contributes to the problem, imo.

I tend to take the initiative in such situations, because I've noticed that oftentimes there are others who feel the same way I do, but hesitate to be the first to say anything negative or critical. Once someone breaks the ice, then it often becomes apparent that that there were several to many who felt similarly.

Sometimes, I am wrong in my understanding of what has been said, as in the case of what you meant in your post. In these situations, I acknowledge that I misunderstood, and if I think it might be useful, I try to further clarify my point of view, as I have done here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] if you can cite 3 historical battles where anything like a "fight to the death" occurred, then ....

---

A bold statement, Dionysos. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]About the only example of a "fight to the death" that I can come up with was the battle of Thermoplyae...

---

How about the Alamo ?

I think Cannae does not count as the Romans were trapped by Hannibal's troops and could't have run even if they wanted to.

Was Custer's last stand such a heroic "fight to the death" ? Or was he too merely trapped with no way out ?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/flat.gif

But really I do thnik that these situations were few and faar between and rather the exception than the rule. Why, even Napoleon's fameous Imperial Guard routed at the end of the battle of Waterloo.

For me it's the fact that troops do rout, which makes the game tactical, rather than just a case of numbers. I have to manouver and flank, and not just throw my men into battle head on and hope that when my 105 swordmen fight his 100 swordmen I will win with 5 swordmen left over.

But I also get the feeling that for Navaros it is just his great experience in RTS, which is getting in his way of learning MTW. The two concepts are really very different.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif Togakure, do you ever play MTW:Vi, and what is your online name? Maybe we can catch up for a game.

Sulla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Sulla @ April 21 2004,08:08)]yoho big babies, kiss and make up. or ignore each other or something

Sulla

---

Excellent advice Sulla.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/cheers.gif

ichi

here is why i don't find Total War to be a very appealing game:

what i LOVE about RTS game is that you have DIRECT CONTROL over your men. your actions as the player have an impact DURING ACTUAL COMBAT ENGAGEMENTS - as opposed to the Total War game, where your actions only take effect PRIOR TO a combat engagement. he who is superior with his mind, mouse, and hotkeys in an RTS combat phase - will Win the engagement. the Winner of the actual COMBAT PHASE of an good RTS game is determined by his quick reflexes and killer instinct. those skills can not be applied to Total War to nearly the same degree as in an RTS due to interface/design limitations of Total War's combat system.

in Total War, the only relevant part (mostly) to winning seems to be your starting army and starting formation. all of the deep, grand dynamics and skill sets that come into play during combat in RTS games are mostly absent from Total War. Total War is mostly a matter of choosing the right cookie-cutter army before the game starts, fixing your formation, and then watching as the computer AI does all the calculations for you - with little INTERACTION from you the player during actual combat engagements. RTS games seem to universally have MUCH more interaction during the actual combat engagements than Total War - so that great micro skills in an RTS can result an inferior army annihilating a superior army. i realize that such things *may* happen in Total War - but they are much less likely to; and the interface of Total War makes it much less friendly to such forms of interaction.

basically, i don't like having to "SIT BACK AND WATCH" while my army fights with the enemy army - i'd much rather be CONTROLLING my men with surgical precision as per my fave RTS game. it seems tho, that such surgical precision and opportunities for player interaction during actual combat engagements is mostly absent from Total War. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/flat.gif

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Nigel--

Yup-- all of those are situations where a small force was essentially trapped with no way out--it was a siege. The old joke: Why were there so many heros at the alamo? Because there was no back door.

But 200 men in a glorified shack doesn't really count as a "battle" to me. If you want to include sieges, well, then I suppose history is full of examples of siege defenders being slaughtered to the last man. But I'm talking about full on tactical battles on relatively open ground where the opportunity to rout exists. I count Thermopylae only because the Spartans could have withdrawn from the pass but chose to stay and fight to certain death (there are a lot of reasons why they stayed--mostly cultural). Again we are talking about a few hundred men with no ability to manuever.

Custer was ambushed and I'll bet more than one of his men got an arrow in the back as he tried to run. From what I understand Major Reno attempted a fighting withdrawal and was sustaining steady losses as he tried to disengage and regroup. Eventually Custers men were completely surrounded, and again no option to rout.

At Cannae, the Roman cavalry routed which allowed Hasdrubal to to close in around the rear of the Carthaginians, denying them the ability to flee (which I'm sure they were trying to do).

So, although my challenge was inartfully phrased (as you've pointed out), I think it is very difficult to find examples of non-siege battles in which routing was an option that wasn't exercised.

Edit: Actually I just thought of one that almost qualifies-- Culloden. After getting pounded by Cumberland's 18 artillery pieces there was a handful of highlanders who prepared to make a stand to the death at Ruthven, but Prince Charles ordered them to disband (and they did).

Navaros,

You have to have the right units in the right place at the right time, and you can't very easily correct positional mistakes and incorrect unit matchups after you've closed with the enemy. Once a unit is commited to melee you can't pull them out very easily. It's important to maintain a good army formation so that unit flanks are covered, and so that units don't bunch up because units fight at 1/2 combat efficiency when they overlap and the men don't have enough space to fight at full efficiency. If you have no units to control after the fighting starts, it's because you didn't hold anything in reserve. Play like that against me and I'll flank you with my reserve units, and you won't stand a chance.

Hey Navaros, when are you online and what is your online name?

I'd be happy to give you a few pointers.

I'm |Prophet|Bachus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (TogakureOjonin @ April 21 2004,21:18)]Point taken Sulla. Option #2 in progress. Apologies to the thread readers for my part in the Toga vs. Orda thing.

Point taken BrutalDX. By default I am courteous to others. Respect is, as I said earlier, another matter. I do respect a person's right to speak their mind. But as I see it there are good and not-so-good ways to do this.

From my point of view, there is a "cause" in criticizing another's behavior when there has been a breach of courtesy in a public venue. Unless a person is the stubborn immovable type, or I have misperceived their behavior, they sometimes consider and adjust future actions, having been made aware that some found their behavior out of place. Not always, but often. Standing by and allowing the unpleasant behavior to continue unchecked indirectly contributes to the problem, imo.

I tend to take the initiative in such situations, because I've noticed that oftentimes there are others who feel the same way I do, but hesitate to be the first to say anything negative or critical. Once someone breaks the ice, then it often becomes apparent that that there were several to many who felt similarly.

Sometimes, I am wrong in my understanding of what has been said, as in the case of what you meant in your post. In these situations, I acknowledge that I misunderstood, and if I think it might be useful, I try to further clarify my point of view, as I have done here.

---

Exemplary response http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif

Navaros, what you are describing as your ideal game is basically a combat game controlling robots. Robots who unquestioningly obey every command and carry out those orders with no emotion. Unfortunately, that is not what combat with real people is like - and that is what the TW games attempt to reproduce. The games' combat model is based on Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

What you like about the typical RTS is what I don't like about them. It doesn't matter what you do on the battlefield in an RTS, that single marine will stand and fight while an huge armada of enemy units attacks it. Hardly realistic in my view. 100% total control over the battlefield is 100% unrealistic. It seems that this boils down to a matter of taste, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Second point, if you are just sitting back and watching your army fight, you aren't doing your job as a commander. You should be looking for opportunities and threats. Because TW units do not fight to the death as you suggest they should, some unit(s) will rout and therein lies the opportunity - or the threat if they are yours. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif

The TW games are what they are - and they aren't RTS games. As someone suggested earlier in this thread, if you want to get your money out of the game, accept the game for what it is and adapt to the style of play needed to enjoy it. You'll never enjoy it if you continue to focus on what you think it should be. If you like RTS games, you have choices coming out the wazzu to satisfy your taste. If you like games like TW, well, they are pretty much in a class by themself at the moment (though other games like it are on the way).

Navaros, I suggested previously that there are flaws with this game, however I fail to see your point. I do not play other games so I can't comment on their gameplay, though I don't think it is possible to compare them.

My attraction to the Total War scene began with Shogun Total War, with my interest in Asian military history I found the whole thing very interesting and enjoyable. Mongol Invasion came out ( closer to home ) another enjoyable game. Then came MTW....

IMO SP and MP should, some way, have been seperate stats. We have a situation where lesser units can be pumped with valour and therefore become what they should never be. I am sure you will have noticed the best units...the ones you see in ( almost ) every battle. So straight away your gameplay is kind of dictated. Horse Archers have a torrid time in 4v4 battles on all but the largest maps, the opponents will generally stretch from redzone to redzone offering very little chance to harass flanks. The redzone is a terrible feature of the game but it's there so people will use it. Manoeuvre is there theoretically, though any movement of your army could be countered because there is limited chance of surprise. How many times have you marched into a trap? None? Very few? There is too much visibility. You mention micro management and the effect that retreating has, yes I agree with you, CA obviously overlooked feigned retreat. My commands are not " Run away " they are " That's right, draw the enemy " but I suppose there can be too many commands. Time limits would add nothing, for the reasons pointed out already. Now you say you want to get down amongst your troops and hack away merrily. How could you, as a General, issue orders while so involved? The player gives battle commands and his army carries out those commands to the best of their ability, no General commands his men individually. You also need to watch your allies, keep in contact etc, etc, etc. This concept of armies manoevring around a battlefield was the attraction for me and history too of course. There are too many variables within the game to provide this situation. Is it worth me going on about florin levels, unit imbalance, discounts....?? No I don't think so, it's all been done to death already. If you are happy to have groups... Cav, Range, Infantry and see the game in no other light, you really won't have a problem. There was a possibility for varied play but it got lost, I can only hope that Rome Total War will offer an alternative to the imbalances and exploits that have spoilt the Mediaeval experience ( for me ) I really think it's a case of switching to Total War mode when you play and accept the fact that as General you are on that high ground over there, watching your troops doing your bidding ( but remember...real people run...so that is one very accurate feature in the game )

.......Orda

In TW battles you can't replace units once they are gone like you can in lot's of other RTS games, so if you screw up badly you're mostly likely out and no chance to replace those units and try again. If you can keep your moral up during a battle you will have units fighting to the death or close to it. If there wasn't moral in TW battle then it wouldn't require skill to win, it'd be mostly who has the best army/counter army selection or just a 50/50 chance if all have same armies... now is that fun? Not for me. I want good balance and moral to give me the chance to rout 2+ armies if i play very good or get spanked only getting like 100 kills if i play very bad or just caught in a bad spot.

I've been playing TW ever since STW came out and i enjoyed it most because i love this type of warfare and the chance to beat more than just one player at a time. The balance has gottan worse as well as some of the controls and the way units work, but mtw:vi is balanced enough for the better player to stand out, not always thoug. Army selection has more of an impact then stw did, i think anyway.

As for why not a whole lot of people are playing TW.. it's cause of the gamespy server(not very attractive to RTS players), few patches, poor balance, few features (could list hundreds which would help), ugly looking foyer, and much more... We just have to accept what we are givin and lot's don't find it enough. When i'm on and that use to be a lot, i'd see new faces come and go everyday. It's not gonna change and problay RTW will be the same way, the developers aren't able to go all out on the multiplayer, so it's going to continue to look like they only spent at most one week working on multiplayer. :(

thing is: in almost ALL the professional reviews i've read of Total War they described the tactical battles as the "RTS portion of the game" whereas in actual fact you guys have confirmed that those battles are NOTHING like what the generally-understood DEFINITION of RTS means. basically the reviewers lied and misled me into thinking that the battles in Total War should & do resemble RTS games since they were referred to by all the "big sites" as the RTS portion of the game.

that said; i'm trying REALLY HARD to like Total War but so far that's just not happening. i admit that i do suck at the game - and i'm not sure i'll be able to stick around long-enough to get the interface quirks learned and memorized. the gameplay during battles "just doesn't feel right" - my units never move HOW I WANT THEM TO... they are always going in the wrong direction and breaking my formations against my will when a click that i EXPECT to do a certain thing actually ends up doing something completely different than what i WANTED to do.

based on my current inability to control the gameplay in Total War - i find it to be an EXTREMELY frustrating experience. not sure if it's even worth putting up with that over the long-term to become good at the game.

btw thx to grizz for trying to help me out the other night. i need TONS of work to even become a decent player LOL

Well maybe you can say the reviewers lied. The problem is: what to call the battle engine in Total War?

No its not precisely what many RTS games have with economy building, but its still real time and there is tactics/strategy. I dont think we really have any fancy terms for this type of engine. AFAIK a game like Blitzkrieg is real time but have no economy but is still classed as a RTS.

Some people love this game and some hate it. Seems to me that you are trying the best to like it, as you are posting in forums and havent left yet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif I hope you eventually will find it less frustating and see the good things in the game.


CBR

-Dionysos,

Yes to all your points on the "fight to the death" issue. You obviously know your history better than I do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif I am still tempted to try to find 3 examples of such situations in history, merely because I enjoy fencing with you. But perhaps that should go into a topic of its own.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/ht_duel.gif


-Navaros

From your two previous posts it seems to me that you are (currently) looking for quite different things in your games than I am. 100% control over each detail, micromanagement, etc. I think TW is not designed to offer that. As I see it, it is more about planning a strategy, and then trying to execute it or adjust it if necessary. Certainly not "lean back and watch". More about keeping control of the big picture and not getting lost in micromanagement.

I very much appreciate the effort you are putting in. If I was that frustrated with a game, I probably would have written it off as a failed investment by now. Thinking of all the time put in, if that had been spent in a half-decently paid job, you would have earned twice the money back by now.

But I hope its not just about money for you. Your posts have sparked some very interesting discussions, from which I certainly have learned a good deal. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif And you have recieved a lot of helping offers.

See how it goes. I myself also remember a lot of frustration while I was learning to control my troops. It does take some time and getting used to a new way of thinking. If, in the end, the TW concept is not to your taste, then so be it. We are, after all, different individulas, and that is a good thing, too.
But if you want to keep trying, we are happy to help where we can.

Edit: typos

The only game even close to being similar to the Total War series is Sid Meier's Gettysburg. This is an old game, but it was the first to introduce morale, routing, formations etc. . Your men did not always do what you wanted them to do, and they would not fight until the death. Took me awhile to adjust to that game, since I was an old Red Alert player. Once I got used to it and learned how to use formations, terrain, cover flanks, and all the other factors that go into the game, I began to enjoy it. This experience allowed me to easily pick up the idea of how to play the Total War games. It STILL took me a long time to become proficient at it and even longer to learn all the group and formation functions.

For you vets: Believe it or not, I never use any group commands until after MTW was out for about 5 months. hehe :) MTW forced me to use group commands or lose every game. MTW & VI expansion, to me, are fun, but not as good as the original STW. In the original game, you had less units, but since you could vary the honor (valour) level from 0 up to 9, you actually had more variety than you do in MTW with its hundreds of different unit types. One other thing about STW which differs from MTW/VI is you could bring just about any army in STW and have a good chance of winning. This is not so in MTW & VI. AMP is correct when he stated army selection is much more important now, than before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]One other thing about STW which differs from MTW/VI is you could bring just about any army in STW and have a good chance of winning. This is not so in MTW & VI. AMP is correct when he stated army selection is much more important now, than before.

---

Except if you play the Reconquista mod (and ban use of arty section units, which are designed for a mp campaign and not normal mp games, or keep them at 2 max) ;)

Get info and download link at (read whole thread before, pls): Reconquista Mod

(oh, and yes, multiplayer interface is very poor) :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]For you vets: Believe it or not, I never use any group commands until after MTW was out for about 5 months.

---

That explains a lot... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Navaros, just a friendly suggestion on moving, do you use alt + left-click while moving? (It is alt isnt it guys? I can never remember, seems to come as second nature in game) Will keep your army from breaking out of formation like you said yours was http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/cool.gif

hehe Muney. Yes I found it much more efficient when routing my troops to do it as a group and not just one by one. There were actually players beating me off the field of battle, so I was forced to learn group techniques http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif