Second Draft of Formal Petition (final?)

INTERNATIONAL TOTALWAR MULTIPLAYER'S ASSOCIATION


[name of president] [name of president]
President of the Creative Assembly President of Activision
[address] [address]

Re: Rome: Total War Multiplayer problems

Gentlemen:

Greetings. Enclosed please find a Petition that has been submitted to and approved by a truly impressive number of concerned Total War players. I hope you will take the time out of your busy schedule to read and consider our concerns regarding the state of Rome: Total War’s multi-player interface. If you do not have the time or inclination to consider this Petition, we strongly urge you to forward it to the appropriate personnel so that our concerns might properly be addressed.

We feel it is important to note this Petition has its genesis in the deep passion the signatories feel for the Total War series and that our only goal is to help you improve the multi-player portion of this fascinating game you have created. I hope it is obvious we would not go to such lengths as a community if we did not feel a very strong fondness for the Total War series, a strong desire to see the series survive and flourish, and an equally urgent need or action on your part. The enclosed Petition represents our passion for, and dedication to, the success of the Total War series as a multi-player experience and we feel the following issues must be addressed or the muti-player end of Rome: Total War will suffer and decline. We truly hope you will receive this Petition in the spirit of progress and cooperation in which it is delivered. Therefore, without further ado, we present to you the:


Formal Petition of the Multi-Player Rome: Total War Community to the Creative Assembly

We, the undersigned, humbly request the Creative Assembly address the following issues related to multi-player Rome: Total War, in order to create a more perfect multi-player experience.

I. Critical Bugs (these flaws absolutely must be addressed) :
Synchronicity (in Game and Replays) –

The initial release of R:TW was critically flawed in that the “game state” would “diverge” during multi-player battles. What this means is that the game being played on Computer A is different from the game being played on Computer B. The recent readme for the initial patch (v. 1.1) indicates “some” synchronicity problems have been resolved, and initial tests indicate the problem has been improved. However, since the patch does not purport to resolve all synchronicity problems we are making this request: please ensure that the game-state stays synchronized on all computers during a battle, and that if the game-state should happen to diverge for any reason, on any computer, the divergent player is immediately dropped from the game. Replays are also asynchronous and are displaying different battles from the ones actually played.

Lag–

There are a number of reasons for in-game lag, some of which have nothing to do with R:TW coding– but many players with high-end computers are reporting significant in-game lag. If all players’ computer’s in a battle significantly exceed the minimum requirements there should not be lag, but there is. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, or many players will quit in frustration and new players who read the forums will not purchase the game.

“Failed to Connect” Error–

Many players have reported an inability to play and/or host online due to the “Failed to Connect” to host error. This problem seems to afflict certain players and not others. It is impossible for some afflicted players to play any games online–apparently they cannot join or host games, and for others it seems limited to an inability to host games (but joining seems to work). It does not appear to be a firewall or hardware compatibility issue as both avenues have been explored and rejected as the cause. We are at a loss to combat this error and humbly request your assistance in resolving this devastating problem.

Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order)--

This is a very annoying bug that requires the player “ungroup” the units, re-group them, and then re-issue the intended command. Sometimes this group and ungroup procedure must be done several times, wasting precious time, in order to get a response from the units. Again this discourages the use of groups (which are a critical army control tool). This bug must be fixed or players will have insufficient control over their armies.

Withdrawal/Rout function doesn’t work --

As in the game of chess, a defeated general often wishes to “resign” from the battle by conceding defeat. This saves everyone time, saves lives :), and saves the general’s dignity. This was always possible in previous TW games, but the function has been removed in R:TW. The result is that players who wish to “quit” a game quickly must simply “drop” from the game. When that occurs, the dropped players units remain on the battle field and must be “mopped up” by the remaining players–which can take quite a long time. Also, a general may wish to feign a retreat in order to draw the enemy in (such as at the battle of Cannae). Finally, a general may wish to withdraw tired or demoralized troops before they rout and effect army morale. Currently it is impossible to withdraw units from a multi-player battle, or even to order them to flee. This is a major inconvenience and seriously hampers gameplay. A related issue is that once a player has lost all of his units he should be able to view the battle from any angle–however, for some reason if the host has selected “restricted camera” even a fully-routed player may not view the battle properly; he is instead restricted to a small area of the map which is extremely frustrating given that the player no longer has any units to command and would like to watch the battle unfold. Please allow routed players to have an unrestricted view of the battle.

Testudo Formation bug–

When a unit is in “testudo” (turtle) formation, if it touches any other unit, you lose control of the unit in testudo formation for the rest of the game. This is a bug that basically makes testudo formation unusable.

II. Critical Feature Problems (these features are flawed and must be fixed)

Groups are “broken”– There are several issues with respect to moving and controlling the player’s army that should be addressed which are critical.

* Multiple Groups cannot be moved in formation:

It goes without saying that a general must have a high degree of control over the movement of his army. Perhaps most importantly, the army must be able to stay in formation while on the move, and especially when reaching its destination. Unfortunately in R:TW multiple groups can not be moved in formation.

If the player has his army in a single group he is able to right-click and “drag” the army to a new location with the desired facing–this is good! But, unfortunately, if the player uses more than one group (which all good generals must do), this function does not work and his army loses all semblance of order. So, ultimately, we are close to getting the groups to work properly–but the “right click and drag” function doesn’t work with multiple groups. This problem appears to be related to the combination of numbered groups (CTRL-#) and “G” groups (visually grouped units). In M: TW we could visually “G”roup our armies in one unit, while keeping sub-formations in “numbered groups”; move the army in formation as a “G”roup, and then use the numbered groups to peel secondary formations off of the main force. Since these two types of groups have been combined we have far less tactical mobility–this is bad!

Try this: Divide your army into three groups. Select all the groups and try to use the “right-click-and-drag” function to move the army to a specific location and facing. The result is a jumbled mess. It appears that the combination of numbered groups with visual groups has destroyed our control over our armies.

* Army cohesion is non-existent when using roman-numeral “G”roups:

As you might imagine, a general may wish to organize his army into segments (for example, a right-flank cavalry group, a central infantry group, and a left-flank cavalry group). The grouping system in M:TW was excellent and allowed players to move their entire army in formation while also using these types of groups. Unfortunately, in R:TW, the grouping system has been radically altered. The critical problem appears to be a bug that treats each group as a distinct army–the result is that when a player attempts to move his entire army, and the army is in groups, the groups “forget” their relationship to one another (i.e. their formation as an army) and end up piling on top of each other after executing a move order. Each “group” is independently moving to the site of the move order and forgetting its place in the army–i.e. there is no army cohesion–all formation is lost and the groups attempt to stand on top of one another when they reach their destination. This essentially makes using groups a detriment to the player, since if the units are ungrouped they will remember their formation. This has also seriously hampered our ability to control our armies and is also considered a major problem by the majority of players. This problem is related to the “move while retaining facing” problem.

Try this: Divide your army into several groups. Select all the groups and simply right-click a move order. The result is, again, a jumbled mess.

* “Groups within Groups” were an important tool and have been omitted:

In prior versions of Total War there was always two forms of groups. There was a visual grouping of units that was achieved by hitting the “G” key, and there was a non-visual method of grouping units by use of the CTRL-SHIFT-# keys to define the group and CTRL-# to recall the group (i.e. “numbered groups’). Neither of those methods was mutually exclusive, and using them in conjunction gave the general a very precise degree of control over his army. Unfortunately, both methods have been combined in R:TW so that now the # groups are the same as the “G” groups. The result is we can no longer have “groups within groups,” which was a critical tool for rapidly responding to threats or exploiting opportunities (for example– I might wish to group my heavy cavalry into two groups–one for responding to cavalry attacks, and one for fast flanking maneuvers; depending on how the battle unfolds, I might use one group or the other).

*Another problem is that we can no longer have one-unit groups, which was an additional unit control tool we miss.

* To make matters worse, the fact that there is only a run “toggle” and not a run-key and walk-key makes it difficult to give orders to grouped units, because if some of the units in the group are already running, hitting the “R”un key makes them walk, but makes the other (previously walking) units run!? We should be able to command the group to run as a group or walk as a group, which is currently impossible. Again this discourages the use of groups

Solution (at least partial) to Group Problems?

The solution to many of these grouping problems appears to be to bring back the two types of groups– a visual group that is treated as a distinct army, and a numbered short-cut group that is used to select specific units within a visual group. That way we could at least keep our army in one big visual “G”roup, and it can be moved in formation with the “right-click-and-drag” command, and if we need to break sub-groups off we can use the numbered short-cut groups. Although this solution is less than ideal, in that it would be much better to allow the use of the “right-click-and-drag” command with either visual groups, or numbered groups, or both, it may prove easier to simply restore the old numbered groups system (which was really more of a shortcut for selecting units). It appears that the visual groups system is the problem.

In any case, a solution must be implemented which will allow the general to move his entire army in formation while using more than one group. Currently that is impossible.

Replay Information–

The replay function is an invaluable tool for learning from one’s mistakes and also for training newer players, but it is a critical tool for community tournaments. The reason is because the rules of tournaments often disallow certain types of in-game behavior (such as remaining stationary at the top of a very large hill, or wedging one’s army in a corner [“camping”]). Also, occasionally a player will lose his connection near the conclusion of a tournament match and the tournament director may need to determine the result of the match by viewing the replay. In any case, it is critical for a thriving multi-player community to be able to view the replays of important matches. Currently the replay function is fatally flawed in that it displays a battle other than the battle that was actually fought. This makes the replay function useless. Also, the replay lacks any information regarding the types of units, the players controlling them, the fatigue level of the units, etc. So even if the synchronicity problem is fixed, the replays themselves will be virtually impossible to decipher because the unit information (the information a player obtains in battle by hovering his mouse over the unit) is missing. Neither of these issues were problems in M:TW.

Logfile Information--

Likewise, many tournaments have rules about which units may be fielded (or how many of a certain type may be fielded). The “logfile” is the tournament directors only way of determining whether the army selection rules have been followed, and is also commonly used to calculate a winner (by determining how many men each side fielded and lost). This information should be contained in the logfile of the battle. In M:TW the logfiles displayed detailed information about the units fielded by each player, the number of men in each unit at the conclusion of the battle, and the results of the battle. In R:TW this information is simple non-existent. The R:TW logfile is not accessible and does not have this critical information, and so it will be difficult or impossible to administer tournaments until the replays and logfiles are returned to M:TW standards. If a player alleges that his enemy has “cheated” in the tournament, the tourney director currently has no way of investigating or resolving the complaint.

“Proprietary” player names –

One of the greatest aspects of multi-player Total War is the reputation for honor and skill that players can develop with practice and by winning tournaments. Unfortunately in R:TW anyone can masquerade as a top player simply by stealing that player’s name. That was not possible in previous TW games, since player names were linked to CD keys. Currently anyone can log on and pretend to be the top tournament player, and in the process make all sorts of obscene and degenerative remarks, play poorly, and tarnish the real-player’s reputation. This makes it almost pointless to compete in tournaments or attempt to establish a reputation as a honorable and skilled player– since any little punk can ruin your reputation by masquerading under your name. The effect is to actually discourage the best players from seeking fame and glory in the community, which is detrimental to community growth (and sales).
Game Spy Lobby --

Game information missing –

It is impossible to tell whether a game you have joined is in “arcade” mode, or whether the host has chosen “heavy rain”– both options have a significant effect on the types of armies a player will choose for the battle, and not knowing what settings the host is using is a major disadvantage for all players who join the battle. Also, unlike in previous TW games, it is impossible to tell whether a person listed in the lobby player list is “in a game” (i.e. fighting on the battlemap) or whether he is in the lobby and able to chat. In previous TW games the players’ names would “grey out” when they went in a game so that their friends in the lobby would know they could not be reached by chat.

#Ignore and #Ban commands in Gamespy lobby are missing–

Unfortunately modern life involves dealing with some very rude and obscene people. The R:TW Gamespy lobby is no exception, and the streams of obscenities that some people spout are truly shocking and offensive. It is currently impossible to ignore those people and their degenerative remarks (while it was possible in previous TW games). It is also impossible to ban them from joining your games (once they join you can “kick” them, but they can just rejoin, ad infinitum, to be a pain). Please bring back these two important lobby functions.

Private chat window is necessary–

It is impossible to tell whether someone is chatting at you in private or in public. This makes it difficult to respond to someone who says, in private, “hi, would you like a game.” More likely than not their polite invitation will go ignored and unanswered because of the large volume of lobby chat and no indication that the speaker is talking directly to you.

It is also impossible to see whether private chat is staying private or if it is going out to the lobby. Please bring back the private chat window. Given the fact that prior versions of the game would often send private chat to the lobby, it is

In Game Chat is Cumbersome –

In order to chat within the game a player must now hit a minimum of three keys, first a key to open the chat interface, then a key to determine who the chat is addressed to, then a key to determine whether the message will be “pre-recorded” or “custom”, and then finally the actual message. In the heat of battle it is difficult enough to hit one key in order to chat, let alone three. The result is that players are no longer chatting in battles. We need some sort of “quick chat” function, as in MTW (“T” was chat to all, “Y” was chat to allies; it required hitting only one key). The chat interface is now so frustrating that it is not being used during the heat of battle, which is a shame as it was invaluable in previous releases.

Our suggestion is to use the “V” key to access the new chat menu, and to restore the functions of the “T” and “Y” keys to be “Chat to All” and “Chat to Allies,” respectively. This would be a simple matter and would please everyone.

In Game Army Information is Missing–

In prior releases, the F1 key would show an overview of the battle– the teams, their designation as attacker or defender, the players on each team, the factions selected by each player, and also a list of each unit in your army together with its unique unit statistics. For no explicable reason that invaluable information is no longer available to players within the game. It is now difficult to tell which side is attacker and defender and what factions/players are on each team. There is no reason why this information should not be available to the players. Also, during the deployment phase, it is impossible to tell who has deployed their army (and is waiting to begin) and who has walked away from their computer without deploying. This is extremely frustrating as it is impossible to tell who is holding up the completion of the deployment phase (in prior versions it was always possible to tell). Please bring back this in-game information. Also, many players report having difficulty in telling which unit icons are selected because the “highlighting” for a selected unit icon is only marginally brighter than a non-selected unit. Please increase the contrast between selected and unselected unit icons.

III. Assorted Annoyances (these are features that would greatly enhance the quality of play for us)

Fixed Denari Amounts--

In previous versions of TW, the host was able to customize the amount of money available to each player to be spent on units. In R:TW the host has a limited number of monetary selections (5k, 10k, 15k, 20k, etc. per team) and no way to allow one team to have more money than another (which is an invaluable handicapping tool). It is also impossible to standardize a florin amount, when (for example) five teams are playing, and a sixth player wants to join, or when players would like to take 5k each in a 3v3. Please allow us to customize the amount of denari per team.

Zoom to Death of General–

Many players are distracted by the repeated changes in battle view anytime someone’s general dies. A player may be in the midst of a complex group movement command when his view of the battle is suddenly altered and he is taken to a view showing an enemy general’s death. This is distracting and frustrating for many players, and we would prefer to be able to toggle this as an option.

Unable to Chat in Host Screen after Selecting Army--

For some reason it is impossible to chat with other players in the game after you have selected your army and hit the lower-right “ready” arrow. This is very frustrating in that you are unable to communicate with allies or players who are dawdling in army selection without becoming “unready” which indicates to other players that they have more time to select their army because you aren’t ready. This is very frustrating and results in extended delays, especially when newer players are involved.

“Spanish” Faction

Several Spanish players have taken exception to the characterization of the hispanic faction as "Spanish" and they are requesting a change to "Celtiberian" or "Iberian" or "Hispanic.” This is regarded as a major historical error in that “Spain” did not exist until 1300 AD.

One Faction Limit

For some reason, players are prohibited from taking more than one of the same faction per game. This means it is impossible to have Carthage vs. Carthage (civil war) or three Carthage armies against three Roman armies (for historical re-enactments of large battles). Please allow us the option of toggling this limit on and off.

Full Screen (no Mini-map) Option

Many players find the R:TW minimap to be of little or no use and instead find that it takes up valuable screen space. Please allow us to toggle the mini-map and other interface clutter on and off.

4v4s–

This is a major concern in the community, but we realize it is a command decision that has been made by the developers and that it may be related to the lag problems. At the very least, please allow those of us with high-end computers the OPTION of having 4v4 battles. With normal unit sizes and a good computer it should be possible. This feature was a mainstay of Total War for years. Instead we now have 3v3's with 20 units per player (120 units total) whereas before we had 4v4's with 16 units per player (128 units total). We don’t understand why this huge leap backwards has occurred. We would be happy to take only 10 units per person if we could have 5v5s– so please at least allow us the option of having 4v4's (even if we have to take less than 16 units to make it playable). The team cooperation and camaraderie that is built in a 4v4 is unparalleled and it is now gone completely.

IV. Requests for Information

Combat Equation–

In order to determine what tactics will be most effective, we must have some idea of how combat is being resolved. What is the effect of adding one unit of valor? What is the effect of having 22 defense as opposed to 20? We currently have no idea how the unit stats relate to one another and how combat is being resolved. Please provide us with some insight into how combat between two units is being resolved.

Ability to Mod Speed Attribute–

Many players are unhappy with the running speed of various units and would like to modify the unit statistics to their own liking– however we are presently unable to locate the speed statistic so as to modify it. We understand that speed may be linked to animation Any light that could be shed on the issue of modifying unit speeds would be much appreciated.

Request for Permanent Liaison–

We also request that the Creative Assembly appoint an employee to act as a liaison between your company and the multi-player community so that we can address these concerns in more detail and help to avoid similar debacles in the future. We are willing to contribute incredible quantities of man-hours to the beta-testing, focus grouping, and overall improvement of the Total War series and thus far that potential marketing boon has been ignored. We can be reached en mass at either www.totalwar.org or www.totalwars.net.

Thank you very much for taking the time to understand and address our concerns.

Signed,

. . . . .


We wish you the best of luck in expanding the playership of Rome: Total War and we would like to thank you for developing this truly incredible game. Thank you again for your time and consideration.


Best Regards,


Sia Rezvani, aka |Prophet|Bachus

cc: The Creative Assembly Customer Support, via email; Activision Customer Support, via email, “The Shogun” at www.totalwar.com, via email; by posting at www.totalwar.org, www.totalwars.net, and www.totalwar.com.

Alio, I apologize I did not have time to track all of my changes and alterations--here is a partial list:
Flaws and bugs have been separated into different lists.

Army control has been revamped and is now based on grouping issues.

“No shell to desktop” has been removed

“Map Editor/Historic Battles editor” has been removed (it has been promised already, after release).

“Realistic fatigue” omitted

Gamespy lobby issues have been consolidated and expanded.

In game chat has been expanded.

Remove UDP pings added

Synchronicity of game and replays has been combined and replay info has been split off into features.

maybe someone else could try their hand at an "executive overview" with bulleted points for the president to read?

I'm beat, my wife is pissed, my boss is looking at me funny and my friends think I'm ignoring them. I've put in all the time I can so I hope this draft is final or that someone else will pick up the torch.

Humbly yours,

Bachus

*bows low*

*zeus sends bacchus a book on marrige guidence to reiforce matters he aslo sends a sorry card to his children and boss* :dizzy2:

Thx Bacchus, it's perfect and i'm sure everyone will be happy with it m8 :bow:

Looks great! Are we using the current thread for this petition? Or will there be a separate thread started once this is deamed the final copy?

I closed the first draft thread and stickied this one too.


CBR

Hey Bachus - great work mate.

*there's no indication of amount of denarii in game information too
* Wasn't there a way to chat after pressing "ready?" I think Gil or Jerome did mention a solution.

ok i 've done an executive summary and added list, i have as a document if peeps are interested: HMOswald@msn.com:

INTERNATIONAL TOTALWAR MULTIPLAYER'S ASSOCIATION


Tim Ansell
Managing Director of
The Creative Assembly, Weald House,
Southwater Business Park,
Southwater Nr. Horsham,
West Sussex
RH13 9JB.

Re: Rome: Total War Multiplayer problems

Gentlemen:

Greetings. Enclosed please find a Petition that has been submitted to and approved by a truly impressive number of concerned Total War players. I hope you will take the time out of your busy schedule to read and consider our concerns regarding the state of Rome: Total War’s multi-player interface. If you do not have the time or inclination to consider this Petition, we strongly urge you to forward it to the appropriate personnel so that our concerns might properly be addressed.

We feel it is important to note this Petition has its genesis in the deep passion the signatories feel for the Total War series and that our only goal is to help you improve the multi-player portion of this fascinating game you have created. I hope it is obvious we would not go to such lengths as a community if we did not feel a very strong fondness for the Total War series, a strong desire to see the series survive and flourish, and an equally urgent need for action on your part. The enclosed Petition represents our passion for, and dedication to, the success of the Total War series as a multi-player experience and we feel the following issues must be addressed or the muti-player end of Rome: Total War will suffer and decline. We truly hope you will receive this Petition in the spirit of progress and cooperation in which it is delivered. Therefore, without further ado, we present to you the:


Formal Petition of the Multi-Player Rome: Total War Community to the Creative Assembly

We, the undersigned, humbly request the Creative Assembly address the following issues related to multi-player Rome: Total War, in order to create a valuable and exceptional multi-player experience.

Key Points:
I Critical Bugs:
-divergent game state for different players in multiplayer
-Lag: experienced by high end machines in multiplayer
-“Failed to Connect” Error– host machines, some players reporting this.
- Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order)
- Withdrawal/Rout function doesn’t work- defeated generals cant withdraw
- Testudo Formation bug– 2 units in testudo touch and become uncontrollable
II. Critical Feature Problems (these features are flawed and must be fixed)

- Groups are “broken”– There are several issues with respect to moving and controlling the player’s army that should be addressed which are critical. Multiple Groups cannot be moved in formation.
- Army cohesion is non-existent when using roman-numeral “G”roups
- Suggested solutions? Use existing MTW/VI control features.
- Replay Information–necessary for tournaments
- Logfile Information—necessary for tournaments
- “Proprietary” player names –necessary for tournaments, also desirable in light of lobby behaviour.
- Game Spy Lobby --Game information missing –#Ignore and #Ban commands in Gamespy lobby are missing– Private chat window is necessary–
- In Game Chat is Cumbersome – difficult to use in fast moving battle
- In Game Army Information is Missing–necessary for tournaments
III. Assorted Annoyances (these are features that would greatly enhance the quality of play for us)
-ability to control denari on game setup
-death of general distracts, toggle needed?
-chat function in army selection needs addressing
-spanish faction historically inaccurate, Iberian or hispanico better.
-one faction per player limit is unnecessary
-minimap issues
-4v4 not available, even 5 v5 would be interesting with less units per faction
IV. Requests for Information
-combat equation
-request for liason

V. The Signatures.
- these are the regular and veteran players of the game. All are known by repute as dedicated players and lovers of the totalwar series.



Detailed Comments:-

I. Critical Bugs (these flaws absolutely must be addressed) :
Synchronicity (in Game and Replays) –

The initial release of R:TW was critically flawed in that the “game state” would “diverge” during multi-player battles. What this means is that the game being played on Computer A is different from the game being played on Computer B. The recent readme for the initial patch (v. 1.1) indicates “some” synchronicity problems have been resolved, and initial tests indicate the problem has been improved. However, since the patch does not purport to resolve all synchronicity problems we are making this request: please ensure that the game-state stays synchronized on all computers during a battle, and that if the game-state should happen to diverge for any reason, on any computer, the divergent player is immediately dropped from the game. Replays are also asynchronous and are displaying different battles from the ones actually played.

Lag–

There are a number of reasons for in-game lag, some of which have nothing to do with R:TW coding– but many players with high-end computers are reporting significant in-game lag. If all players’ computer’s in a battle significantly exceed the minimum requirements there should not be lag, but there is. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, or many players will quit in frustration and new players who read the forums will not purchase the game.

“Failed to Connect” Error–

Many players have reported an inability to play and/or host online due to the “Failed to Connect” to host error. This problem seems to afflict certain players and not others. It is impossible for some afflicted players to play any games online–apparently they cannot join or host games, and for others it seems limited to an inability to host games (but joining seems to work). It does not appear to be a firewall or hardware compatibility issue as both avenues have been explored and rejected as the cause. We are at a loss to combat this error and humbly request your assistance in resolving this devastating problem.

Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order)--

This is a very annoying bug that requires the player “ungroup” the units, re-group them, and then re-issue the intended command. Sometimes this group and ungroup procedure must be done several times, wasting precious time, in order to get a response from the units. Again this discourages the use of groups (which are a critical army control tool). This bug must be fixed or players will have insufficient control over their armies.

Withdrawal/Rout function doesn’t work --

As in the game of chess, a defeated general often wishes to “resign” from the battle by conceding defeat. This saves everyone time, saves lives :), and saves the general’s dignity. This was always possible in previous TW games, but the function has been removed in R:TW. The result is that players who wish to “quit” a game quickly must simply “drop” from the game. When that occurs, the dropped players units remain on the battle field and must be “mopped up” by the remaining players–which can take quite a long time. Also, a general may wish to feign a retreat in order to draw the enemy in (such as at the battle of Cannae). Finally, a general may wish to withdraw tired or demoralized troops before they rout and effect army morale. Currently it is impossible to withdraw units from a multi-player battle, or even to order them to flee. This is a major inconvenience and seriously hampers gameplay. A related issue is that once a player has lost all of his units he should be able to view the battle from any angle–however, for some reason if the host has selected “restricted camera” even a fully-routed player may not view the battle properly; he is instead restricted to a small area of the map which is extremely frustrating given that the player no longer has any units to command and would like to watch the battle unfold. Please allow routed players to have an unrestricted view of the battle.

Testudo Formation bug–

When a unit is in “testudo” (turtle) formation, if it touches any other unit, you lose control of the unit in testudo formation for the rest of the game. This is a bug that basically makes testudo formation unusable.

II. Critical Feature Problems (these features are flawed and must be fixed)

Groups are “broken”– There are several issues with respect to moving and controlling the player’s army that should be addressed which are critical.

* Multiple Groups cannot be moved in formation:

It goes without saying that a general must have a high degree of control over the movement of his army. Perhaps most importantly, the army must be able to stay in formation while on the move, and especially when reaching its destination. Unfortunately in R:TW multiple groups can not be moved in formation.

If the player has his army in a single group he is able to right-click and “drag” the army to a new location with the desired facing–this is good! But, unfortunately, if the player uses more than one group (which all good generals must do), this function does not work and his army loses all semblance of order. So, ultimately, we are close to getting the groups to work properly–but the “right click and drag” function doesn’t work with multiple groups. This problem appears to be related to the combination of numbered groups (CTRL-#) and “G” groups (visually grouped units). In M: TW we could visually “G”roup our armies in one unit, while keeping sub-formations in “numbered groups”; move the army in formation as a “G”roup, and then use the numbered groups to peel secondary formations off of the main force. Since these two types of groups have been combined we have far less tactical mobility–this is bad!

Try this: Divide your army into three groups. Select all the groups and try to use the “right-click-and-drag” function to move the army to a specific location and facing. The result is a jumbled mess. It appears that the combination of numbered groups with visual groups has destroyed our control over our armies.

* Army cohesion is non-existent when using roman-numeral “G”roups:

As you might imagine, a general may wish to organize his army into segments (for example, a right-flank cavalry group, a central infantry group, and a left-flank cavalry group). The grouping system in M:TW was excellent and allowed players to move their entire army in formation while also using these types of groups. Unfortunately, in R:TW, the grouping system has been radically altered. The critical problem appears to be a bug that treats each group as a distinct army–the result is that when a player attempts to move his entire army, and the army is in groups, the groups “forget” their relationship to one another (i.e. their formation as an army) and end up piling on top of each other after executing a move order. Each “group” is independently moving to the site of the move order and forgetting its place in the army–i.e. there is no army cohesion–all formation is lost and the groups attempt to stand on top of one another when they reach their destination. This essentially makes using groups a detriment to the player, since if the units are ungrouped they will remember their formation. This has also seriously hampered our ability to control our armies and is also considered a major problem by the majority of players. This problem is related to the “move while retaining facing” problem.

Try this: Divide your army into several groups. Select all the groups and simply right-click a move order. The result is, again, a jumbled mess.

* “Groups within Groups” were an important tool and have been omitted:

In prior versions of Total War there was always two forms of groups. There was a visual grouping of units that was achieved by hitting the “G” key, and there was a non-visual method of grouping units by use of the CTRL-SHIFT-# keys to define the group and CTRL-# to recall the group (i.e. “numbered groups’). Neither of those methods was mutually exclusive, and using them in conjunction gave the general a very precise degree of control over his army. Unfortunately, both methods have been combined in R:TW so that now the # groups are the same as the “G” groups. The result is we can no longer have “groups within groups,” which was a critical tool for rapidly responding to threats or exploiting opportunities (for example– I might wish to group my heavy cavalry into two groups–one for responding to cavalry attacks, and one for fast flanking maneuvers; depending on how the battle unfolds, I might use one group or the other).

*Another problem is that we can no longer have one-unit groups, which was an additional unit control tool we miss.

* To make matters worse, the fact that there is only a run “toggle” and not a run-key and walk-key makes it difficult to give orders to grouped units, because if some of the units in the group are already running, hitting the “R”un key makes them walk, but makes the other (previously walking) units run!? We should be able to command the group to run as a group or walk as a group, which is currently impossible. Again this discourages the use of groups

Solution (at least partial) to Group Problems?

The solution to many of these grouping problems appears to be to bring back the two types of groups– a visual group that is treated as a distinct army, and a numbered short-cut group that is used to select specific units within a visual group. That way we could at least keep our army in one big visual “G”roup, and it can be moved in formation with the “right-click-and-drag” command, and if we need to break sub-groups off we can use the numbered short-cut groups. Although this solution is less than ideal, in that it would be much better to allow the use of the “right-click-and-drag” command with either visual groups, or numbered groups, or both, it may prove easier to simply restore the old numbered groups system (which was really more of a shortcut for selecting units). It appears that the visual groups system is the problem.

In any case, a solution must be implemented which will allow the general to move his entire army in formation while using more than one group. Currently that is impossible.

Replay Information–

The replay function is an invaluable tool for learning from one’s mistakes and also for training newer players, but it is a critical tool for community tournaments. The reason is because the rules of tournaments often disallow certain types of in-game behavior (such as remaining stationary at the top of a very large hill, or wedging one’s army in a corner [“camping”]). Also, occasionally a player will lose his connection near the conclusion of a tournament match and the tournament director may need to determine the result of the match by viewing the replay. In any case, it is critical for a thriving multi-player community to be able to view the replays of important matches. Currently the replay function is fatally flawed in that it displays a battle other than the battle that was actually fought. This makes the replay function useless. Also, the replay lacks any information regarding the types of units, the players controlling them, the fatigue level of the units, etc. So even if the synchronicity problem is fixed, the replays themselves will be virtually impossible to decipher because the unit information (the information a player obtains in battle by hovering his mouse over the unit) is missing. Neither of these issues were problems in M:TW.

Logfile Information--

Likewise, many tournaments have rules about which units may be fielded (or how many of a certain type may be fielded). The “logfile” is the tournament directors only way of determining whether the army selection rules have been followed, and is also commonly used to calculate a winner (by determining how many men each side fielded and lost). This information should be contained in the logfile of the battle. In M:TW the logfiles displayed detailed information about the units fielded by each player, the number of men in each unit at the conclusion of the battle, and the results of the battle. In R:TW this information is simple non-existent. The R:TW logfile is not accessible and does not have this critical information, and so it will be difficult or impossible to administer tournaments until the replays and logfiles are returned to M:TW standards. If a player alleges that his enemy has “cheated” in the tournament, the tourney director currently has no way of investigating or resolving the complaint.

“Proprietary” player names –

One of the greatest aspects of multi-player Total War is the reputation for honor and skill that players can develop with practice and by winning tournaments. Unfortunately in R:TW anyone can masquerade as a top player simply by stealing that player’s name. That was not possible in previous TW games, since player names were linked to CD keys. Currently anyone can log on and pretend to be the top tournament player, and in the process make all sorts of obscene and degenerative remarks, play poorly, and tarnish the real-player’s reputation. This makes it almost pointless to compete in tournaments or attempt to establish a reputation as a honorable and skilled player– since any little punk can ruin your reputation by masquerading under your name. The effect is to actually discourage the best players from seeking fame and glory in the community, which is detrimental to community growth (and sales).
Game Spy Lobby --

Game information missing –

It is impossible to tell whether a game you have joined is in “arcade” mode, or whether the host has chosen “heavy rain”– both options have a significant effect on the types of armies a player will choose for the battle, and not knowing what settings the host is using is a major disadvantage for all players who join the battle. Also, unlike in previous TW games, it is impossible to tell whether a person listed in the lobby player list is “in a game” (i.e. fighting on the battlemap) or whether he is in the lobby and able to chat. In previous TW games the players’ names would “grey out” when they went in a game so that their friends in the lobby would know they could not be reached by chat.

#Ignore and #Ban commands in Gamespy lobby are missing–

Unfortunately modern life involves dealing with some very rude and obscene people. The R:TW Gamespy lobby is no exception, and the streams of obscenities that some people spout are truly shocking and offensive. It is currently impossible to ignore those people and their degenerative remarks (while it was possible in previous TW games). It is also impossible to ban them from joining your games (once they join you can “kick” them, but they can just rejoin, ad infinitum, to be a pain). Please bring back these two important lobby functions.

Private chat window is necessary–

It is impossible to tell whether someone is chatting at you in private or in public. This makes it difficult to respond to someone who says, in private, “hi, would you like a game.” More likely than not their polite invitation will go ignored and unanswered because of the large volume of lobby chat and no indication that the speaker is talking directly to you.

It is also impossible to see whether private chat is staying private or if it is going out to the lobby. Please bring back the private chat window.

In Game Chat is Cumbersome –

In order to chat within the game a player must now hit a minimum of three keys, first a key to open the chat interface, then a key to determine who the chat is addressed to, then a key to determine whether the message will be “pre-recorded” or “custom”, and then finally the actual message. In the heat of battle it is difficult enough to hit one key in order to chat, let alone three. The result is that players are no longer chatting in battles. We need some sort of “quick chat” function, as in MTW (“T” was chat to all, “Y” was chat to allies; it required hitting only one key). The chat interface is now so frustrating that it is not being used during the heat of battle, which is a shame as it was invaluable in previous releases.

Our suggestion is to use the “V” key to access the new chat menu, and to restore the functions of the “T” and “Y” keys to be “Chat to All” and “Chat to Allies,” respectively. This would be a simple matter and would please everyone.

In Game Army Information is Missing–

In prior releases, the F1 key would show an overview of the battle– the teams, their designation as attacker or defender, the players on each team, the factions selected by each player, and also a list of each unit in your army together with its unique unit statistics. For no explicable reason that invaluable information is no longer available to players within the game. It is now difficult to tell which side is attacker and defender and what factions/players are on each team. There is no reason why this information should not be available to the players. Also, during the deployment phase, it is impossible to tell who has deployed their army (and is waiting to begin) and who has walked away from their computer without deploying. This is extremely frustrating as it is impossible to tell who is holding up the completion of the deployment phase (in prior versions it was always possible to tell). Please bring back this in-game information. Also, many players report having difficulty in telling which unit icons are selected because the “highlighting” for a selected unit icon is only marginally brighter than a non-selected unit. Please increase the contrast between selected and unselected unit icons.

III. Assorted Annoyances (these are features that would greatly enhance the quality of play for us)

Fixed Denari Amounts--

In previous versions of TW, the host was able to customize the amount of money available to each player to be spent on units. In R:TW the host has a limited number of monetary selections (5k, 10k, 15k, 20k, etc. per team) and no way to allow one team to have more money than another (which is an invaluable handicapping tool). It is also impossible to standardize a florin amount, when (for example) five teams are playing, and a sixth player wants to join, or when players would like to take 5k each in a 3v3. Please allow us to customize the amount of denari per team.

Zoom to Death of General–

Many players are distracted by the repeated changes in battle view anytime someone’s general dies. A player may be in the midst of a complex group movement command when his view of the battle is suddenly altered and he is taken to a view showing an enemy general’s death. This is distracting and frustrating for many players, and we would prefer to be able to toggle this as an option.

Unable to Chat in Host Screen after Selecting Army--

For some reason it is impossible to chat with other players in the game after you have selected your army and hit the lower-right “ready” arrow. This is very frustrating in that you are unable to communicate with allies or players who are dawdling in army selection without becoming “unready” which indicates to other players that they have more time to select their army because you aren’t ready. This is very frustrating and results in extended delays, especially when newer players are involved.

“Spanish” Faction

Several Spanish players have taken exception to the characterization of the hispanic faction as "Spanish" and they are requesting a change to "Celtiberian" or "Iberian" or "Hispanic.” This is regarded as a major historical error in that “Spain” did not exist until 1300 AD.

One Faction Limit

For some reason, players are prohibited from taking more than one of the same faction per game. This means it is impossible to have Carthage vs. Carthage (civil war) or three Carthage armies against three Roman armies (for historical re-enactments of large battles). Please allow us the option of toggling this limit on and off.

Full Screen (no Mini-map) Option

Many players find the R:TW minimap to be of little or no use and instead find that it takes up valuable screen space. Please allow us to toggle the mini-map and other interface clutter on and off.

4v4s–

This is a major concern in the community, but we realize it is a command decision that has been made by the developers and that it may be related to the lag problems. At the very least, please allow those of us with high-end computers the OPTION of having 4v4 battles. With normal unit sizes and a good computer it should be possible. This feature was a mainstay of Total War for years. Instead we now have 3v3's with 20 units per player (120 units total) whereas before we had 4v4's with 16 units per player (128 units total). We don’t understand why this huge leap backwards has occurred. We would be happy to take only 10 units per person if we could have 5v5s– so please at least allow us the option of having 4v4's (even if we have to take less than 16 units to make it playable). The team cooperation and camaraderie that is built in a 4v4 is unparalleled and it is now gone completely.

IV. Requests for Information

Combat Equation–

In order to determine what tactics will be most effective, we must have some idea of how combat is being resolved. What is the effect of adding one unit of valor? What is the effect of having 22 defense as opposed to 20? We currently have no idea how the unit stats relate to one another and how combat is being resolved. Please provide us with some insight into how combat between two units is being resolved.


Request for Permanent Liaison–

We also request that the Creative Assembly appoint an employee to act as a liaison between your company and the multi-player community so that we can address these concerns in more detail and help to avoid similar debacles in the future. There are other possible bugs we have not included because at the time of writing we have been unable to accurately define them. We are willing to contribute incredible quantities of man-hours to the beta-testing, focus grouping, and overall improvement of the Total War series and thus far that potential marketing boon has been ignored. We can be reached en mass at either www.totalwar.org or www.totalwars.net.

Thank you very much for taking the time to understand and address our concerns.

Signed,

1 [cF]Adherbal
2 [cF]Maharbal
3 [LEGIO] VII CLAUDIA
4 [LEGIO]Alex
5 [LEGIO]Angelius
6 [LEGIO]capago64
7 [LEGIO]Cheros
8 [LEGIO]DIX
9 [LEGIO]Dracula
10 [LEGIO]Edi
11 [LEGIO]Emperor
12 [LEGIO]fenix legion
13 [LEGIO]Flea
14 [LEGIO]Franied
15 [LEGIO]Highlander
16 [LEGIO]Kiedis
17 [LEGIO]Lord Feanor
18 [LEGIO]Lordthefenix
19 [LEGIO]Lucio Decimocis Cospuccio
20 [LEGIO]musketeer
21 [LEGIO]PILUM
22 [LEGIO]Pompeo il Magno
23 [LEGIO]Primigenia
24 [LEGIO]Silvanus
25 [LEGIO]TITUS AUGUSTUS
26 [LEGIO]XXI Rapax
27 [LEGIO]XXX ULPIA
28 [LEGIO]XXX ULPIA
29 [UoY]Acidd_UK
30 [UoY]Mr.Tinkles
31 [VDM]Troys
32 {DC}Fire
33 {DC}PIG_yobaboink
34 {DC}Player
35 {DC}Rider
36 {DC}Shade
37 {LORE}Monk
38 {LORE}Quid
39 {Pendragon}Achille
40 {Pendragon}Bastard
41 {Pendragon}Cid Campeador
42 {Pendragon}Crash
43 {Pendragon}Cynh
44 {Pendragon}DGMerlin
45 {Pendragon}Dmlolo
46 {Pendragon}Droit-de-cuissage
47 {Pendragon}Free
48 {Pendragon}Jibbs
49 {Pendragon}Le Duc
50 {Pendragon}Maarek
51 {Pendragon}Moonshine
52 {Pendragon}Philou
53 {Pendragon}Wallace
54 {Pendragon}Widukind
55 {Pendragon}Willcourt
56 {Raven}Crfyder
57 1dread1lahll
58 1master1hymir
59 7Bear7Clips
60 7Bear7Grizzly
61 7Bear7Kuma
62 7Bear7Saxon
63 7Bear7Scar
64 7Bear7Tooth
65 7Bear7Yoyoma
66 Ae2
67 AggonyDuck
68 AggonyRaven
69 Ah_dut
70 AK_SG
71 Almircar
72 Ambassador Sacrifice
73 Antek
74 AoM_Horus
75 ArmaEtLorica_Diackon
76 ArmaEtLorica_Mongoclint
77 Arnaud
78 Bachus
79 Balamir
80 Barrakud
81 CanCritter
82 Carlos
83 Carrasca
84 CeltiberoAcre
85 CeltiberoAlba
86 Celt¡beroAlioven
87 CeltiberoAmebo
88 CeltiberoBichoco
89 CeltiberoCapi
90 Celt¡beroCid
91 CeltiberoEmbirrado
92 CeltiberoEpG
93 CeltiberoFigueroa
94 CeltiberoFrog
95 CeltiberoFurase
96 CeltiberoIdibil
97 CeltiberoIhatsu
98 CeltiberoJuanjo
99 CeltiberoKarmipoka
100 CeltiberoKoln
101 CeltiberoLaertes
102 CeltiberoLerend
103 CeltiberoLion
104 CeltiberoLoky
105 Celt¡beroMandonio
106 Celt¡beroMencey
107 CeltiberoMordred
108 CeltiberoMori
109 CeltiberoMutilador
110 Celt¡beroSkullXIII
111 Celt¡beroSubur
112 CeltiberoVirio
113 CeltiberoVito
114 CeltiberoWallace
115 CelticFalcon
116 ChaosAchilles
117 CitizenDrifta
118 Colovion
119 Cort
120 CrackedAxe
121 CrazyHorse
122 Crusty_Ator
123 D6veteran
124 DegtYarev14.5
125 DonGarcia
126 DragonBarocca
127 DragonGeisha
128 DragonGregoshi
129 Dux of Earl
130 ELITEofBavaria
131 ELITEofBill
132 ELITEofBismarck
133 ELITEofBLIZZARD
134 ELITEofBomilkar
135 ELITEofBoon
136 ELITEofBuddy
137 ELITEofCreb
138 ELITEofDschingis
139 ELITEofFarfane
140 ELITEofFogolin
141 ELITEofGazoz
142 ELITEofJERICHOPRIME
143 ELITEofKYL
144 ELITEofLoki
145 ELITEofMARCAUREL
146 ELITEofmperator
147 ELITEofOrkus
148 ELITEofRage
149 ELITEofRedchaos
150 ELITEofSpartanian
151 ELITEofWheatus
152 Emix
153 Ender1101
154 Estivi
155 Excalibur_Primordial
156 Falconne
157 FearAMP
158 FearHector
159 FearofCromwell
160 FearYoussof
161 FearZeus
162 Felix Iuvenis Invictus
163 Folgore Jimi
164 GoldenKnightX2
165 Gordio
166 Greek_Warrior_Gwc
167 Hach
168 Hamhock2
169 Hatefulemperor17
170 Hedon
171 Helliax
172 HighFistRW
173 HM Oswald
174 HM-Pathfinder
175 Hunter Devastator
176 Hunter El Rey Santos
177 Hunter Hikaru
178 Hunter King George
179 Hunter_RedDragon
180 IceTorque
181 Ichi
182 Ignacio
183 Indortes
184 InsaneApache
185 InsaneGnomeSlayer
186 InsaneHighlander
187 InsaneHorse
188 InsaneMarauder
189 IPainI_King
190 Irish Fenian
191 Ivar
192 Jacin1
193 Jango Fett
194 Jollyroger
195 Kalle
196 Kanamori
197 Kas
198 Kenchi_Andy
199 Kenchi_AsajiShimazu
200 Kenchi_Baz
201 Kenchi_Malekith
202 Kenchi_Mordred
203 Kenchi_Nem
204 Kenchi_Romero
205 Kenchi_Shaka
206 Kenchi_Skomatth
207 Kenchi_Subadai
208 Kenchi_Sulla
209 Kenchi_Tera
210 Kenchi_TGI
211 Kenchi_TheWitchKing
212 Kenchi_Tib
213 KenchiSullasan
214 KotrSirGreyFox
215 Krasturak
216 Krusader
217 l33t
218 Lechev
219 Legatus Maximus
220 LegioXGemina Antoninus
221 LegioXGemina Romulus
222 LegioXGemina Vespasian
223 LegioXGemina Vitus
224 Liblap
225 Londinium
226 Lonewarrior
227 LRossa Caesar
228 LRossa Duca
229 LRossaCiliegio
230 LRossaCily
231 LRossaCrux
232 LRossaDOCmatte
233 LRossaFalco
234 LrossaJubo
235 LrossaLordChoj
236 LRossaMauri
237 LRossaPedroneCommodo
238 LRossaRaubal
239 LRossaRikimaru
240 LRossaTerrore
241 LRossaTraiano
242 LrossaVinsitor
243 LrossaWwwolf
244 LuminousSun
245 MAGO_V
246 marechal[N]ANUBIS
247 marechal[N]BUCH
248 marechal[N]DAWAFRED
249 marechal[N]LANNES
250 marechal[N]LEGION
251 marechal[N]MAXIMUS
252 marechal[N]SPARDAMUS
253 marechal[N]TIGERTAT
254 marechal[N]TOVI
255 marechal[N]VERSEAUX
256 marechal[N]VYSE
257 marechalABC
258 marechalAKHENATON
259 marechalALBINUS
260 marechalALCAZAR
261 marechalATONE
262 marechalCID
263 marechalCLEMENT
264 marechalDROW
265 marechalEURINYS
266 marechalFERRANT
267 marechalFINROD
268 marechalFRED
269 marechalHERVE
270 marechalHINDENBURG
271 marechalKEYMAR
272 marechalKIETENSEI
273 marechalLAFAYETTE
274 marechalMADMONKEY
275 marechalMARIUS
276 marechalOYONICOLAS
277 marechalPHILIPPE
278 marechalPOPE
279 marechalPROMETHE
280 marechalREBSAY
281 marechalREVEUR
282 marechalRICARD57
283 marechalRODOFF
284 marechalROILOIC
285 marechalROLEND
286 marechalROTTOR
287 marechalSCORPION
288 marechalTOINOUMOU
289 marechalTOTOREMITO
290 marechalVANMIA
291 marechalVERCINGETORIX
292 marechalVONPOPOP
293 marechalWERRA
294 Maximus Decimus Meridias
295 Merlin271
296 Merovech
297 Mitra
298 Mizu_Orda Khan
299 MizuCBR
300 MizuJochi Khan
301 MizuMarcus
302 MizuSp00n
303 MizuYuuki
304 MK_Crusader
305 MK_MadMick
306 MK_Ubica
307 MK_Znake
308 Monkey Kid
309 Nick123
310 Nigel
311 Nightplayer
312 PanzerJager
313 PaolinoPaperino
314 Paul Morris
315 PFJ_bejazuz
316 PFJ_darkknight
317 PFJ_lancecaptain
318 PFJ_nethermancer
319 PFJ_opey
320 PFJ_scrofula
321 PFJ_span
322 PFJ_swarm
323 Phoinix_Corbelius
324 Phoinix_Costantin
325 Phoinix_Daevorn
326 Phoinix_Javal
327 Phoinix_KnightWilliam
328 Phoinix_Lord
329 Phoinix_Mas
330 Phoinix_Vecchio
331 Phoinix_Virus
332 Phoinix_Zen
333 Pitt_Slayer
334 PK Lone
335 PorT_AsMaS
336 PorT_Big
337 PorT_Kojima
338 PorT_Lobo
339 PorT_LoSe
340 Pretoriano
341 Prometheus
342 Rashis
343 RTK Aelwyn
344 RTK Antoine
345 RTK Galahad
346 RTK Marco
347 RTK Palamedes
348 RTK Saladin
349 RTKLamorak
350 RVNAlrowan
351 RVNKyl
352 Saint-Albin
353 Saint-Antonio
354 Saint-Cainite
355 Saint-German
356 Saint-Louis
357 Saint-Marc
358 Saint-Samart
359 Saint-Sted
360 Saint-Vitus
361 Sasaki Kojiro
362 SecureZ
363 Shagall
364 Shin-GaiJin
365 Sid_Quibley
366 Sinan
367 SIR TARTA [ITALY]
368 Smaug82
369 Sparkmaster4513
370 Spartacus
371 Squirrel_of_Hatred
372 Stormer
373 T1master
374 The Hun
375 The Redcoats
376 The_baby_jesus
377 Tomy Says
378 Treziak
379 Trooper
380 UglyandHasty
381 UglyElmo
382 UglySoSo
383 Ugo il Magnifico
384 Urdriel
385 VDM_Alexandros
386 voigtkampf
387 Vorcid
388 WarlordAlexander
389 WarlordArion
390 WarlordAust
391 WarlordDragonFly
392 WarlordElco
393 WarlordEnslaver
394 WarlordFutuwwa
395 WarlordHashishin
396 WarlordHiji
397 WarlordKropazz
398 WarlordLavos
399 WarlordMinkus
400 WarlordShacron
401 WarlordSizzler
402 WarlordZequbus
403 Whaco
404 Wolf_Aleborg
405 Wolf_Amatsu
406 Wolf_Atilla
407 Wolf_DaRealRuler
408 Wolf_DRBNinja
409 Wolf_Druid
410 Wolf_Fast
411 Wolf_Grizzly
412 Wolf_Injin
413 Wolf_Kansuke
414 Wolf_Kanuni
415 Wolf_Kocmoc
416 Wolf_Kyolic
417 Wolf_Lordted
418 Wolf_Macajor
419 Wolf_MagyarKhan
420 Wolf_MaskedTerror
421 Wolf_Mo
422 Wolf_Nashwan
423 Wolf_Paolai
424 Wolf_Shingen
425 Wolf_Space
426 XXI RAPAX Cipius
427 XXI RAPAX Spartaco
428 XXI RAPAX Zeus
429 XXI_RAPAX_Aetius
430 XXI_RAPAX_Augustus
431 XXI_RAPAX_Brutus
432 XXI_RAPAX_Caius
433 XXI_RAPAX_Cronos
434 XXI_RAPAX_Scipio
434 XXI_RAPAX_Tiberium

.


We wish you the best of luck in expanding the franchise of the Total War series and we would like to thank you for developing this truly incredible game. Thank you again for your time and consideration.


cc: The Creative Assembly Customer Support, via email; Activision Customer Support, via email, “The Shogun” at www.totalwar.com, via email; by posting at www.totalwar.org, www.totalwars.net, and www.totalwar.com.

Great job if they sort out that lot ill play online again. Amazing we have over 400 names well done to all.

MizuSp00n

Again, nice work Bachus. You have chosen the words well.

Good summary Oswald. Just two suggestions:

1) move the detail to an "appendix" after the signatures & starting on its own page (page break) when printing the hard copy snail mail version.

2) I'm not sure the description "unnecessary" is the best for the "one faction per player limit" item. I believe Duke John determined the limit is due to how the units were constructed graphically, so the limit is "necessary" from a technical standpoint. However, for our purposes, it prevents epic (2v2 or 3v3) online battle of one faction vs another and the summary should speak to that concern.

All in all, it is looking very good! :pleased:

Ok it is perfect. Thanks a lot Bachus. You did a great job on this. Highly appreciated.

Now let's send it. :)

Reads like a constructive and accurate representation of the main concerns, without resorting to over-egging or using minority views - well done.

Very nice job Bachus. I'll sign this document.

Thanks Bachus. :bow:

Yuuki, i was just looking for your name ;)

Out of interest has this been submitted at all clan forums? because i am sure Kenchi has not been alerted officially, although they have all signed.

Have all other fan sites been alerted?
TWcenter
totalrome

etc ...

The letter is fantastic but i feel we should wait to send, until we have maximised the signatures, i am sure they are more to come ..

Fears only have 5 members?
Mizu 5 also?
what about [FF]?
Insane 2?
Any Tenjo's?

Baz

Can we have this advertised on the Org front page to try and help make people aware? Front page of other fansites also?

Thanks for coming out a detailed draft of formal petition Bacchus. Great job! ~:cheers:

OK can we make sure that we have covered all known issues:

1> known cheats should perhaps be added in passing without detail
2> can we figure out the missile bug?? This seems to impact cav archers and infantry with missiles mainly. there are reference to it in the sp threads, and i have experienced odd behaviour in mp of combo units not firing when ordered.
3> on the minimap, Am I the only guy thinking it is the wrong way round??
4> 1 faction per player: can we clarify what is possible? Lets be constructive.. Gregoshi can u give me link pls? I have not seen this comment.

Also can we make sure that all these issues are really issues. Lets not destroy our credibility.

We can polish format at a later stage guys.

I'll put up a 3rd edit over the weekend once we hash these issues out. I read as much as I can on net and org but I may miss stuff, please add constructive comments. I have posted similiar on .net.

Also we will produce an HTML version for clansites. I have a rough draft if peeps are interested, CBR Kyolic and Alro also have the html version.

I think we should aim to send this to CA within the next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Again, nice work Bachus. You have chosen the words well.

Good summary Oswald. Just two suggestions:

1) move the detail to an "appendix" after the signatures & starting on its own page (page break) when printing the hard copy snail mail version.

2) I'm not sure the description "unnecessary" is the best for the "one faction per player limit" item. I believe Duke John determined the limit is due to how the units were constructed graphically, so the limit is "necessary" from a technical standpoint. However, for our purposes, it prevents epic (2v2 or 3v3) online battle of one faction vs another and the summary should speak to that concern.

All in all, it is looking very good! :pleased:

---

Ability for more than one player to choose a faction is essential as far as I am concerned, without this feature multiplayer would offer little interest to me

.....Orda

Baz,

There are only 10 active Mizu. Two don't have RTW and two are SP only players, so I think 6 is all that can sign. I've sent out a link to my members so they can read the petition. I'll also email a couple of the FF that I know.

Ok, from here my work is basically done. Since my name is on it, I'd appreciate it if Os would let me know when the final draft is ready to go so I can give it one final review before it gets sent out. Otherwise, feel free to take my name off it and send it whenever. I really don't need my name on it.

Actually, go ahead and take my name off of it (not as a signatory, but as the sender) that way you don't have to worry about it. Meanwhile, I'll dig up the addresses for CA and Activision.

Also, and this is a small nit-picky point-- "signees" isn't really correct. Signatories is the correct term, or "signors" if you prefer. "Signor" is someone who signs. "Signee" is someone who has been "signed" by someone else. Anyway. . . its out of my hands now, so do it however you'd like!

Also, I need a few days to get my Prophet crew over here to sign off--or I might have them sign off in the public area of our forums and just report it over here.

In addition to my signature, I'm pretty sure I can obtain the following:

|Prophet|T1
|Prophet|Checkmate
|Prophet|Ham
|Prophet|Buntaro

I would simply ask that you give me a short time to confirm these signatures before adding them. Thanks!

Note: |Prophet|Iksender has already signed as UglyHasty

The other Prophets are not currently active in R:TW so it wouldn't be fair to include their names.

P.S. Truly staggering number of signatories! :dizzy2:

OK Bachus I will email u updates. Many thanks for a truly excellent job.

Ok, the big-boss at CA is:

Tim Ansell
Managing Director of
The Creative Assembly, Weald House,
Southwater Business Park,
Southwater Nr. Horsham,
West Sussex
RH13 9JB.

Activision's head-honcho is:

Robert Kotick
Chairman, CEO, and Director of
Activision, Incorporated
3100 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90405

If you would like me to drop the Activision letter in the mail, I'm in Oregon and it would be a 37 cent stamp for me-- so no biggie.

But we might as well have someone from the UK send it to CA.

Thanks for an outstanding job Bachus.


CBR

I am intending to visit CA personally. They are 1 hr from me. Easy.

I don't think they want to see your ugly mug charging in there oz :charge:

they will all be screaming :help: heheheh ~;)

True...

But that will not stop an annoyed Os who wants his game back....

Arrrgghhh I might be too late here, but I had an idea to inculde on the petition that I feel would balance the mp games and eliminate n00b, non realistic armies, anyway I'll post it even if it's too late:

I've had many MSN convos between me and Honduras (being in the same RTW clan) about how cheesy some of these MP armies we've faced are, I personally fought a Julii army made up of Pretorian cohorts and nothing else today :evil

Anyway this issue must be solved imo, to make RTW mp a much better thing, so it got me thinking and I believe the Warhammer way of selecting armies would help balance the game immensly, ok so here goes the way things are done in Warhammer and the way I believe would balance RTW.

Armies are split into 4 categories, core, special, rare and Heroes/Lords. And the amount of each allowed to be taken is limited. An example of how to use this style is shown Below:

Core: These are your basic troops that all armies would have at their core, for Romans it would be Peasants, Hasatii, basic cav etc, for Greeks all the different types of Phalanx. And so on, these types of units historically would make up the largest part of an army and as such you should be allowed to pick 0-15 of your 20 units from this category with a minimum of 5 units to be picked to ensure that they are the core of an army.

Special: These are the units that are rarer than the core troops and would be seen much less often on the battlefield for example Carthaginian Sacred Band, SS legionaires etc, you would be limited to a choice of 0-8 of these units, to represent their rarity and there is no minimum amount of these to be picked.

Rares: These are the very very rare units that would be very rarely fielded such as Elephants, scythed chariots etc, they will be limited to a selection of 0-3, to show their rarity.

Generals: Limited to 0-2 of the generals bodyguard as I highly doubt that there would be more than 2 generals within one typical army.

Of course these caps could be changed to make it more flexible. I feel this would greatly balance the mp game and eliminate n00b armies and make players actually play in the style that their army should.

What do you guys think of this?

Hi...

One small observation with the petition...........

II. Private chat window is necessary

Second paragraph..last sentence

this has not been completed.

it seems to end in ..mid sentence..

Jochi

Thanks Bachus. RTW really needs a lot of help. If I could find more ppl in MTD_VI I'd go back there.

*edited out unfinished sentence*
thx :)

*thinks the cheat bug is becoming v common- 20 preatorian lol*

Lond,

Great ideas but sadly I think it is too much to ask from C.A. At this point we just need groups to work properly and for units to respond to orders. You are talking about additional features above and beyond anything that has ever been attempted by CA in any Total War game--and quite frankly I'm 100% certain they would not implement this suggestion in a patch. Maybe (like 2% chance) they would do it in an expansion if we all whined and moaned long enough-- but MP is sadly lacking in options as it is.

So at this point I think, although your ideas are great, that it would be counter-productive to include your request in this petition. That being said, you have yourself a great tournament/ladder format!

Too bad the replays and logfiles are all buggered up so we don't know what units anyone took :( It kinda makes it hard to admin a tourney . . .

grrrr....

So I think we must concentrate on the basics--major bugs and critical game-destroying issues.

Regarding the missile bug Oswald mentioned, the only thing i have noticed is, if your using missile units, then try to switch target, they will not switch from the 1st target to the next, but rather carry on firing at that one instead...

I havent noticed any other specific missile unit bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HM-Pathfinder

Regarding the missile bug Oswald mentioned, the only thing i have noticed is, if your using missile units, then try to switch target, they will not switch from the 1st target to the next, but rather carry on firing at that one instead...

I havent noticed any other specific missile unit bug.

---

I think we should be hyper-vigilant to make sure no phantom bugs get reported, but we should be equally certain we are not missing something important.

Does anyone have any info on this "bug"-- has it been tested?
results?

There is a thread at the .org that says we now understand how to modify the unit models and animations and should be able to mod unit speed that way.

From the reports I read, this opens new dimensions in terms of creating units (I'm thinking dragons that shoot flaming arrows?)

So I guess we should remove the request for speed-mod info.

Yeah I think that is as good as we possible can get. It wont be as easy as MTW but it can be done.


CBR

Thanks Yuuki

I dont mind posting it to CA in UK, just point me to the final version when it is done and i will kindly send it.

Baz

Bachus, are you going to email it? and if so who to exactly?

It looks much more polished now. Before I felt good about having my name on this, now I feel great about it - as if this may actually influence their decisions on the MP for RTW.

Cheers - I look forward to playing a bug free and polished Rome: Total War with the lot of you!

Well I tried a few 1v1 this am with Kyolic and HM Ari to get a feel for the missile bug. All I can say for sure is that it is there, affects grouped units, combi units and cav javelins. But I cant get a handle on it. Missile units seem not to like being given orders to fire at a particular unit. If they are used passively they work fine.

So whereas I want to make some comment on it in the letter, until we get an accurate replayable idea of how and why the missile bug works, it will have to remain out.

*frustrated*

3rd edit:- removed request for speed modifyier as per Bachus; added sentence in liason paragraph noting other bugs that we have not been able to accurately charaterise.

Bachus do you want to be named or not?

Again this is YOUR document. Please keep the comments coming. I think we should aim to send this early next week, even Monday.

IM sure you can expect CA to look into the various 'bugs', as for the command controls I dont know if they can change them even if they wanted to. Bugs/controls/imbalance, I depart RTW multi and await a patch to see if it gets better. Outside of the above mentioned three things I assume it would be too much to ask for a list of things that are just 'wanted'.

Great work, Dion. Where can I sign this petition ?

Nigel

*Signature list updated, added u Nigel*

This is pretty near complete now. Oswald plans to ring CA tomorrow AM for appointment. We will get it printed as a scroll once Kyolic, Bachus, Alrowan, and Oswald have polished it to everyones satisfaction.

sign me up too pls m8

Yeah I think we should aim for Monday.

Please take my real name off the petition, it was only intended as part of the "lawyer" hook-- since we've ditched the attorney letterhead there is no longer a point for it.

Any mention of the "memory leak"? That was never in any of my drafts but a lot of people have complained about it. I'd say that would be an assorted annoyance because you have to restart every 3rd game or so to avoid a memory crash-- but most of us have been doing that for years :)

Sign me up too plz!

OK Bachus I have emailed u a final version.


If people have burning issues contact:

Kyolic: if u wish to add your signature.
Oswald: If u spot a typo, constructive thoughts on format,and I have noted the above comments, or some outstanding issues where I have sent you emails.
Bachus: for major bugs we have missed and you are absolutely convinced need adding.
Zeus: if u need a sparring partner in VI. :charge:

Please keep signing!

Thx for all the support by all concerned.

Good work all :)

My native toungue isnt english as u know and i dont know if im correct about this but better to ask then not;

Quote:

---

We feel it is important to note this Petition has its genesis in the deep passion the signatories feel for the Total War series and that our only goal is to help you improve the multi-player portion of this fascinating game you have created. I hope it is obvious we would not go to such lengths as a community if we did not feel a very strong fondness for the Total War series, a strong desire to see the series survive and flourish, and an equally urgent need or action on your part.

---

This is from the second part of text in the petition, if you look at last sentence in the quote it says "urgent need OR action" shouldnt it be urgent need FOR action? Sorry if im wrong.

One other thing is that the text says "to make the game more perfect" (freely quoted), if it is perfect then why we need this big petitionthing? Maybe instead say "to make the game better". This was just a quick reflection and to change it might not be better - i dont know.



Apart from this i saw there were questions where ff and tenjo are with their signatures.

I signed and I used to be in FF and I think I saw Almircar had signed also and he also was in FF. There are still people in FF though and I asked Annie the other day if she would sign and it sounded like she would, ill ask her again when see her again.

As for Tenjo, I am currently a member of Tenjo clan and maybe should have signed with Tenjo_Kalle but in the diffrent forums I allways just signed things with Kalle. Satake and Himelady I think posted at .com that they would like to be added to the petition - i will direct them here if necessery but I think Satake had some problems logging in. Ill make a post about it at Tenjo-forum.

Best regards

Kalle

Thx Kalle :)
good spots.

On your point about 'perfect', I have substituted language which communicates our request and suggests that is is commercially valuable to improve the MP experience. There is, I note a good thread on this subjuect here.

When I talk to Kyolic I 'll get him to address your changed names and clans.

We would love to have Anniep as signature, the last thing we will do is close the signature list.

Dreadlahl:- I know where you are coming from, but we have to stay credible. IF we can establish a measure of contact then perhaps we can address 'wanted' at a later date? Is this fair?

*edit 5 reflects Kalle's post*
Also I have addressed this to CA. It may at some stage be sensible to send it on to Activision. But at this stage it is clearly CA which is the author of the software.

.

Kalle,

"for" action you are correct. You have better english skills than most americans, I'll tell you that. I've made that change and also changed
"more perfect" to "create a superior"

hmmm, maybe I better check my email for os's latest version. . .

very close now.