Thats just f...... great :furious3:
edit: I will now put myself on mute but leave this thread open as it does look like 3v3 is max
CBR
Printable View
Thats just f...... great :furious3:
edit: I will now put myself on mute but leave this thread open as it does look like 3v3 is max
CBR
Give me another couple of good news like that, and I'll stay away from it...
Louis,
Ok then:
Competitive battles are back so I guess there is a ladder again.
That will of course make some people happy..
Edit: it should keep track for cd-key and not playername so at least an improvement there.
CBR
Double ouch. Is there any chance that these points are not true?
The six player limit has been known for a while, ever since it appeared on the flash site.
I can only assume that 4v4's are not that feasable given the attention to detail we have in the engine. Bummer.
~:mecry:
After playing the Demo, I was not enthusiastic, right now, I am downright pessimistic.
I am certainly not in a hurry to buy this.
Louis,
Guess this confirms that CA have no interest in MP issues. 3v3 max??? What a complete farce.
Well I have it on order but I shall not be buying another TW game because you can bet your life those 3v3 games will LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG
So there you go RTW....last in the series for me
.....Orda
sorry CBR, what do u mean for:
" it should keep track for cd-key and not playername.."?
Can someone join the foyer and choose any name??? :inquisitive:
me being too optimistic but with my current mood I wont make further comments
CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaolinoPaperino
I mean the ladder for competitive battles. In old STW days you could play under all the names you wanted and have lots of entries on the ladder. But thats just what I have been told and I got some :whip: to do about that 3v3 thingie..
CBR
*makes note never to trust CBR again*Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
~:rolleyes:
Louis,
Yes im really sorry! :oops: ~:mecry:
Hopefully I can get a screenshot soon..
CBR
CBR: I will send you my hospital's bill. ~:joker:
I had almost an heartattack when I read just the title ~:wave:
~:rolleyes:
........Orda
CBR
Don't do things like that to me :sweatdrop: I could have had a heart attack :no: :no:
....Jochi
Hm Im gonna have to use my asst moderator powers to cover this up..
Oh well I got the unit stat file now...lots of stats 2670 denarii for armoured elephants..
CBR
nothing to see here
I would like to see how you are going to make the MP lobby play a 4v4 game. It isn't there on any of the MP maps. Maybe a mod with a bigger map size would make it 4v4, but I have serious doubts after seeing the MP lobby. I hope you are right though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
I wasnt right. That was a just a few people who thought 4v4 was still in but actually didnt try it before they told me.
From your other thread it seems like 4 years of development didnt give MP much improvements as several of the problems are like MTW 1.0.
CBR
It's not all that bad, 3v3 is ample enough imo. :duel:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essex_Cohort
That's a joke right?
......Orda
One could be sarcastic and say that RTW MP is one big joke..
CBR
Nope, just a first impressions opinion, I will let you know what i think on the 1st October :duel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
it seems that way... there is no longer a gamespy registration through the game. no email confirmation, no password.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaolinoPaperino
you enter your cd code initially, then type your name and blamo you're in the foyar, or maybe not if it ctd on you :)
But doesn't that mean you may have some people impersonating others, esp clans.
Thx uglygoat. I was still in doubt about that.
So, anybody could join the foyer using any name, and any tag...if not used in that moment.
Dunno what is worst..losing the 4vs4 (and I still refuse to accept the reality) :wall:
or joining the room where someone else is using my nick name..and my clan tag..
Hey! I've no clan!! :2thumbsup:
You may even be able to have multiple occurances of the same name onlne at the same time. If this isn't the case, you won't be able to login if someone is using your name.
wow, how quickly the excitment has been killed for me (i have read that there is 4v4 i am refering to everything else). How the hell can it have been in the works since shogun, and the MP still be in this state?!?! The fact that problems from MTW 1.0 have appeared again is just ..... .
RTW is a primarily SP game, I imagine, like MTW was. I gave it on TW MP coz there isnt the will to make it playable. I'll play RTW, but mostly single player i think, sadly.
Hey Sinan, hope you are well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
I agree with you my friend, RTW does seem geared more to SP than the previous titles but certain things are just so bizarre as to border on comedy. One player, one faction !!! What kind of rubbish is this??? That was patched out of MTW so how has that turned up again?
3v3 max !!!!!!
How will that impact the Clan structure of TW MP community? What's the point in being in a Clan now? Unless these perhaps form sub Clans? Tourneys would be difficult...Celtibero could field about four 3 man teams on any given night.
Given the choice of a huge 4v4 struggle on a massive map, or sweet new graphics and 3v3 max, I'd pick the former every time. 3D graphics, lovely as they are, become worthless in battle, they are only good for watching replays IMO.
Create your own Historical battles and play these online with yer mates
What's the point in this? Can I create a nice 3v3 Parthia v Rome?
Good grief this is such a shambles!!!
I accept SP sounds astounding and I am so pleased to hear this but I'm afraid I agree with Mitch, it's the battles that make this game and it soon gets boring beating the AI which requires false stat increases to give you some competition.
I just expected much more after all the hype
.......Orda
16v16 would be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Greetings Old Friend. Everything's great..actually don't have mcuh time to play games nowadays but I'll try play some RTW once I get my copy.
I'm not taking it seriously anymore. I'm never going to get disappointed after MTW MP, that was disappointment enough...but I still played it coy I was such a TW lover (read: fool).
I can't care less anymore to be honest. I had a bad feeling that RTW MP will be utterly thrash and from the reports we have so far, there is no reason to think otherwise. It's unfortunate that all these old problems are once again into MP for another TW title. We already went through this for MTW, and if after all that it's back again then what can I say. Still I had had hoped that RTW: MP will be good, too bad it isn't (form current reports).
I won't be playing any MP at all, I have'nt got the time to waste. If it's good in SP, which I expect it to be, then I'll play some of that. As far as MP is concerned I can only say what I been saying since ages..forget Total War for MP, it's not worth the hassle, I think.
Salute !
Edit: sorry for typos :yes:
We should have predicted this, even before the demo. There was a bunch of hype, but none of it concerned MP. Does anyone remember the date of MTW release? I want to go back and read the threads on that. Certainly there were gameplay issues, but not interface ones.
MTW v1.0 was released around Sept 1, 2002, and the v1.1 patch came out around Nov 1, 2002.
IIRC US release was aug 23 and 1.1 came out early nov..5-7 ~:)
CBR
You seem busy Sinan :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
No doubt you will still frequent the forums if not the foyer?
Yes, MTW was a mess wasn't it? To think we spent two years trying to sort that game out and then RTW turns up ~:joker:
I've made some good, true friends through MP and it's a shame that some were driven away by poor/lack of MP support. I think quite a lot more will call time now.
You are probably right, perhaps it is time to walk away from TW
......Orda
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I was thinking about this yesterday. Forgive me if I sound overly dramatic but I really feel this way, its almost as if they WANT to piss off and get rid of the MP community. After all, who are always their biggest critics? And I heard theres a server limit...? Why would you EVER do that?
Well we want people to enjoy the game....when they are allowed to.
?
The way I feel right now, trained monkeys could have made a better multiplayer. And I'm not just saying that to be hurtful to anyone who made the game. I really do feel like no effort whatsoever was given to multiplayer. Isn't there usually a person who's main job is to work on Multi? Wasn't Gil that person for a while? I doubt one CA person has even logged on to see how things work. Maybe thats because they don't care, or maybe thats because they are trying to get on when the server is FULL.
I think the problem is that CA doesn't test the game enough before releasing it. Even single player has some serious issues comming to light that would have been caught by comprehensive testing. Time is money, so very often testing gets the axe. I've been involved in many development projects, and, in general, the managers want less testing and the engineers want more testing. The engineers are not in charge, so they get overruled. I don't know if the problem in this case is not enough testers or not enough time devoted to testing or maybe both. They are using the customers who buy their game to do testing that should have been done by them. The programmers will try to fix as many things as they can in a patch within whatever time limit is put on them. If the managers are not realistic about what the engineers under them can accomplish within the time allowed, serious problems might go uncorrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aelwyn
As I understand it we've contacted GameSpy to ask for the Friendly room limit to be increased. I saw 55 people in the Competitive room last night. Apparently the limit in that room is 200.
There are bugs and desyncs in MP. However, I've been lurking in the lobbies - scratch another one of your complaints - and there have also been people talking about how much fun they've had playing the MP game. We would much rather everyone was saying that, but in the meantime at least some people are enjoying it. The bugs that have been reported are under review. Some bugs just don't show up until you hit the real world.
As much as it must be annoying for you to not have an ideal MP experience, any suggestion that the team gave no effort to MP is ridiculous. No effort to MP would mean there was no menu item saying "Multiplayer", no GameSpy or LAN option, nothing. I hope you see the difference? "Nothing" vs "something with some bugs". So could you kindly explain exactly how you can say "trained monkeys could have made a better multiplayer" without it being hurtful to anyone?
Patience, and it'll improve.
Fine, I'll be patient, I'll wait for the improvement to buy the game: I hope you won't test my patience too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda
When things get worse whereas keeping them the same look easy, claiming that the team made effort to make MP an enjoyable experience seems dubious. When people make efforts, usually things improve.
I hope you can do better. It's tough; but as Gil puts it in another topic, "that's the biz, sweetheart".
It would be interesting for us to know what you consider WAD, and what you consider bug among all the recommandation you'll find in various places from those who have the game. What improvements are you considering?
Regards,
Louis,
Perhaps a moderator would like to chime in ...
I think some members need to temper their comments and consider that there is a distinct difference between constructive criticism and flaming the developers.
Some of the CA developers are guild members here, and all of them are real people and more importantly fans of the game like us. Show some respect please.
I too am frustrated with the apparent reversal in the multiplayer game. Overall it is dumbed down from the previous TW games. But lets be nice to each other ;)
Hmmmm.....So comp and friendly are 2 different rooms? Would that be also can't see each other? As in either one room or another?
What is the point in this if you don't mind me asking?
Comp and friendly 'games' in the same room, surely? Not seperate rooms ( sounds too much like MTW or VI rooms )
Limiting the users? Is this like saying the server is just damp string and can't handle it? Why a user limit at all? Please explain like I'm a 4 year old because I can't understand this logic.
Why are we back to one faction, one player again?
Why are we restricted to 6 player max?
Aelwyn made a 'figure of speech' remark, I'm sure you realise this ~;) but he made that remark out of frustration. You must also be able to see this.
I am sure the majority of us here would be very surprised if there were no bugs, it just doesn't happen, but as you can see the issues I have outlined above are most definitely not bugs. Combine these with the bugs you mention and the dilema of MP'ers becomes crystal clear.
.....Orda
Thanks Panda, for the update on some of the improvement done. However, i bet some of us are bitter after all the waiting and the hype.
There's a saying "that the higher you goes the harder you fall" since most or all the MP players here have all the while been hopeful on a much improved MP gameplay experience upon the release of RTW. The initial reports from our US counterparts has so far sounds groomy. Our only best bet now is that a patch addressing those bugs reported will be out soon. Do keep us posted on any update. Thanks. ~:grouphug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda
Orda is right, it was out of frustration. I have never said anything so negative about any developers of a game I have played, so I apologize as it was a bit much. But I really do wonder what was the thought process for a few choices. One player-one faction of course, being able to go into negative amounts of money while picking (reminds me of the zero florins left bug from MTW), 6 player max (although I don't like this, there may be a functional reason that I'm not seeing, and I do wonder).
The control is an issue as well, but most of the things changed there I'll just have to try to tweak myself, thats not something I'm necessarily going to completely complain about. But, can you not put single units to keygroups or is it just me?
I apologize for my monkey remark. I just really like monkeys. ~;)
Lack of features such as the #ignore function, the #ban function, no information on the game settings from the lobby, no telling if someone is in a game or not, the last chat statement being cut off at bottom of screen, no way to tell if your private chat is going out to lobby or not, connection problems, reduction from 4v4 to 3v3 max, one-player per faction, only 5 pre-set denarii amounts and no way to set your own as host, and this is just the pre-battle problems.
Each game iteration has offered less and less to the MP community. Every gameplay decision has the appearance of being made solely for the single player game and with an eye towards the RTS and console-crowd to the detriment of the MP side. I can list all of the indicators of this if anyone likes.
The worse mistake was hiding any and all information about the MP game from the veteran MP community and others. It was just short of deception by omission. To say a lot of thought went into the MP game does not bode well for TW's MP future if this is considered a best effort.
The vast majority of players who have been playing in the MP lobby are new to the series. Of course they are happy with the MP game. Most have probably never seen what the MP game is capable of and "don't miss what they never had". Console and RTS games, with a few exceptions, do not have a very long shelf life. Players move on to the "next big thing" with regularity. This may be want was intended for RTW. I certainly hope not. The veteran MP community deserves better.
OK Elmo said it better than I. Listen to him.
That post sums up the MP community's feeling perfectly, with no harsh words either :oQuote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
gj elmo, lets hope a dev reads this, altho i think it is to much to hope that it will be different in the next totalwar game :(
A very appropriate strategy, Louis. I think I'll be doing the same; no buying the game until MP functionality is at least close to MTW's level.Quote:
Fine, I'll be patient, I'll wait for the improvement to buy the game.
For those of you who have tried it online, what is the unit size you play with?
CBR
Well said Elmo. Agreed with all those points.
Could the number of players be increased back to 4v4 if the units under each players control was reduced back to 16? Or could 4v4 work by simply stating a higher min spec for multiplayer? Or is the amount of info being sent around for 4v4 RTW simply too much even for a medium spec broadband enabled machine?
well, after 4 years of MP experience CA should have a better understanding of MP requirements, yet features that are proven essential and important for MP were taken out in RTW for no explainable reason.. except that CA does not understand MP aspect of TW.. I can accept no new or better feature supporting MP mode but its difficult to swallow when important features are omitted in the new version.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda
Its not "nothing" vs "something with some bugs" but "something with big bugs" in the eyes of MP community.
I agree with what Tootee has said above, i think perhaps they simply do not understand what we like and what we dont, what is useful and what is not.
example.
At some meeting i am sure they must of decided to scrap logfiles, why did they do this?
They decided because in their opinion the effort outweighed the benefits.
To be honest how long did you play online before you started looking at logfiles in detail? For me it was at least a couple of months before it clicked how usefull they could be, the problem is no developer gets to this point of experience to realise what is beneficial to have as a feature for a commited Long term MP.
By a long term commited MP, i am talking about people that have played 1000's of MP games. I for one am sure i have played around 5k plus and i ma sure someone like elmo has played many many more!
I am sure this scenario can be adapted for most of the other problems as well.
In conclusion and to try and get this thread to be as constructive as possible I would suggest we try to create a situation where we can iterate and make the developer understand the important of these needed features, only then will they become a priority when making TW games. Clear communication from both sides is the key :)
What i feel should happen is the developers should not be reviewing whether to include a feature or not until they understand the reasons behind the need! We are on the other side of the fence and just as the developers cant see our frustrations, we can not see theirs!
Baz
I better see a patch fixing all this, or else :hanged:
Actually I dont think they decided to take out logfiles.
This is only me guessing really:
But we know how CA develops 2 games the same time. RTW has been under way for 4 years now so I guess a lot of things was decided/worked on at the same time as MTW.
If we look at MP we are having very much the same situation as MTW 1.0: no logfiles, buggy replays, ignore/ban commands not there, a faction cant be picked twice...did I leave anything out? While patches and expansion pack improved on MTW nothing was transferred over to RTW.
CA got one more year to develop RTW and unfortunately not much was done on MP. IIRC online historical battles was mentioned a long time ago so it was already a planned feature.
CBR
Historcal battles online would be a very attractive feature if it wasn't limited to 1v1. I had visions of huge faction v faction battles
......Orda
CBR: To answer your question about normal unit sizes. Unlike the other two games, RTW has a different unit size for almost every different unit in the game. I have seen 21, 42, 47, 12, etc . . . Lots of different sizes. Would be interesting if the MP was at least on par with MTW. If you like, I will try to take a screenshot and post a listing of units from a custom battle so you can see what I am speaking of.
I agree with this statement and mentioned it another thread. Many of the features missing from RTW that were in MTW I blame on the games being developed at the same time, and developers not having enough time (i.e. sticking to their schedual) to go back and change or impliment things in MTW that worked well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Well basically units come in 3 standard sizes. 27 men cav unit, 40 and 60 men inf units. There might be some officer or two added. Large will be x 2 and IMO will be closest to what we are used to in MTW with 80 and 120 men units as small will have many 40 men units.
I was just wondering if 3v3 games with such a setting works
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=36860
CBR
Most of the games ive played have been on "large". I thought that was default.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Anyway most units are 80 men but you can also build legionares consiting of around 124 men each. Its quite possible to outnumber your enemy using large numbers of legionares, they're quite akin to Byzantine Infantry in MTW but probably a little better.
I wonder if all the "features" were omitted because they are looking to make this a game for the Playstation or Xbox. Thus it has to be dummed down to work with those limited controls and no keyboard.
Just a thought. A sad thought.
:surrender:
All they had to do was make a 3D version of HellenicTW with a nice strat map with new features linking it to the battle. EVERYONE would have happy. And THIS is what we get? Worse Battle game-play. Worse MP options. And Bugs.
Nice.
I feel like I didn't get a reach-around after shelling out the $50. But hey I asked for it... I've been predicting what would happen even before I walked into the store.
Mitch, in the Flash menu of the Demo, it was mentioned that "Yes" they ARE looking into making the TW series for Consoles. I believe XBox was mentioned, but not sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shingenmitch2
And an incorrect one.
Then we would be glad if we had some answers regarding all these problems and lack of features we're encountering then, Gil. You can't blame anyone for inventing theories and reasons when nothing is coming from the developers. You know we love this game, but we're dissapointed about the current MP part of the RTW. You can't say that the anger and dissapointment shown by the large majority of the current multiplayer community isn't justified.
Help us.
What are the correct reasons then?Quote:
Originally Posted by GilJaysmith
Going from 16 to 20 units is a 25% increase, and going from 4v4 to 3v3 is a 25% reduction. So, 4v4 may well have been removed for performance reasons. Since RTW is at least equal to MTW in performance, maybe 4v4 could be reinstated if the host could set a 16 unit limit.
That's four words Gil and to be honest not worth the time it took to type them. I would much rather a response to the many MP questions already raised, however I won't hold my breath waiting
.....Orda
I can only answer what I know. I can't answer many MP questions because I don't have many answers for you.
But I do know Rome is not going to be ported to X-Box or anything like that; decisions taken regarding the control scheme were guided by the desire to make the system friendlier.
I also know most of the bugs being reported in this forum are valid, and I'm forwarding them to the team for discussion. That's all I can do right now.
I understand that MTW and RTW were developed simultaneously, and being on the MTW Team, Gil might be a little in the dark regarding RTW development details.
Thanks for forwarding the list of bugs then, Gil. We would be glad if some day you or the developers give us some details on what's being done and the release of any patches.
Here is a page from the Flash Program that came with the RTW Demo. Read the last line of the screenshot. I think it is self explanatory and adds substance to my signature at the bottom of my posts.
http://imcintosh.com/ugly/albums/Rom..._001.sized.jpg
Technically, RTW isn't going to be ported to the XBox, but RTW is a great big step towards this ultimate goal. It cannot be denied. RTW appears to have been a practice attempt to make things more console-friendly so later iterations of the series can be released simultaneously with little change between the two platforms.
Thank you Gil for forwarding them, you've reallu been the only one around and have been peltered with questions and have had to watch as the RTW (something i belive you didn't even work on) FAQ's all come towards you.
~D , yes I am curious too
As far as SP and making the interface more user-friendly, that is an admirable goal. I think then, there was a case of over thinking and reinventing the wheel. As an example: the unit-cards are much harder to "read" -- i.e. understand the unit rank, morale level, ammo level and fatigue level and this was exacerbated by forcing the radar-map to fit down below with them (btw that was unnecessarily complex too). Honestly, the original system was clearer. Sometimes simpler is better (see Edward Tufte on information design).
I guess I'm just still in shock at how many new solutions there were to things that were not problems AFAIK---and that might have been made worse, while other glaring issues appear not to have been addressed.
If my criticism has been harsh, it is only because I have completely enjoyed prior incarnations of this game. I know what the series has been in MP, what it is now not, and I fear the end of the MP community (where I've spent many happy hours during the past 3-4 years).
--------
To Diony/Bachus' post below. Excellent and very helpful!
Gil,
This might help--it is a prioritized list of issues that need addressing. Keep in mind this is my opinion from reviewing the complaints and based on my own experience playing MP. I'm sure reasonable minds can differ, and I would encourage the community to comment on the order I've listed these issues:
Critical (things we cant live without):
1. Syncronicity -- Ensure game state is not diverging during the game
2. Crash to Desktop when logging on (still happening, gamespy lobby problem)
3. Replays-- ensure they are syncronized with game (currently they are NOT--we can't run tourneys without replays).
4. Logfiles-- where are they? Do they show what units were taken? We need these for tourneys
5. 3v3 only? We need 4v4's for our tournaments and clan competitions.
6. Unit/Army control is flawed--No way to move army and retain facing (in MTW this was alt-left click), no way to have groups within groups (as in MTW). Formation/orientation is destroyed when dragging a line of units: Say you have AAAABBBB units in a group. When you set them like this AABBBBAA and draw a line the result is AAAABBBB again. Units turn back to their original state and your setting/formation is ignored.
7. Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order). Some report un-grouped units are responding to orders directed at a group.
8. When in testudo, if a single unit walks into the formation, you lose control of that unit of the legionaries in testudo formation for the rest of the game.
Important–(things that make the game highly frustrating)
1. allow Withdrawal/Rout in MP ("W"ithdraw doesn't work in MP!)
2. game info available from lobby
3. allow faction to be selected by more than one player
4. proprietary player names (so some jerk can’t steal your name and ruin your reputation) [linked to CD Key like MTW]).
5. allow “quick chat” (t/y) like in MTW, chat should not fade/scroll so quickly
6. Fatigue bars on units/exhausted units should not be able to run (but they can)
7. allow for custom denari amounts
8. #ignore/#ban commands for gamespy lobby
fade-out names for “in game” players in gamespy lobby
9. allow selection of faction color
10. show who is deployed and who isn’t deployed on the battle map.
11. Bring back F1 to view unit stats and players/factions/teams list (and grey out names of dropped/routed players like in MTW)
12. Unit tax for more than 4 units of same type
13. We need 2 keys to toggle run– if you have a group in which half the units are already running, pressing “R” makes them walk. So “R” becomes useless in groups where some units are walking and others are running. We need a “Run” button and a “Walk” button please.
14. Trying to order an engaged non-cav unit to fall back should result in a major morale penalty when they turn their backs. This doesn’t seem to be occuring.
Preferred– (these are things that would enhance the quality of play for us)
1.Remove “zoom to death of general” during MP games (very distracting)
2.Once routed, “restricted camera” mode should not apply to you. Please fix.
3. Look into reports of server lag.
4. Look into reports of host-drop crashing all players computers.
5. Brighter highlighting for selected units (some say it is difficult to tell selected units from non-selected units)
Would be nice– (add this if you have time)
1. Being able to use general’s rally ability without having to select his unit.
We will mod ourselves:
1. Kill rate/game speed
2. Balance (cav/elephant) [more testing needed]
What is also very dissaponting is the lack of news from CA? I personally think we should have a lot more say while the game is in development and it couldn't hurt if there where 2 or 3 beta testing stages for the multiplayer making of the game...
This game would be amazing if CA just listen to us vets and give us what we ask, the sales would also be higher and smiles wider!
Also,
Very well said bacchus!!!
Hehe,
Zeus, what the hell do we know? We've only been playing variations of the game for going on 4 years. ~D
... we're also not the target audience :dizzy2:
I can't really take much credit, these are issues that were compiled over at the .net and all I really did was prioritize them.
Missing from the above list is-- gamespy lobby chat cutting off the bottom of the last line.
And also some people have asked for a shell-to-desktop function (alt-tab or windows key).
Mods feel free to split my post of prioritized fixes-- I should have started a new thread anyway.
Also, and this is a secondary issue--several Spanish players have taken exception to the characterization of hte hispanic faction as "Spanish" and they are requesting a change to "celtiberian" or "iberian" or "hispania"--
CeliberoLion says:
"I prefer first they fixed Mp gameplay issues before this, but don´t see any problem to include the nomenclature error in the list, in the end if you want.
Imagine they name Frenchs to the Gauls, Italian to the Roman, British to Britons, Moroccan to Numidian, Persian to Parths...
Its a serious historical error. Spain dont exist until 1300 AD.
Celtiberian is the most correct, but its a Clan name, i understand they dont want to give preference, but is preferable Iberian or hispanic than spanish."
I guess they figured the console crowd wouldn't know the difference, so had to dumb it down for them. Like most of the other "marketing" decisions that determined the featureless, control-less, and tactic-less realtime battles of RTW. Now everybody, no matter what experience level they are at, has a chance of beating anyone else. What fun!
PS. There is nothing different in the console players and PC players intelligence-wise, but gaming developers/publishers think that console players have lower IQ's, are much younger, and will not enjoy a game that is very challenging. Might be true for console-only players who do not own a PC, but for those that frequent the forums and know how to use a PC, it is an insult to their intelligence to produce a game where the MP is so bad it is unplayable and the realtime battles are too easy.
Maybe, the reason for the extra speed and the unwillingness of CA/Activision to acknowledge the problem is due to it being an attempt to cover up/compensate for the weak battle AI behind this game.