For all veterans of STW and MTW if you wander here by

To all who might wander here around.

http://totalwars.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=67141#67141

When you mourn for the past, a part of you is there. You have to keep that in memory and go on. With doing this peace will settle in your mind and body.
Future is always unpredictable.

Regarding relations in TW community, people we know and we enjoyed talking with. Things have changed. Too many have already left and just few of us stayed. Golden ages of STW and some less bright of MTW have passed. A community we know back then has changed. Partly because of RTW as a game with many issues which needed to be solved and mainly because of people hesitation.

That period of a few months waiting is what killed the TW MP community.Unfortunately the community let the newcomers takeover and make this the dominant game style. While they complained and waited for patches a new community was formed and the old vets had nothing to go back to.

Few old clans are still insisting. Many new clans are found almost every weak and also disbanding in same time.

It is uncertain what it will bring in near future and how things will be envolving. It is time for us to realize this. After all, all good things have their end.

For the last time I bow to all players of TW MP series who left. A new era has begun.
It is on us what to do with the time which is given to us. I will stay here. I don't know for how long.Despite this I'm looking foward in the new beginning. Afterall time will tell us what we what will be.

VorCid

Still growing, every day!

1.7Bear7Clips
2.AggonyJim
3.AggonyKing
4.AggonyShields
5.Bravo
6.Chaos-Ektoras
7.CoR-Lord_AE2
8.Elthore
9.Forumite-Jammin
10.Forumite-Proper_Gander
11.Forumite-Shireknight
12.Forumite-SiiDeMon
13.FotN-Zyflex
14.FrozenJedi
15.GeneralTildor
16.Gullkassa
17.Hunter-King_George
18.Ichi
19.Imperial_Legionaire-Quentus
20.LegXGem-Vestorius
21.LofM-Bouwzie
22.LofM-Imorthorn
23.LofM-Kharn_The_Betrayer
24.LofM-Little_SNEAK
25.LofM-Psyco
26.LofM-Reeper
27.LofM-Romulus
28.LofM-Shadow
29.LofM-Shinobi
30.LofM-SkullBreaker
31.LuminousSun
32.Maji-MasterofPuppets
33.MizuDef
34.Mizu-MarcusCornelius
35.NDR_Dragons-YellowMelon
36.Nigel
37.NimbleNota
38.PraetorianGuard2004
39.RabidGibbon
40.RBL-Gazelite
41.RTK-Agravain
42.SC-KrooK
43.SC-Tryku
44.Silent-Wind
45.SPID- KingArtorius
46.SPID-ButcherA
47.SPID-GeneralMayhem
48.SPID-Madpierre
49.SPID-Malchance
50.SPID-Spartan
51.SPID-TheGore
52.SPID-thepig
53.Storm_Eagle_5
54.The_Mark
55.THOK-ArchdukeLion
56.THOK-KingAndre_TheHospitaller
57.THOK-SirCommoner
58.Tomisama
59.Triumvriant-Boneapart
60.VH-General_Beefy
61.VH-MarcusP
62.VH-NihilisticCow
63.VH-Wishazu
64.Voigtkampf
65.WinkyWars
66.Wolf_Kyolic
67.WOT-Brain_Deleted
68.WOT-DefenderofTroy
69.WOT-GeneralAlbino
70.WOT-Helmeteye
71.WOT-Maestrofiglio
72.WOT-MrBurgis
73.WOT-MrWillHelm
74.WOT-SparhawkI
75.WOT-StrikerWrath
76.WOT-TheSummoner

As of today, seventy five candles in the darkness, besides your own :bow:

Very soon will be having a Special Clan Wars Competition just for Code of Honor signers (with a special provision for non Clan CoHs).

Just a little more time is need to put it all together.

The spam jockeys will eventually bore each other to death and move on, and we will still be here ~;)

While I can understand and empathise with your comments Vorcid, there are a few points that have not been raised. Yes, STW was a great time but there were plenty in the MP lobby,even then, who would exploit flaws in the game.

When MTW came along we had the first few weeks great fun and good games......Before the exploits became known.......and yet again there were plenty who abused this flaw in the game.

One of the biggest ruiners of the TW games.... 'Stat Compare Tool'

Yes it was very well made but what did it do, constructively, for the game?
IMO, Nothing.
It identified the top statistical army for a given florin level and ruined the fun that unique factions brought into the game. The CWC was littered with Euro armies of the ( yawn ) usual cav/sword construction. Just as you stated, MTW did not quite measure up to STW as a game but I fear that was mainly due to the way it was played. I remember a quote from Sinan ( a fine member of this community ) when talking about lines of pavs.......

" Was this the way the game was intended to be played? LOL. Of course not."

RTW came along and surprise, surprise, there are flaws in the game. And surprise, surprise, people are exploiting them......Nothing new there then. Unfortunately though, this time a vast majority of TW Vets have migrated from the game, again, just as you pointed out and we are left with a different lobby altogether.....Or is it? Yes there are some rude people who join games and start dictating how that game should be played, generally act rude such as telling people to "hurry up" etc, etc... Possibly there are more now but we have had such people before RTW.
What made the difference was knowing that [ insert player name ] is an honourable player and therefore we can expect a good game. With so many old names missing, the games have become a lottery.

Speaking for myself, I have never, knowingly, used an exploit. I have never studied stats nor used a stat compare tool. I always pick my armies based on fun and variety and never mathematical efficiency [ ie win at all cost ]
I am convinced that if others took this same approach, RTW would be no better and no worse than the others but, sadly, the need to 'pwn' is too strong. As I have said, this is not a new phenomenon but it is highlighted by the lack of those reliable old Vets

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

One of the biggest ruiners of the TW games.... 'Stat Compare Tool'

It identified the top statistical army for a given florin level and ruined the fun that unique factions brought into the game.

---

The problem was the underlying imbalance in the game. The Stat Compare Tool just allowed a player to quantify it and find the statistically superior army quicker than if done by experience only. The game would have converged to the same narrow solution even without the Stat Compare Tool.

The combat system used in Total War games requires good balance for it work well. The popular idea that more units equals a better game isn't true unless those units are well balanced. I don't see the commitment from CA to balance this game to the degree necessary for the combat system to function properly. Maybe when players get tired of RTW, they will come back and play Samurai Wars which does have sufficient balance for the combat engine to play to it's full potential.

It all boils down to one question......Do people want to play TW or not?

Yes, I have played STW, MTW/VI and RTW.
Yes, there are imbalances in all three versions.

The Community.......Yes it has been a great community to meet up with and play enjoyable games.
As far as army selections go. Each individual chose armies to suit their style of play. Whether it was the 'pav shootout' 'cav charge' or the 'hand to hand' fighting.
As for the new type of community that is predominant in RTW, who is to blame for that? I believe it is the 'old community' that decided they wouldn't play RTW until they could play it the way they have played other TW games.
There are still players from the old clans in RTW and playing on a regular basis.

To quote Orda Khan.....
Yes there are some rude people who join games and start dictating how that game should be played, generally act rude such as telling people to "hurry up" etc, etc... Possibly there are more now but we have had such people before RTW.

Games I host I dont let them dictate the terms but I do ask 'No rules just honourable play' when asked what the rules are.
CoH.......I always have and always will play on similar lines to the Code of Honour.
It should not be necessary for people to 'sign up' to a code of conduct when playing. This is something that should be the norm.

Jochi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The problem was the underlying imbalance in the game. The Stat Compare Tool just allowed a player to quantify it and find the statistically superior army quicker than if done by experience only. The game would have converged to the same narrow solution even without the Stat Compare Tool.

---

You know I disagree with you here Yuuki. The problem is the player not the game. Some people simply cannot play what they have without knowing the ultimate best choice for a given florin level. The Compare Tool just compounded that problem by laying it out in black and white for anyone to see the 'best army' When you couple this with the innate desire to 'pwn' the opponent we see the sorry state that MTW became. I hold the same view as Sinan, the game had so much more to offer but the players could not see that. It's all down to EGO.

The unique faction difference in RTW (and MTW for that matter) can provide an interesting , fun battle but regardless of balance, the player comes along that MUST win, MUST 'pwn'. That is where the problem lies.

I used to be into weightlifting in a big way when I was younger. I was bloody strong and people used to ask why I didn't compete. What's the point, when Joe nobody can come along, do a bit, dump some 'roids and blow me away?

I've come to the conclusion that it's a mindset thing and as long as we have inflated egos, these games will never be perfect. I sure as hell don't play these games to get stressed out over losing

.........Orda

One letter received:

Can you put my name under the section "refuses the code of honor" because the whole point of MP is to beat someone and say "ha ha I beat you!"

I accept some of the code but I just think its stupid

My answer:

If ever you should get to the point where just having a good time with people who will treat you with respect means more to you than winning, please let me know.

Salute!

Maybe not the best I could have done, it just came out that way.


You know it’s really kind of a shame to have to have a written Code, but as I hope you can see, it was born of necessity.

We were ushered into Total War with concepts of what it meant to be Samurai, and of the spirit of Bushido (Bu-martial arts; shi-warrior; do-the way).

They have had no such advantage…

It's indeed not good that a code is needed, but it certainly helps identifying the people who know how to play so that all players have fun.

And could the people who care about honour, fun balanced armies please keep the Sengoku Jidai mod in mind. It will take 2 or 3 months, but we want release the 4th Kawanakajima battle and I would really appreciate it if respectfull MP-players could help out once we start beta-testing.

:bow:

I must confess, I was not involved in the TW community during the days of STW and MTW/VI. Now that I am here, I wish I had been. I feel that a seperate community of "old guard" members would be a great place to go to, not least for nostalgia purposes.
Senior members, I salute you. :bow:

I agree its sad the the CoH is needed, I feel it all comes down to the fact theat people are naturally reluctant to change. The Old vets (i myself played a fair amount of MTW/VI) are used to having fun playing the game with people they know and trust to act in an honarable way, and if the odd n00b did turn up in a game 99 time out of 100 the vets would hand their butts to them on the battle field and send them running off with their tails between their legs.

Now in Rome everyone has started from a level playing field and its not so easy to beat these n00bs anymore as they have played the game as much as the 'Vets' and they also take great delight in beating some one who is a known STW/MTW vet.

But i think things are already getting better in rome, the n00bs get bored and run off to harras another gaming community and we have a new group of non STW/MTW vets who are equally as Honarable as those who have been around since the good old Days. Just give it a chance! the n00bs will dwindle, a new community mixture of vets and 'fresh blood' will be inplace, and when the expansion comes(??) some noobs will come back but will get sent packing by the experianced vets just as happend in MTW/VI.

Everygame has flaws, but if you know your opponents are not going to deliberatly exploit them then Rome is a very enjoyable multi player game.

Those are my hope anyway.
Page_Edward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

You know I disagree with you here Yuuki. The problem is the player not the game. Some people simply cannot play what they have without knowing the ultimate best choice for a given florin level. The Compare Tool just compounded that problem by laying it out in black and white for anyone to see the 'best army'. When you couple this with the innate desire to 'pwn' the opponent we see the sorry state that MTW became. I hold the same view as Sinan, the game had so much more to offer but the players could not see that. It's all down to EGO.

---

I don't think there is anything wrong with being competitive. Most players are competitive, and are going to try to win. The Stat Compare Tool helped players field more competitive armies in MTW. It put competitive and less competitive players on more of a level field in the unbalanced army purchase phase of the game. If you play Samurai Wars, no Stat Compare Tool is needed because the units are balanced, and they maintain predictable performance because upgrades are not used. The competitive player will gain no advantage over less competitive players by studying stats in Samurai Wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Edward

Just give it a chance! the n00bs will dwindle, a new community mixture of vets and 'fresh blood' will be inplace, and when the expansion comes(??) some noobs will come back but will get sent packing by the experianced vets just as happend in MTW/VI.

---

I did give RTW a chance, and the gameplay is horrible. There is no indication that BI will significantly improve the gameplay.

I agree that the people we play the games with makes a huge difference. Even though im tempted to pop in to the mtw/vi mp lobby regularly its hard to find a good game either because opponents are now of a totally different standard, or because of this " must win " mind-set that is shown even by many of the more experienced players.

I must however, stick to my view that there are some fundemental flaws in rtw combat engine, battle features, and unit stats. Ones which were odviously not there in the first two games. These things severely reduce the tactics, skill actually required to win, and the general logevity of enjoyment of RTW has, and as such i do not find myself wanting to play other than in single player campaign mode or in a serverely modded form. MTW may have had " exploits " to the stats, but to my knoledge there were no major falts or issues with the actual engine. So regardless of the players and their attitude, i dont think rtw could ever be as good as its predecessors, saved perhaps by the expansion pack ( which will hopefully fix the damn charge factor bug and include a 4 max rule for multiplayer ).

.[VDM]BuuKenshin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I did give RTW a chance, and the gameplay is horrible.

---

Amen !

Well i guess you are always going to lose some people when you change over. I'm sorry to see you guys leave. ~:(

Not that it matters, but I agree with Yuuki on everything he has written in this thread.

I know that the Stat Tool led to the discovery of the 'strongest' armies, and hence homogenaztion, but VI 'back in the day' was still very fun and challenging despite this.

Even with the cav/pav/sword there were folks who used other armies - desert games for example - and with the standardization what we were left with was the basic differences between players - who could click fast, who could stay organzied, who could see ahead, who could work as part of a team.

STW and VI were both a blast, while they lasted.

*bows* to Tomisama and his friends who have made CoH what it is.

Thanks

ichi :bow:

On the contrary, the compare tool was responsible for reducing the game to endless Euro armies we saw in the CWC battles.
How was this good for the game?

There were a few weeks where MTW was really good and these were during the period when the exploits had not been figured out. Later on, due to optimisers, a player was forced to take the same armies.

Competitiveness is fine, most of us play to win but I don't subscribe to the notion that a tool that singles out an optimum army is a wonderful asset to the game. Likewise, looking for tricks and flaws and exploits serves for nothing but reducing the game enjoyment

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buujin

I agree that the people we play the games with makes a huge difference.
.[VDM]BuuKenshin

---

Yes Buu I agree with you there. The gameplay is not the best (maybe not 'horrible) but at least with players you know you can have some good 'fun' games. There were a lot of things we didn't like in MTW/VI but we kept on playing. There was no mass exodus.

Quote:

---

Originaly posted by VorCid
That period of a few months waiting is what killed the TW MP community.Unfortunately the community let the newcomers takeover and make this the dominant game style. While they complained and waited for patches a new community was formed and the old vets had nothing to go back to.

---

Unfortunately, there are a large number of 'players' in RTW that seem determined to spoil the game for whoever they meet in battle.

One of the disturbing factors noted is the constant use of bad language in games and in the lobby. There is no need for this and on times it is downright rude and derogatory. I am no prude, I have seen service in the army.

But still, if the game is approached as a fun thing, fun can still be had.
Don't let progress spoil something that we have all enjoyed in our own way,
the means to meet up, have games and enjoy the chat involved.

Tomi, I am not against the Code of Honour, it is a good idea, it's just that I believe people should be prepared to play in an honourable manner.

Jochi

Quote:

---

How was this good for the game?

---

Guys like me, who didn't know all about game mechanics when I started, had a chance against guys like you and Yuuki, who understood how things worked.

With the unit tools I wasn't already beaten when the battle started because my army didn't stand a chance. I still got beat by the stronger guys, but at least I had a chance.

I agree with you that the unit compare tools led to a rapid standardization; I also agree with you that seeking/using cheats/bugs/exploits is wrong; but the fact remains that there was a 'strong' army and eventually we would have all found it.

There's a lot of folks who came (still coming) online who never heard of Yas or the Org, and they learn which armies have an inherent disadvantage.

The tools speed up the process, that's all. And IMHO the game was fun for nearly 2 years. Hell, its still fun. So we disagree, and I think I'll let the thread get back on topic now.

ichi :bow:

Right now many veteran STW/MTW players are off playing other games. I'm playing Silent Hunter III at the moment with Krypta and CBR. You play as U-boat commanders against AI controlled surface ships, and can have up to 8 U-boats in a wolfpack. The game is very well done. A lot of players went to World of Warcraft which I've been told by Swoosh is very good as well. These are two examples of games that are so good I'm starting to think the veteran players who have left will never come back to Total War. As time passes there will be more good games available as alternatives to the Total War games.

We made Samurai Wars for the MTW/VI engine in an attempt to keep a veteran community of MP players active by making the gameplay as good as we could with the best Total War engine available, but it wasn't enough. I started working on Samurai Wars when I saw during the RTW v1.2 beta testing that the gameplay in RTW was not going to be brought up to the level of the previous games. However, the release of RTW v1.2 put the nail in the coffin for Samurai Wars. As long as Creative Assembly continues to think that poor implementation of features and poor playbalance is ok, they will continue to loose the players who value these things.

Slitherine makes great games as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

Guys like me, who didn't know all about game mechanics when I started, had a chance against guys like you and Yuuki, who understood how things worked.

---

Flattered though I am, I fear you have mistaken me for someone else.

I never studied stats, still don't and never will. I guess you could say I look upon these 'games' as 'battles' and prefer to select units that would make a believable army and hope that the battle is somewhat believable too.

The thread is still on topic, ichi. I offered my reasons why the game has deteriorated. It is the mindset of the TW player, wanting always to be the Best ( at playing a PC game ) and the lengths that some will go to.

......Orda

Samurai Wars was very good.

the reason its didnt keep my atention was because of the lack of variety. No upgrades, all factions have the same units ect.

But for what it was i liked it a lot.

both the MTW and RTW engines have their strong and weak points. MTW feels much too static for me now, it feels like moving blocks around, and not flexible formations. RTW doesnt have this problem but has bad terrain bonuses/penalties, less logical morale system, and a number of other problems (routing units die much too easily).

I must admit I haven't played RTW vanilla much, but I feel the major spoilers are too strong archer and cavalry units. Both types already have unique advantage (range for one, speed for the other) but by giving them killing power (atleast) equal to infantry that makes infantry obsolete. Too strong infantry can still be countered with some skill, but archers and cavalry are much too "noob friendly" for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buujin

Samurai Wars was very good.

the reason its didnt keep my atention was because of the lack of variety. No upgrades, all factions have the same units ect.

But for what it was i liked it a lot.

---

You can't have upgrades and keep the units balanced because of the way the upgrade system works. Also, all clans having the same unit selection means better balance. With only 14 units you actually have more variety in army selection than you have in MTW/VI with it's 100 unbalanced units. Unit balance, strong RPS and battle pacing are the main features of Samurai Wars. The Mongols faction may be added to Samurai Wars, but it will take a lot of work to maintian the playbalance that now exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

It is the mindset of the TW player, wanting always to be the Best ( at playing a PC game ) and the lengths that some will go to.

---

This is not exclusive to Total War gamers. You're talking about human nature.

Also, Total War games do not accurately simulate the historical effectiveness of weapons or warriors. If you choose your army based on historical makeup, you are going to be at a disadvantage in this game. Most players aren't going to take unit X just because historically unit X was better than unit Y when in the game it looses to unit Y. They are going to take unit Y.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

This is not exclusive to Total War gamers. You're talking about human nature.

---

Precisely the point I have been making, however some of us are less insecure in ourselves and do not always look for exploits.

Quote:

---

Also, Total War games do not accurately simulate the historical effectiveness of weapons or warriors.

---

Maybe, but I am sure this was the intention, as in spears beat cav, swords beat spears, cav beat swords. That is quite historically accurate.

Quote:

---

If you choose your army based on historical makeup, you are going to be at a disadvantage in this game.

---

Only if others do not.

Quote:

---

Most players aren't going to take unit X just because historically unit X was better than unit Y when in the game it looses to unit Y. They are going to take unit Y.

---

Perhaps they should give it a try. I played many battles with an historical theme and they were very enjoyable. At the very least it certainly beat the cav/sword/pav monotony

.......Orda

Quote:

---

At the very least it certainly beat the cav/sword/pav monotony

---

it boils down to taste - I fought thousands of battles and rarely if ever found it monotonous. VI, even 7 cav 5 MAA 4 pav 10K steppe VI, was (still is) the most fun I've ever had on a computer game.

Quote:

---

it is the mindset of the TW player, wanting always to be the Best ( at playing a PC game ) and the lengths that some will go to.

---

Everybody plays for their own reasons, and I understand what you are saying about the homogenization that occured.

But it is possible to want to win, or a least give a good accounting of oneself, without losing perspective. There's a difference between wanting to win-at-all-costs and wanting to be competitive, and IMO there's nothing wrong being competitive, even on a pc game.

Since some folks found the 'best' army, I went out and found the best one for me, and that meant studying stats and learning about the game engine. I still won some and lost some, and still enjoyed the game and the community immensely, but at least I wasn't beaten before a match began because I had an inherently weak army.

ichi :bow:

Does anyone following this thread know about what progress is being make on a Sengoku Jidai mod of RTW? I think that will not have the same serious balance problems of RTW, and it will be like a classic reborn. If anyone's heard anything, I would be grateful to know :bow:

Two things regarding Sengoku Jidai,

firstly, go look in the " hosted mods " forum, not here.

Secondly, i would be very surprised the mod is balanced because rome wont allow it. The charge bonus value is bugged, and is instead determined by armour rating and attack value. This means all sorts of problems for stats balancing. I dont think any rome mod can be anywhere near as good as the old games untill this fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buujin

Secondly, i would be very surprised the mod is balanced because rome wont allow it. The charge bonus value is bugged, and is instead determined by armour rating and attack value. This means all sorts of problems for stats balancing. I dont think any rome mod can be anywhere near as good as the old games untill this fixed

---

I can attest that having control over the charge bonus is very important to balancing. This isn't the only issue preventing the game from achieving anywhere near it's potential. When CA won't acknowledge that these things are broken or that the gameplay needs improvement, what chance is there they will be fixed? All they say is "make a list and maybe we'll look into these things". This PR trick has been played by CA too many times on this community. This is why so many players have left.

Most children grow up, some don't. I will assume y'all know the Lord of the Flies... the RTW lobby is more a symbol of hope than Goldings grotesque imaginings :) Largely devoid of self-styled vets leading the show, there is little bloodshed, no (perhaps unfortunately) live piggy-roastings. There are people who prefer to spend their time filling the lobby with inane chatter to playing, but as often as not, it's exactly the same chatter as filled the mtw lobby.

For some, a free set of nostalgia-blinkers lead people to remember previous lobbies as being far more polite and reasonable than the RTW lobbies.
For some, they fail to appreciate that with a higher number of players, comes a higher chance to meet a rude ass.

I remember logging in to MTW and having several pages of ignore list scroll by before "Evenin' All"
Fair enough.. in RTW it would prolly take a few thousand lines to parse all the ignores :) And thinking of it, more chance than not I conquered territory in several ingore lists, hah.

With RTW.. there are problems with balance, problems with bugs, problems with mp lobby. Though I'd say the "veteran" community is dishonest where it comes to claim balance or yobs as the primary reasons for their not playing.
RTW is different to shogun and mtw, where there games were once turned into scissor paper sword, CA made a game that couldn't be simplified to quite that extent, and the players of old have rebelled. RTW has the capability to be dynamic to a degree that mtw and stw just plainly didn't.

People claim that attack/armour shouldn't influence the strength of a charge. I ask them, what exactly do you think a charge is? I admit to not having examined stats or physics to any great length, and am simply responding to the assertion.

It would appear plainly and simply that the players who bear the greatest grudge, simply don't like RTW, and this of course, is up to them. But to expect CA to bespoke the game for a handful of players who want stw with prettier pictures is bordering on ridiculous.

Having said all this, I hold nothing against the CoH, it has merits aplenty.

Though I would add it is up to individuals to show those they play with and against the respect most humans are due. A CoH will hopefully give those individuals something visible to fall back on when trying to influence those less inclined to tolerance and respect.

Nice post Dag, I think you explained some of the points i was hinting at in a much more articulate way than i managed too.

Good to see you at the .org! ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK9Dagonet

It would appear plainly and simply that the players who bear the greatest grudge, simply don't like RTW, and this of course, is up to them. But to expect CA to bespoke the game for a handful of players who want stw with prettier pictures is bordering on ridiculous.

---

CA claims that RTW is rock, paper, scissors. You and I seem to agree that it isn't. I sent them the replay of cataphracts beating silver shield pikemen frontally. Maybe CA should stop making erroneous claims.

Despite CA's PR department hinting that things might change, CA isn't going to change the gameplay. RTW will remain a highly flawed game. CA said that they sacrificed historical accuracy and realism in the interest of better gameplay. Well, they didn't get better gameplay either. The counter to army A is army A. 90% of the unit types are superfluous. That isn't better gameplay.

People who couldn't stand offensive behavior in the foyer left Total War MP a long time ago. The vets who left after RTW was released left for gameplay reasons. Almost the entire v1.2 beta team who worked for 3 months testing no longer plays the game as well.

Puzz and Dagonet:

You may be surpirsed to learn that you are both saying almost precisely the same thing. The fact of the matter is that RTW is different from STW and MTW. CA thinks it is better. Others think it is not. The point is that whether something is "better" or not is subjective. It is different and it is different by design.

I am sure, Puzz, that your assessment of why the STW/MTW vets and 1.2 beta testing team left is correct. But that does not contradict what I said above and, in fact, supports it. Dagonet theorized that many vets wanted a visually enhanced STW with some added capabilities. They did not get that - RTW is vastly different. Those differences beget different gameplay issues and require different compromises than those that had to be made in the creation of either STW or MTW.

Many vets are used to the compromises made in STW/MTW and consider them to be necessary game design "features". RTW is a very different game from either of its predecessors in the TW series. The compromises necessary for proper gameplay are equally different. It seems to me and, if you listen, to both of you, that some people can embrace these compromises, and to others these compromises are "flaws".

I like Gala apples best. Others prefer the delicious variety. Both, however, are excellent apples, although their tastes are very different, at least to an apple lover such as myself. The differences between that apples and my preference for one over another does not render the qualities of the apple I do not prefer "flawed". It also does not make someone who prefers the Delicious variety (Red or Gold) lesser than me - their preferences are simply different.

Olorin I

This pisses me off...

As Yuuki said the anger is partially from what CA says and then doesnt do:

I am not a MTW/VI vet, but i have played and modded both games.

Why would CA put a inactive value in the stats???. The charge bonus is NOT broken on purpose , its a falt, an error, a FLAW. One which they have seemingly attempted to work around because they did not
give the needed time to fix it correctly.

Realisticly even!, armour would have no great effect on the impact of a charge, cirtainly no more than the type of weapon used or the warrior wielding it !! and so it makes no sence to tie these two factors together.

I could make a huge list of how this FLAW effects modding capabilities for the worse, but it would be very off topic.

It infuriates me that you think CA would do these things by choice! If they did that would be evil !

It is a clear case of NOT enough testing, and NOT enough priority given to the battle engine over the dainty 3D graphics. This is why RTW does not appeal to the majority of people who played its predeccessors.

Quote:

---

People claim that attack/armour shouldn't influence the strength of a charge. I ask them, what exactly do you think a charge is? I admit to not having examined stats or physics to any great length, and am simply responding to the assertion.

---

charge would be determined mostly by skill. Armour would probably make for more impact but it's more a matter of being skilled with the right weapon.
and even IF it is influenced by armour it still makes no sense to link it with the game's armour value if there is a charge bonus that would be much easier to control on it's own.

Good posts Olorin1 and Dagonet.
(Nice to meet you on the battlefield the other night Dragonet)

This is, after all, a GAME not a way of life.
To read some of the posts you would think the mP's have a priority over how the game should be.
STW was played and ppl got used to playing the game.
Then MTW was released and again there was a learning curve and the same applied to VI.
Now RTW is here and whether we like it or not, there is another learning curve because, this is a totally new game again.
It is different from STW and MTW/VI.
CA produced this game and have listened to a lot that has been said on the .Org. They have altered some of the items listed to make the game more to the MP's liking but they have never said they would change everything that was listed.
Many 'vets' have left yes, and many are still playing.
Just how many of the v1.2 beta test team were actually playing online before leaving is an unknown number but there are still a number playing.

I still treat RTW as a game and nothing else.

Jochi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochi Khan

I still treat RTW as a game and nothing else.

---

Jochi,

At what point of deteriorated gameplay would you stop playing? For me on a tactical level, RTW requires about 20% of the tactical thinking that the previous games required. The learning curve is very short. About 10 multiplayer games gets a player up to full potential. On the strategic level, it's almost impossible to loose a campaign game. To me RTW isn't just "different'. It's bad different.

Gah! I miss STW all the more.

One can talk about learning curves, paper-scissors-swords (rock), or even the balance of being able to align and move ones' army uniformally or brokendown into a vast variety of groupings. All of which RTW changed. They re-invented a perfectly good wheel - seeminly to make the game more "playable" for initiates than to conform the previous style that encouraged one to learn real tactics and movement. Further, they seem to have focused on SP and graphics, over MP playability.

All of which is irrelevent, I suppose, since the damage to the former community of TW (MP) has been done. No fixing that, and more is the pity. I still recall CA's poll to determine the percentages of TW gamers that played SP or MP, the SP won 3-1, and RTW became a good SP game and a typical MP style game. Rather, than the only real time tactical game on the market that wasn't in a build and point catagory. Marketing to the majority will always take precidence over marketing to a small loyal group. RTW proves it.

Me? I still go to MTW-vi occassionally. RTW simply seems a waste of time. Though, I confess, it is a good SP diversion.

:balloon2:

Yes the Mp'ers are completely outnumbered though have always been very vociferous.
Is all this fuss about RTW really all that new? I seem to remember some very heated exchanges about gameplay of MTW, to the point that some members lost the plot and got themselves banned. I said my bit concerning MTW and it is pointless repeating things. One mans meat is another mans poison and nothing that has been stated thus has convinced me that MTW was such a perfect experience, for me it was anything but.

I have played RTW online and it really depends on who you play IMO. There again, I found the same with MTW.

And Dagonet is spot on when he says that rudeness etc is not a new phenomenon, it has always existed

.......Orda

Quote:

---

At what point of deteriorated gameplay would you stop playing? For me on a tactical level, RTW requires about 20% of the tactical thinking that the previous games required. The learning curve is very short. About 10 multiplayer games gets a player up to full potential.

---

I totally disagree with you ,Yuuki.
On what calculation is that 20% based?

Tactical thinking is a matter of some principles:

1. position advantage
2. getting initiative
3. do not engage if you are not sure to take an advantage
4. getting the enemy tired
5. morale and skill count more then men numbers
6. forcing the enemy splitting his forces
7. concentrate your attack forces on weakest enemy point
8. attack where and when enemy is unprepared
9. making the enemy do what you wanna him to do
10. make the enemy underevaluate you

In RTW still:
1. a hill is a hill a slope is a slope
2. initiative gains the game
3. errors are errors and you must do not engage if you cannot win, you loose units
4. tiredness is tiredness
5. morale is in use
6. doubling is doubling
7. concentration on weak exposed units is a tactical must
8. a good eye in catching opportunities to launch a cav charge or shoot in advantage is still gaining, for examples
9 e 10 always works.

As far as regards the 10 games to become a good tactician: how many MTW or VI or RTW do you judge Caesar or Hannibal or Napoleon should have done to became good tacticians? Some hundreds or thousands? Should they have to beat Marcus Cornelius at MTW or STW to be judged good?
A quick learning curve is not a bad thing.
Just enable good tacticians to emerge without learning, complex keyboard key alt-ctrl-shift combinations, how to group units click fast, click right, micromanage units, etc. That are true matter for click players and fast fingers.
At least in RTW you can manage an army simply with drag and drops and few keys: even bradipus tridactilus can manage it in an enough quick way, moving the less he can the most effective possible.

About R/T/S matter. RTS does not make the game more tactical. It is only a rule. Rules change. Now the rule is: a cav charge can crash a spear. You have to adapt to it.
You have less chance to counter a spam army with a balance army.
Just like when rifles comes. Cav, swords, spears are nothing against a .. spam rifle army , lol.
Maybe some those XV century men thought: “ Oh you must not to be skill or honoured to win battles with Rifles.”
But it is not a matter of skill in tactics. The man who still use rifle better wins. The man who adapts his tactical thinking faster wins.
In RTW you have more chance to beat a 7 pretorian army with a 7 pretorian army rather than with a balanced army.
But if you employ your pretorian better applying tactical principles you still win.

Surely this is less enjoying.
Surely fast killing rate and fast units are less enjoying: sometimes the battle becomes a real chaos: that is not enjoying for my eyes that love order and geometry.
And that is the real point. Nothing with tactics. RTS well balanced means more enjoying. Less fastness means more enjoying, at least for my eye.

But you can fix rules. Some simple rules: 7k 12 units minimum. And the game IMO is still enjoying.
I say IMO because if someone tell me “i am boring with that rule and i dont like the game” I must say “Ok you are right that is your opinion, and partially mine: the game could be faaarrr better if balanced”.
But i still enjoy beating spammers with balanced armies. I like beating rifles with swords and archers.

But all the matter has nothing to do with tactics and tactical skill or thousands of games you have to play to win against a veteran in MTW/STW. 1000000 games in MTW are not equal to good tactician.

Marcus

Some-one let this STW/MTW old timer know if it is still laughable easy is employ programming cheats in RTW, if so all the other poor quality control is mute.

Marcus,

The 20% is my estimate of the amount of thinking I have to do relative to the previous game engine. I can perceive that it's considerably less thinking. You actually do better in RTW with a more simplistic approach because there isn't enough time to use more complex tactical plans.

The 10 game learning curve doesn't include learning the interface. If you know the interface, which BTW isn't even as good as the previous games, then you can concentrate on the tactics, and it only takes about 10 games vs good opposition to grasp the full tactical possibilities. For example, what could be done with the phalanx was clear after 5 games, and it didn't change after 25 games. I'm not including esoteric fantasy units in that estimate, or the the fantasy artillery. I'm only including learning the use of the standard infantry/cavalry/ranged units.

I'm not really interested in a game in which if you take Praetorian cav I have to take Praetorian cav. What good are a multitude of unit types if you have to select from a smalll subset of those units. MTW/VI has this problem as well. That's exactly what Orda is objecting to except he puts the blame on the player and I put it on the game. Even now BI is being promoted as having 83 new units types. So what! That in itself doesn't make the game better. You'll spend a little time learning the new units and then you'll be back to a unit A vs unit A and unit B vs unit B, etc. type of gameplay.


"In RTW still: 2. initiative gains the game"

That's the problem right there. Initiative alone should not win the game. I can have the initiative in chess, but it doesn't mean I've won the game. Where is the balance in RTW between attack and defense other than the corner of the map? I guess my expectations are too high for RTW, and I had to switch to a games like Silent Hunter III where those expectations are met.

Quote:

---

Some-one let this STW/MTW old timer know if it is still laughable easy is employ programming cheats in RTW, if so all the other poor quality control is mute.

---

you can see the amount of money your opponents spent on their army during the army-buying phase. So if they exceed the set amount they you know they're cheating. Whether the game will detect this by itself and call it an "out of sync" error I don't know.

Dissapointment in RTW as a game is only part of it. Another is the community we have almost completey lost. Finally, and most importantly... at the moment we cant even mod the game to how we like it. So much potential is going to waste there.

Its strange, i wasnt around when MTW/VI was released... but its hard to imagine anyone complaining so strongly about the gameplay... after all its virtually the same as Shogun exept its got more units and more features!.

What were the issues people had with mtw when it was released ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buujin

Its strange, i wasnt around when MTW/VI was released... but its hard to imagine anyone complaining so strongly about the gameplay... after all its virtually the same as Shogun exept its got more units and more features!.

What were the issues people had with mtw when it was released ?

---

Just about every aspect of the game from what I can remember and I really do not care to remember in all honesty. The exchanges were far more heated than any I have seen about RTW and it's the main reason why Total Wars .Net was created and the vast majority of MP'ers migrated there

......Orda

Yuuki,

Quote:

---

The 20% is my estimate of the amount of thinking I have to do relative to the previous game engine. I can perceive that it's considerably less thinking. You actually do better in RTW with a more simplistic approach because there isn't enough time to use more complex tactical plans.

---

I cannot perceive substantial changing in my quantity of thinking playing MTW or RTW. Maybe it is only a matter of subjective perseption.
Rather than less thinking i should say quick thinking.

Another principle of tactics is ability to take quick and correct decision in few time.

I cannot remember those so much complex tactical plans in mtw, not so different from plans in RTW anyway. IMO.

Quote:

---

the interface, which BTW isn't even as good as the previous games,

---

IMO RTW interface is simpler and so better than MTW. At least you can use drag and drop better. After playing a lot of games in RTW I cannot perceive after 1.2 patch many flaws on interface. I do not wish the old alt-ctrl interface.

Quote:

---

it only takes about 10 games vs good opposition to grasp the full tactical possibilities. For example, what could be done with the phalanx was clear after 5 games, and it didn't change after 25 games.

---

I cannot perceive less tactical possibilities in RTW than MTW. For example phalanx could be very effective if well employed both against infantry and cavarly. You cannot say that for spears in MTW/VI.

Quote:

---

I'm not really interested in a game in which if you take Praetorian cav I have to take Praetorian cav. What good are a multitude of unit types if you have to select from a smalll subset of those units. MTW/VI has this problem as well. That's exactly what Orda is objecting to except he puts the blame on the player and I put it on the game.

---

I agree with you. I am not interested in a 7 pretorian cav vs 7 pretorian cav: spammers spoils the enjoy of the game. I choose a balanced army too beat the 7 pretorian army. Or I put rules on games to stop spamming or limit it. I repeat: 7k 12 units minimum is a simple and good rule to prevent it.
I agree with Orda the main problem is the lack of good players (good both in fair play and tactic). The few times i found those players in RTW matches I always had a good time..
Anyway I agree that RTW could be far better and has many flaws.
I did play some games on SPQR months ago and I enjoyed them a lot. Yet it was not possible to catch a considerable number of veterans on that mod that was very very near to MTW, IMO.

Quote:

---

Even now BI is being promoted as having 83 new units types. So what! That in itself doesn't make the game better. You'll spend a little time learning the new units and then you'll be back to a unit A vs unit A and unit B vs unit B, etc. type of gameplay.

---

I agree with you. The expansion will be good only if:
with more balance and better RTS first
with more mod features
with more historical battles
with more historical periods
with more factions and units why not
...

Quote:

---

That's the problem right there. Initiative alone should not win the game. I can have the initiative in chess, but it doesn't mean I've won the game. Where is the balance in RTW between attack and defense

---

Maybe I should have said initiative gains the game if all other factors are equal.
Anyway defence still have terrain advantage. And even in real warfare if i am not wrong, is the only advantage it has, cause attack, if initiative can be kept, can choose where, when, and with what forces to attack.
In MTW on steppes, if i remember well, attack could choose where to attack and was in advantage as well, even if it got a little disadvantage in starting shootout. In RTW is exactly the same.

Marcus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Cornelius

Maybe I should have said initiative gains the game if all other factors are equal.

---

This is where we disagree. Why shouldn't I be able to successfully defend against an attack if all other factors are equal and I play as well as the attacker plays? I can't in RTW because I have the delay and fast combat resolution to contend with which act in favor of the player who moves first. RTW has obviously been intentionally designed to favor first strike in a big way. When you add in the fast movement which adversely affects the ability to coordinate 20 units, that does it for me. RTW is the most unfun gaming experience I've ever had.

BTW, I can send you the multiplayer replay of 4 cataphracts beating 4 silver shield pikemen frontally using large unit size. I don't consider the phalanx to be working properly.

Quote:

---

BTW, I can send you the multiplayer replay of 4 cataphracts beating 4 silver shield pikemen frontally using large unit size. I don't consider the phalanx to be working properly.

---

that's mainly because of the jump ability of horses. They just jump over the spearwall into the phalanx formation, disrupting it and cutting them to pieces. That jumping also makes cav spamming so powerfull.

luckily the jump animation can be modded out.

I, personally, think there is as much scope for the application of skill and as much chance of playing a rewarding, fun, competitive game in rtw as mtw or stw. Ofc, there are a few things that would dramatically improve the game.. but asking CA to.. implement them, as has been so often pointed out.. is largely pointless.

Even perhaps I'd dare go as far as to say there is more scope, but scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself. And I'll admit I pick boring armies here and now :)




"Every player believes himself better than his equal."

Je love that :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK9Dagonet

scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself.

---

Agreed. Another reason that game enjoyment degenerated, that I have touched on before....Competitive/Friendly.

When was it that each and every game became a competitive struggle? I never played a 'comp' game in STW and the reason being 'human nature', that has already been mentioned. Once the fun element has been removed it is astonishing the lengths that people will go to to be the 'best'. The exploits in the game that boils down to nothing more than cheating IMO. Honestly, can we ever expect perfection with games like this? Would we all agree on it if we did? LOL, I seriously doubt that. I prefer to wonder at the fact that I can move an army around over a phone line...Amazing! Co-ordinate armies with allies.....Amazing!

83 new units and 10 new factions coming with Barbarian Invasion, sounds very nice. I am really looking forward to seeing that but I wonder how long it will be before some bright spark discovers that grouping 3 Berserkers at experience 4 will crush anything and everything they meet?

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

That's mainly because of the jump ability of horses. They just jump over the spearwall into the phalanx formation, disrupting it and cutting them to pieces. That jumping also makes cav spamming so powerfull.

---

Right, along with a weak anti-cav bonus to begin with, and this has nothing to do with competitive vs friendly games. It's a problem in the game engine, and it affects all players just as the broken charge bonus, delay in response, fast combat resolution and excessive running speeds affect all players in all battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK9Dagonet

Even perhaps I'd dare go as far as to say there is more scope, but scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself. And I'll admit I pick boring armies here and now.

---

I don't for a minute believe you'd pick a weak army if playing in a tournament. If it was a team event, you'd actually be letting your team down by doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

The exploits in the game that boils down to nothing more than cheating IMO. Honestly, can we ever expect perfection with games like this?

---

The purchasing system is part of the game. Figuring out what works best in the purchasing system isn't cheating. It's not the player's fault that Creative Assembly doesn't know how to balance their own game system. It's not the player's fault that his cav jumps over the spears in a phalanx. The game engine is doing that not the player.

We can't expect perfection, but better balance means more people enjoying the game. I don't lump STW, MTW and RTW into the same category because I enjoyed STW and MTW, but not RTW, and the reason is poorer game balance. The players don't even come into this assessment. You see the same problems in single player along with some other issues. If the game were balanced well enough, there wouldn't be any imbalance to exploit and you could take a wide variety of armies into battle with equal winning chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

83 new units and 10 new factions coming with Barbarian Invasion, sounds very nice.

---

It doesn't sound nice to me given that they are not going to be balanced very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The purchasing system is part of the game. Figuring out what works best in the purchasing system isn't cheating.

If the game were balanced well enough, there wouldn't be any imbalance to exploit and you could take a wide variety of armies into battle with equal winning chances.

---

Like I said, we can not really expect a game such as this to be perfect and no matter how good it was, we as a community would never agree about it anyway. As for exploits and cheating, I consider the sad case who discovered the pav trick was cheating, must have a lot of free time too

......Orda

While we can't expect the game to be perfect we certainly can expect it to be well balanced, unit behavior to make sense, and gameplay to be as fun as previous releases, and we can expect to be able to play a debugged and complete game without buying an add-on. I have been playing Total War since Shogun and it's the first time that I've been compelled to stick to multiplayer because the AI is so terrible.

I have to say that the single player experience has not been in improved at the expense of the mulitplayer because the single player experience has not been improved despite changing the campaign engine. The AI isn't any better at strategy than it is at tactics, and all of the games seem to have the same results. The increased number of units hasn't greatly improved gameplay because many of the units are just superfluous and others are super-units. Some factions are just designed to be destroyed by other factions. This has meant that the most challenging and interesting MP battles are Roman vs Roman.

This is not a simple case of changing, this is a case of changing for the worse.

here here !

Bodidely, if you compare SP to MP and you belive that MP is good then you are mistaken.

SP is great comparing to MP. That is why I've posted this post. Read the first post.

It is for all MP players since STW and MTW, who insisted playing MP part of TW till now and many gave left.

MP is what TW is all about here, becaus of personalities of people which made TW series so unique.

If multiplayer part of RTW would be so good made as single player part is then many would stay and continue to play and this and many other forums would be more alive as the are at the moment.

I'm dissapointed over the matter what attitude particulare people have. But we shall not forget that we life in life capitalism.

If we would pay this company to improve things which we would like to see, well then this would be already done.

Can someone fix my spelling mistakes. :bow:

No need to Vorcid, you make your point adequately well.

I have been echoing your remarks and this is, afterall, the MP forum. SP and its virtues or lack of are irrelevant. I think there have been some misunderstandings with the replies I have made because I have dared to criticise the players. Just because I say the problem with MP is the players themselves does not mean I think there is no problem with RTW. When I say that MTW and even STW had their own share of problems, this is not a way of saying RTW is fine. However it does make me smile a bit when I read all this negativity. It is possible to have a good battle in RTW despite all the claims to the contrary.
You mourn the passing of an era but this is life and nothing lasts forever. Before very long the old names will be distant, fading memories

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Before very long the old names will be distant, fading memories.

---

That's right, and it's a direct result of the gameplay which couldn't be properly evaluated until the RTW v1.2 patch, which fixed most of the MP techincal bugs, was released almost 6 months after RTW v1.0.

MTW/VI has the reload fatigue exploit, but Samurai Wars gets around that by eliminating the xbows and by picking up the pace of the battle. The average battle only last 15 to 20 minutes which also helps reduce the excessive fatigue experienced in many regular MTW battles. Ranged units use all their ammo in about 7 minutes, so you don't get the long boring shootouts of MTW/VI. The 'swipe' exploit, which was a major problem in MP, was fixed by LongJohn in the VI v.201 patch. The units in Samurai Wars are balanced, and the upgrade system only plays a minimal role. So, it's pretty hard to find exploits in Samurai Wars, and we have 3 different map sizes one of which is larger than RTW's map size.

[QUOTE=Puzz3D]That's right, and it's a direct result of the gameplay which couldn't be properly evaluated until the RTW v1.2 patch.

I believe it would be fairer to say that it means new-comers and 'vets' were all starting on a level playing field with no skills advantage gained from previous games.
A TW game that is different from what all are used to.

[QUOTE=Puzz3D] The units in Samurai Wars are balanced, and the upgrade system only plays a minimal role. So, it's pretty hard to find exploits in Samurai Wars.

So this should have been the answer to MPer's expectations?
And here again, all have left. Why?

Jochi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VorCid

Bodidely, if you compare SP to MP and you belive that MP is good then you are mistaken.
SP is great comparing to MP. That is why I've posted this post. Read the first post.
It is for all MP players since STW and MTW, who insisted playing MP part of TW till now and many gave left.
MP is what TW is all about here, becaus of personalities of people which made TW series so unique.
If multiplayer part of RTW would be so good made as single player part is then many would stay and continue to play and this and many other forums would be more alive as the are at the moment.
I'm dissapointed over the matter what attitude particulare people have. But we shall not forget that we life in life capitalism.
If we would pay this company to improve things which we would like to see, well then this would be already done.

---

Yes I understand your point, and I am not saying that MP is great. I am saying that there are problems with the game beyond the community. There are serious flaws in the game itself. While there are certainly childish brats running around, usually, especially if you host a game, people will play by fair and honorable standards; Jackasses are something we have to deal with in life.

Quote:

---

It is possible to have a good battle in RTW despite all the claims to the contrary.

---

You are right Orda. With few rules RTW is playable on 1v1 and team battles are even more interesting.

- 5 max units per same type
- no egypt (or banned desert cavalry unit if you have interest to play wiht or against)
- max 8 cavalry units of all types (including chariots, ele, etc)
- if you allow artillery, you don't allow fire.

One major thing which changed tactics in RTW from MTW. Artillery is important part here and I don't blame someone if he use one uinit of ballistas or scorpions, or even onagers - just no fire option.

Despite few critis on RTW I posted many to defend it. (mainly on totalwars.net)

But you all know what happened. People want things on their table. They even hardly move their fingers to change something.

As already mentioned:

Quote:

---

A community we know back then has changed. Partly because of RTW as a game with many issues which needed to be solved and mainly because of people hesitation. That period of a few months waiting is what killed the TW MP community.Unfortunately the community let the newcomers takeover and make this the dominant game style. While they complained and waited for patches a new community was formed and the old vets had nothing to go back to.

---

This is the main reason why situation is as it is. (by the way this are words of respected TW player you all know very well)

People haven't done nothing. For them I've started this topic thought. (and partly for the issue of RTW)

They didn't want to ''learn'' from the start. Look Kanuni for example. He was great in MTW and he is still now. (no matter what the rules are)

If at least lobby would be as it was in MTW/VI. The lack of this only accelerate all things which happened later on.

Well there is CWC, TWPL, WCC and few other tourneys. Let us hope that BI expansion pack will bring changes.

VorCid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VorCid

Let us hope that BI expansion pack will bring changes.

---

It certainly doesn't look like any significant changes are going to be made in BI. I wonder what kind of ineffective anti-cav unit CA has come up with for BI. Most likely movement and combat resolution speed will remain the same as will the brilliant "delay to orders" feature.

Realize that CA's position on desert cav is that they are not overpowered. If they can't see how that unit is out of balance, what chance is there of getting improved overall unit balance in BI? I would say no chance.

...

What happen to the simple things...MTW/VI only no art allowed is the norm for rules...in RTW you have...no art, no fire, no eleph, 5 max , no egypt....and so on and on it's obviously the game, not the community. The problem started form the game not the community. We do have our rude peeps no matter where youre at, just Rome has so many as everyone knows, but I'm sure it will change...people change, but the game probably won't. All I have is hope that the new BI expansion will fix some of the flaws, I know no game will ever be perfect especially so many have different opinions of what should be fixed, it is a never ending dilemma. I am not a vet of the TW games and like many others I wish I was around during those times. I was lucky to get a brief taste of how those times were (much fun) hopefully those times will return....Win or Lose, Hunter King George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter KIng George

it's obviously the game, not the community. The problem started form the game not the community.

---

You are missing the point I am trying to make. The game does not make players pick the exploits. The players do this on their own. So RTW is not perfect, I'll admit that and neither was MTW when it first arrived nor in its final state and neither was STW before that. The sad fact is that there are those who concientiously look for and exploit any flaw within the game to their advantage. That is what ruins the game, it is possible to play around flaws in the game

.......Orda

Quote:

---

The game does not make players pick the exploits. The players do this on their own.

---

of course, but you can't blame them. Games are supposed to be competitive, so it's obvious players try to find the most effective ways to win. If you have to stop players from doing things the game allows then something is very wrong.
I played the Age of Empires/Mythology games for years and all sorts of exploits turned up too, but Ensemble Studios fixed them as soon as they could in the next patch. Wonder why ES's games are the most succesfull RTS games next to Blizzard's (which are also MP oriented), and CA's are not...

That's like saying you can't blame athletes for using steroids

....Orda

I agree with Orda.

That is why rules are needed on tourneys and competitions.(talking overall)

"That's like saying you can't blame athletes for using steroids"


I know...but alot of the issues right now are fairly easy to fix. If ca released an MP patch that would:

1:weaken cavalry so they cant beat spear units head on.
2:nerf dessert cavalry
3:raise the cost of egyptian units
4:raise the cost of urban chorts
5:raise the cost of roman heavy cavalry units
6: make it harder for units to run through a phalanx
7:use cost penalties spaming one unit

just those changes would improve the game alot. Heck, that could be done in a simple balancing mod...

"That's like saying you can't blame athletes for using steroids"


And just how am I supposed to not use the jumping horse exploit or the 50% faster running exploit or the fast combat resolution exploit or the no penalty for overlapped units exploit or the cavalry beats phalanx exploit or the units won't shoot until every last man is in position exploit?

Quote:

---

You are missing the point I am trying to make. The game does not make players pick the exploits. The players do this on their own. So RTW is not perfect, I'll admit that and neither was MTW when it first arrived nor in its final state and neither was STW before that. The sad fact is that there are those who concientiously look for and exploit any flaw within the game to their advantage. That is what ruins the game, it is possible to play around flaws in the game

---

.......Orda

I am a SP Shogun Vet and and MTW:VI MP vet, and am a long time lurker of these boards. I have not bought RTW yet due to the now realized fears of CA making it mass marketed and including lots of Lord of The rings disobey physics charges to attract crowds.

THe MTW war was one of the nicest online game lobbies ever. Everyone was surprisingly polite and willing to help noobs. I played exclusively Egypt in MTW, as I found all the Catholic Knights and Chivalry stuff, stuffy.

Which led to me being smacked time and time again. My guards will disintegrate in 30 seconds after impacting the CMAA line, and my cavalry did not fare better against their knights. I recall once one of my younger relatives was watching a game, and when she saw the Abyssinian guards die like that, she shouted out "Racist!".

So I went back to the boards, and discovered guides that show conclusively that CMAA spam will win all. I also discovered the ramping upgrade costs thing. So while my V4 Guards will barely match your V3 CMAA, they will be much more expensive. Did I switch to the Euros? NO! Islamic Countries could become more competitive by removing the ramping costs bug, but Idecide to stick to my guns.

After lots of losses, I managed to be able to utilize the Islamic potential to its fullest, and exploit many of the Euros weaknesses and start to be able to beat the Euros on their own turf (Lush Spring. Seems they are too chicken to fight in the desert or even arid). The day when someone asked me "Surely you are an expert smurfing. Who are you? I've never seen anyone play Egypt like that." was one of my best gaming days.

I still get my share off losses against Euros (most Euro allies dont coordinate properly for me to be able to employ me army), but it has been a fun journey. The point of which is to say, despite all the imbalances in MTW, it has been fun. THe imbalances can be countered to a extent. There is nothing like wiping the Euros with an Islamic army off their lush green plains(no hills even. I rarely see hills as it does not suit the CMAA) as if that happened in real life, you probably have conquered their homeland.

My second point is, is it like that in RTW? I am aware of the mainstream noobs in the lobby problem, but are the imbalances as bad as they seem? Can a TW vet overcome a noob exploiting imbalances and beat him back to the so called RTS called Warcraft 3? Despite the noobs, is the online lobby as civilized as the MTW one? Ironic how most Euro players loved to see an EGGY opponent in MTW , yet in RTW it seems they are the most powerful and the faction that is disallowed.

Sigh. I wish my Guards were as good as the bullet proof barebreasted desert axemen.

well I haven't played RTW enough to really judge it (enough to conclude I don't like the unit balances tho), but when I hear people speaking about countering your opponent on FACTION level I think some is very wrong (again).

PS: I haven't given up on the RTW engine tho, I'm making this MP oriented "Chivalry Total War" mod for a reason :)

I can give my word here. Adherbald Chivalry mod is worth of all the time you will spent with it.