Do the current TW speeds and/or AI detract from your gameplay?

speeds = movement speeds or kill rates
AI = campaign map AI or battlemap AI

Simple question, take your pick. No distinctions are made, it's about the feeling you get when playing RTW, serving as input for CA working on MTW2.

AI is my biggest issue (tactical and strategic), but hopefully that will be addressed. Battle speed issues too, though not as much (for me anyway). So I voted option #1.

I guess I just want my cake and to eat it too!

I voted yes to both, but was thinking mainly of the vanilla game. But I've started losing battles in the mods I play (RTR, Goth mod) with alarming frequency[1], so I can't really complain about the engine after the tweaking by modders.

[1] And to Berbers and Illyrians! The shame. :shame:

I voted yes to both as well, although the AI was the bigger of the two problems. Both the campaign and combat AI left something to be desired. The speeds were so fast, I simply couldn't enjoy battles that much. It was like blink, and you miss it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

But I've started losing battles in the mods I play (RTR, Goth mod) with alarming frequency[1], so I can't really complain about the engine after the tweaking by modders.

[1] And to Berbers and Illyrians! The shame. :shame:

---

[Looks for Mithrandir to start going on about his beloved camels] :idea2:

Sadly when you start using a mod or become a member of a TW forum you are a hardcore player. So when a majority votes for option 1 then it only shows that the hardcore players want a change. CA is not targeting the hardcore players, so the outcome of this poll is not important as who would in their right mind think that a forum population would present the average buyer; surely only hardcore buyers go on the internet!

This logic is flawed and I know it.

speed is a pain.

Overall speed is primary measure of battles not the AI. If speed still stand the same level of RTW & BI class so we don't need any improved AI or improved something.

AI only thing that matters.
I never had a problem with the speed in RTW in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

Sadly when you start using a mod or become a member of a TW forum you are a hardcore player. So when a majority votes for option 1 then it only shows that the hardcore players want a change. CA is not targeting the hardcore players, so the outcome of this poll is not important as who would in their right mind think that a forum population would present the average buyer; surely only hardcore buyers go on the internet!

This logic is flawed and I know it.

---

Yes, well, it puts you in the same group as Puzz3D, who is convinced CA does not cater to the hardcore gamers anymore. While this might be true with respect to historical accuracy (makes the Egyptians more boring in my opinion) and realism (come on, don't tell you don't like what Elephants do?), I cannot imagine it being true for gameplay. The better your gameplay, the more your game sells.

The total war series can be played in more than 1 way while having fun: the slow tactical way, or the fast arcade way. RomeTW obviously favored the latter, while STW and MTW only had the former. Perhaps CA got bored with the old speeds, and wanted something faster themselves.

What they learn from browsing these forums though, is that some gamers just don't get used to the fast arcade way. According to this poll the majority of forum members prefer the slow tactical way. They will therefore probably adjust the speeds to accomodate them. They might not, but to say 100% that they won't before hand is bigotry.

Yes! Absoultely. To the point I haven't played RTW in ages, and have little intention to do so. I have not bought any of the RTW expansions and will not.

Quote:

---

....so the outcome of this poll is not important as who would in their right mind think that a forum population would present the average buyer; surely only hardcore buyers go on the internet!

---

I think this forum and the vast majority of the recent members do an all too good job of representing the "average buyer". The majority still play the game, the majority (or at least all too many) bought the expansions, and only a small minority are up in arms over the decisions CA has made.

Quote:

---

...I cannot imagine it being true for gameplay. The better your gameplay, the more your game sells.....

---

I believe you have found the limits of your imagination.... ;)

Sadly, the reality is that games with truly extraordinary gameplay sell rather poorly, and most you've never heard of.

Take for an analogy, Movies. The highest grossing/profitable films are NEVER the **best** films made in any given year. They are usually ones with the *best* eye-candy (special effects), sex and/or shock value.

Same thing for the PC gaming industry.

Usually, most directors and film companies decide from the beginning whether to go for the money or for the art (or to make statement/political films). Few, very few, do both.

CA, apparently, had the best of intentions in-the-beginning, but have now completely abandoned their original demonstrated intentions. When you evaluate all the TW versions and add compare EVERYTHING, each succeeding version has become increasingly less than the original masterpiece (Shogun).

Quote:

---

Perhaps CA got bored with the old speeds, and wanted something faster themselves.

---

That is prepostorous!

They got bored with Chess and so created Checkers......Funny!

Quote:

---

WHAT does this mean in English?

---

First, "changing speeds" won't **re-balance** the game. It's not so simple as "changing speeds", the game must be balance for to a speed, etc.

As it is, the game is imbalanced, and the present "speeds" only worsen the situation. There's a lot wrong with RTW, some of which CA appears to be addressing (how successfully we shall see), but the most crucial aspects that need to be addressed have only been given lip-service with no true information being provided. Also, absolutely no mention has been made of other very crucial aspects. All of which have to do with battle "speeds" and battle "effects" (and I don't mean flaming pigs and arrows!!!).

Re PUZZ3D, imvuho, he is a TW g_d, not only for his knowledge and experience, as well as his evaluative efforts, but MOSTLY for his persistence!

Personally, I don't think they *learn* anything from these forums. A great example, take *replays*, if the perverbial THEY have been monitoriing and participating in the forums all these years---then how in H could the decision have been made to do away with replays??

CA: [paraphrasing] "we didn't realize that they were so popular".

Duh!!!

Oh, and should I mention how they handled the uproar and turmoil after the RTW demo was released and the community revolt (over at the .com site) after RTW was released??

How did they respond?

In the best case scenario one might describe their reaction as 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'.

In the worst (and imo most accurate viewpoint) their response would be described as Taliban like. They shut down the site, removed all anti-RTW posts and installed communist like 'minders' as moderators. The overall posting policy became: No speakee badee about RTW or get bandee

No one has ever said so (to my knowledge), but that policy also carried itself over to the Org, though in a much milder version.

Quote:

---

They might not, but to say 100% that they won't before hand is bigotry.

---

I don't think you comprehend the true nature of the game. Nor, the fact that the game is imbalanced and what it will take to BALANCE the game. As well as how such an effort relates to the the development schedule which one of the CA members was good enough to outline for us several weeks ago.

It would take more time and effort to accomplish what you think they *might* do to accomodate the peverbial US! Conversely, it would mean they've spend LESS time and effort developing all the eye-candy they've thus far previewed.

According to the CA member, the majority of the AI work is done near the very end of development. THIS fact is ALL too evident. Look at all the wonderful and amazing RTW eye-candy such as, the campaign map with its zooming feature, the 3D battlefield, and not to forget the flaming pigs!

Lotta work, lotta time, and evidently little time to create and work-in a sensible AI, or to balance the game properly.

Sooo, you *think* it will be different for MTW2???

Why? Cause a bunch of lound mouthed hardcore crazies keep demanding? These same people who CA has repeatedly downplayed and dismissed over and over and over again, in this forum and at the .com site.

AI and speed distract from gameplay.

The speed is more of a problem for me than the AI is in 1.6.

Not saying that the AI has me overwhelmed, it could still use improvements.

Well said ToranagaSama, plus we should remember the multitude of members of the MP community that abandoned the game

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToranagaSama

In the worst (and imo most accurate viewpoint) their response would be described as Taliban like. They shut down the site, removed all anti-RTW posts and installed communist like 'minders' as moderators. The overall posting policy became: No speakee badee about RTW or get bandee

No one has ever said so (to my knowledge), but that policy also carried itself over to the Org, though in a much milder version.

---

Good to know I am just a mild communist Taliban minder. :rolleyes:

Let's stay on topic - bashing other forums is not our business here.

If anyone wants to debate the "no CA bashing" policy we apply at the Org, start a topic in the Watchtower. Criticism of CA games is fine; insulting them is not. It's just a matter of politeness. Modders get the same respect and protection.

Quote:

---

I don't think you comprehend the true nature of the game. Nor, the fact that the game is imbalanced and what it will take to BALANCE the game. As well as how such an effort relates to the the development schedule which one of the CA members was good enough to outline for us several weeks ago.

---

You mean the beautiful fact that:
monks kill spears
spears kill cav
cav kill archers
archers kill monks?

And how beautiful that (indeed) was in Shogun? And how much harder doing it with 120 units is than doing it with 12? How many hours of army testing and match ups it would take? How that would never fit into the schedule? Why I therefore focus my efforts in demanding a better AI, rather than a better balance (which takes even more time to program / get right) ?

Quote:

---

It would take more time and effort to accomplish what you think they *might* do to accomodate the peverbial US! Conversely, it would mean they've spend LESS time and effort developing all the eye-candy they've thus far previewed.

---

May I remind you that those teams work separately: AI/game core and graphics? And that they cannot showcase the first in a preview? Have you listened to podcast 5 yet?

Quote:

---

According to the CA member, the majority of the AI work is done near the very end of development. THIS fact is ALL too evident. Look at all the wonderful and amazing RTW eye-candy such as, the campaign map with its zooming feature, the 3D battlefield, and not to forget the flaming pigs!

Lotta work, lotta time, and evidently little time to create and work-in a sensible AI, or to balance the game properly.

---

Please, make a distinction. You're asking for both (to get Shogun-style single- and multi-player back), whereas I would already be happy in first getting single-player back (needs better AI and speeds, not necessarily balance - I'll get back to that later in this reply). Multiplayer needs better balance, but I'm not expecting MTW2 to give that. As you say, schedule. Plus, you can mod it.

Quote:

---

Sooo, you *think* it will be different for MTW2???

---

The thought did cross my mind, yes. It's not a resounding yes, but I'll play the devil's advocate since you use three question marks. :duel: En guarde!

Quote:

---

Why? Cause a bunch of lound mouthed hardcore crazies keep demanding? These same people who CA has repeatedly downplayed and dismissed over and over and over again, in this forum and at the .com site.

---

Downplayed get only those who get their hopes up to unrealistic high levels, and inevitably fall. Demanding something (historical accuracy, realism) never worked, communication however, does.

Quote:

---

Take for an analogy, Movies. The highest grossing/profitable films are NEVER the **best** films made in any given year. They are usually ones with the *best* eye-candy (special effects), sex and/or shock value.

---

Sometimes the blockbusters actually deserve the oscars they win. (Dances with wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Schindler's List, Ghandi, Platoon, The Last Emperor). Though they do not need to have sex, eye-candy or shock value, all have some of it; but if you're honest about the intro to Medieval Total War, that had a pretty good Shock value to me as well when I saw it for the first time. Or walls tumbling down. Or the Shogun assassin movies. Can't call that eye-candy?

Quote:

---

First, "changing speeds" won't **re-balance** the game. It's not so simple as "changing speeds", the game must be balance for to a speed, etc.

---

Actually, no, i don't think it does. An army of legionares must be able to beat an army of peasants, no matter how tactical you play with those peasants. If you're talking about units that are roughly the same level (of building necessary to build them), then they are roughly the same strength in RomeTW. Where it goes wrong is that bonuses from spears VS cav or non-spears VS spears are not noticed. Likewise, terrain bonuses are not high enough to get noticed.

If you change the kill speeds (number of times you throw the attack dice should go up, the percentage to hit should go down) back to MTW levels, those bonuses will automatically start to matter.

From screenshots and previews it is evident that they have changed overall defense levels in such a way as to decrease the overall percentage to hit for all units, while maintaining the same engine. Plus there are now combo's, implying that the number of times the soldiers throw the dice also goes up. That means terrain and unit VS unit bonuses will have a larger effect, etc, etc...
...add to that the slightly lower movement speeds, and we may actually get the enjoyment of (longer) STW/MTW battles back!

Quote:

---

Personally, I don't think they *learn* anything from these forums. A great example, take *replays*, if the perverbial THEY have been monitoriing and participating in the forums all these years---then how in H could the decision have been made to do away with replays??

---

You know that each battlemap is randomly generated (in the same way) for each square on the map. That map is not saved on your hard disk, it only exists for the duration of the battle. It had various benefits, like realism, saving design time, and saving you space on your hard disk, making the game shippable (oh and we forgot, here are disk 4 and 5... they contain the 10,000 maps...).
They found out too late that the engine could not easily save all values necessary for a replay. In effect it requires a map editor, which I'm sure you will have noticed is missing from RTW (and still is). I'm guessing they will implement it this time in MTW2, because they stripped the engine and rebuilt it. We can hope.

As for your they don't learn a thing, they did fix the load/save game bug, where reloading caused the AI to often lift the siege. See it whatever way you like, but it was due to forum protests. (They didn't see it as a bug.. I'm sure they see that differently now, same for replays. Are people allowed to make mistakes?)

Quote:

---

The overall posting policy became: No speakee badee about RTW or get bandee

---

:laugh4: I can speakee plenty of badee about RTW and i am not bandee (yet) :oops: :help:

Quote:

---

In effect it requires a map editor, which I'm sure you will have noticed is missing from RTW (and still is).

---

There is a map editor in 1.5. You need to enable it though.

You need a "don't really bother all that much but it would be nice if was slowed a little and a bit smarter: selection...

Detract from fun? not really....

If imporved would make the game more fun? absolutely...

i voted for both.

also on a similar line, i hope cavalry outrun fleeing troops on foot this time. also i hope cavalry do not run along side fleeing troops but run straight at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

You mean the beautiful fact that:
monks kill spears
spears kill cav
cav kill archers
archers kill monks?

And how beautiful that (indeed) was in Shogun? And how much harder doing it with 120 units is than doing it with 12? How many hours of army testing and match ups it would take? How that would never fit into the schedule? Why I therefore focus my efforts in demanding a better AI, rather than a better balance (which takes even more time to program / get right) ?

---

Yes, so I wish CA would stop saying they are making the game better by increasing unit types and factions. They've taken this so far that it's now impossible for them to balance the game. This is particularly bad for multiplayer where the use of mods is very limited. What modder wants to spend the hundreds of hours necessary to make a playbalance mod for multiplayer when only a few people would use it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Downplayed get only those who get their hopes up to unrealistic high levels, and inevitably fall.

---

I agree. Expecting the gameplay to equal the original STW game is unrealistic especially when CA has made it clear that they are now aiming for the lowest common denominator (maximum customer base).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

If you change the kill speeds (number of times you throw the attack dice should go up, the percentage to hit should go down) back to MTW levels, those bonuses will automatically start to matter.

---

A hardcore consideration brushed aside in RTW/BI. I haven't heard anything to suggest that CA has become more receptive to hardcore considerations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

From screenshots and previews it is evident that they have changed overall defense levels in such a way as to decrease the overall percentage to hit for all units, while maintaining the same engine. Plus there are now combo's, implying that the number of times the soldiers throw the dice also goes up. That means terrain and unit VS unit bonuses will have a larger effect, etc, etc...
...add to that the slightly lower movement speeds, and we may actually get the enjoyment of (longer) STW/MTW battles back!

---

Yes that could all happen, but don't forget there will be marketing people opposing it on the grounds that some players will be bored by longer battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

They found out too late that the engine could not easily save all values necessary for a replay. In effect it requires a map editor, which I'm sure you will have noticed is missing from RTW (and still is). I'm guessing they will implement it this time in MTW2, because they stripped the engine and rebuilt it. We can hope.

---

There is a map editor in RTW. The models and their coordinates could have been saved in a savebattle file, and the campaign battlefield reconstructed from that. Probably they didn't have enough time to do the necessary work, and this was a low priorty item.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

As for your they don't learn a thing, they did fix the load/save game bug, where reloading caused the AI to often lift the siege. See it whatever way you like, but it was due to forum protests. (They didn't see it as a bug.. I'm sure they see that differently now, same for replays. Are people allowed to make mistakes?)

---

Yes they are allowed to make mistakes, and I have a right to know what they are before I purchase the product. Now we hear about deficiencies in the RTW map generator and the RTW tactical AI in podcast 5 only because they can say it's better in M2TW. I wanted to know this stuff back in Sept 2004. If the "squeezed too tight" combat penalty has been removed, they should make that known so that players don't go off playing the game thinking it's still in there.

I have the Official MTW Strategy Guide and there are two chapters covering the battle engine combat modifiers and morale modifiers. There was no such info in the RTW Official Strategy Guide, and a big curtain of silence came down which is great for covering up the fact that you are removing features. I hear plenty from CA about "new" features, but there's never any mention of the features that have been dropped. Now I'm supposed to make a decision whether or not to purchase the game, and all I've been told is that features have been added. Sounds great doesn't it? It's a nobrainer. You'd have to be crazy not to buy the new version. The last version got an average 92% rating. The new game must be higher than that since nothing is ever done that might lower the rating.

Guys, we all need too face the facts sooner or later, if you make something and you intend too sell it you would (most likely) go for maximum profit rather then quality. lets try this: you could make a game with eye candy and packed too the brim with graphical effects etc and if would probably sell rather well, atleast you would make a profit out of it or you could make a game with love and care, sure it would take three years instead of one and maybe it would even brake your budget and when the game goes for sale....total disaster.


for lets face it, the general public is stupid and much rather go for that game that has those awe-inspiring graphic and those big guns and *cool* bullet time effects then the game that handles medival europe with all the bells and whistle gameplay-wise but lacking in graphics, cus after all, the sole purpose of a company is profit.

the real "conflict" here is Gameplay vs Graphic or in more general terms: quantity vs quality with graphics being quantity and gameplay quality, this conflict is not just CAs problem but the whole industry, why make one game that is a masterpiece when it comes too gameplays but takes four years too make when you can too one game a year with beautiful graphics but gameplay as shallow as Paris Hiltons IQ


sorry if im a little off topic:shame:

edit: and the movement rates are fine, the only thing that really detracts me from gameplay (atleast in Vanilla rome) is that by the end game the only factions left standing are roman ones, ohh they could really improve the battlefield AI thats for sure. the killrates are rather...off and they cavalry chasing routing infantry bug better be fixed, umm...lets see...nope thats my biggest gripes with this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Good to know I am just a mild communist Taliban minder. :rolleyes:

Let's stay on topic - bashing other forums is not our business here.

If anyone wants to debate the "no CA bashing" policy we apply at the Org, start a topic in the Watchtower. Criticism of CA games is fine; insulting them is not. It's just a matter of politeness. Modders get the same respect and protection.

---

See there you go acting Taliban-like!

Either that or (no insult intended) there's a reading comprehension problem. Possibly, a result of the need to skim so much of the forum threads and posts, as oppossed to actually reading them.

Dude, read my post again carefully. There was no bashing of other forums, nor was there an invitation to "debate".

Read the comments within the context they were written and post comments I replied to. Clearly, my comments were made in the **demonstrative**, intended to highlight the actions of The Creative Assembly which demonstrate the attitude taken in regard to their hardcore community.

*Minders*cherry pick words and phrasings and react to them outside of the context of their intention and meaning. Context isn't important to minders. What is important is that anything on the *Ban* list never be mentioned nor discussed no matter the context or intention.

Also, it takes a lot more work and involvement to deal with context. Lastly, this Poll Thread discussion is clearly an extension of previous and recent thread discussions covering, specifically, the subject of the AI, as well as battle speeds.

It's all within the context and on topic.

Thanks for minding though.

NOTE: just a *hint* of negative/subversive regarding talk regarding CA brings your response as a 'Minder'. [Or, perhaps "Bashing" needs to be defined?]

~ToranagaSama

P.S., I didn't insult CA either and resent the inference. What I did was present my negative view of CA's actions and attitude. Is this against the law or the forum rules??

The speeds detract for me because it limits the time to enjoy a battle, leads to increased pause use, and in the end detracts from good strategy in the game. A slower pace, particularly movement speeds, would make it more enjoyable to think my way through a battle without pausing.

The AI is not great, but it works. However, when playing through a campaign the weaknesses become so apparent that many battles are a chore. In MTW at least, maps were varied and distinctive enough to prevent repetition, and the AI would pose a decent challenge in most cases; both factors together made for memorable battles, far moreso than in RTW.

So yes, both factors detract from my experience.

Hello Toranaga-Sama :bow:,

I've been a moderator since before MTW and I know that we have several no bashing polices for a long time. One being no bashing patrons, another being no bashing countries and the third being no bashing CA. In some cases we even have patrons who work for CA so they belong to two of those groups and I assume the middle one too as they are living breathing humans of some nation or other.

Now bashing is different from (constructive) criticism. Although giving a diet plan to a spouse after she puts on a new dress may appear to be constructive criticism it would not be received as such. So it isn't just what is said it is delivery. So say what is wrong, say how you would like it to be and if possible show how you would achieve the solution. Most of all make the statement as palatable and polite as possible.

Since Taliban are the modern equivalent of Nazis it is not palatable, it is not polite to compare anyone to them, it invokes Godwin's law. There is a statement of what is wrong, but not much mention of what is right and how you would like it to be, let alone how you would achieve a solution. In short it is a cheap bash, far below your posts of yesteryear.

Please take the attitude of the samurai, even if you are going to kill a guy you have no reason to be disrespectful. As your manners reflect not on those you cuss but on yourself.

Please modify your posts to reflect your inner spirit, and your far more generous posting style of old.

Yours Respectfully,
Papewaio

Thanks, Papewaio. :bow:

Toranagasama, at the risk of derailing this thread further, I am going to reply to your last post. However, if you want to follow this up further, I would ask you to do so by PM or by starting a thread in the Watchtower, which deals with moderation issues. If you post again in this thread on the subject of moderation, I will copy your post to a new thread I will start in the Watchtower and delete it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToranagaSama

See there you go acting Taliban-like!

---

I take saying my acts are "Taliban-like" as a personal insult. And also an absurd one. The Taliban did not react to criticism by posting smilies with rolling eyes.

Quote:

---

Either that or (no insult intended) there's a reading comprehension problem.

---

I take saying I have a comprehension problem as another personal insult.

Quote:

---

Possibly, a result of the need to skim so much of the forum threads and posts, as oppossed to actually reading them.

---

Ditto saying I don't read these forums - ie do my job - is rather insulting.

Quote:

---

Dude, read my post again carefully. There was no bashing of other forums, nor was there an invitation to "debate".

---

Saying a forum is moderated by "minders" who are "Communist like" and adhere to "Taliban like" policies constitutes three different bashes at the CA forums. These are not neutral terms - they are largely perjorative, especially in the way that you use them.

According to Oxford, "Minders" are "a bodyguard, esp. a person employed to protect a criminal" and/or "a thief's assistant". Hardly a term one would want applied to oneself or ones job as a moderator.

Goodness knows how Communism is supposed to be understood in relation to moderation, but presumably you mean something like Stalinist, which is associated with show trials, doublespeak, torture, false confessions, paranoia, meglomania, mass murder etc. All rather nasty associations.

Similarly Taliban-like is presumably intended to lead to associations with narrow-mindedness, intolerance, refusal to communicate, primitive attitudes and quite likely 9/11 style terrorism. Again nasty stuff.

All three terms are loaded and insulting. To say CA moderation is X-like, does not soften the criticism when X is insulting.

Saying we do the same thing, albeit in a milder way, at the Org is an insult to Org staff. Given the nature of the negative associations, it is not clear that being a more mild version of X is significantly worse than X. Mildly evil is still evil.

Quote:

---

It's all within the context and on topic.

---

No, it's way off topic. Your last post, Papewaio's post and my present post are not at all about the AI or speeds, we are talking about moderation.

Quote:

---

Thanks for minding though.

---

Such condescension is rather insulting.

Quote:

---

NOTE: just a *hint* of negative/subversive regarding talk regarding CA brings your response as a 'Minder'. [Or, perhaps "Bashing" needs to be defined?]

---

As explained above, I find being called a "Minder" insulting.

Quote:

---

P.S., I didn't insult CA either and resent the inference. What I did was present my negative view of CA's actions and attitude. Is this against the law or the forum rules??

---

I have explained what I perceive to be the three insults of CA - and, in a mild form, Org staff - in your original post. Your last post adds quite a number more.

As I said at the start - if you want to come back on any of these points, take it to Private Mail or to the Watchtower. I have refrained from giving you any warnings, but that is only because I imagine that is what you would like to confirm that I am indeed the (mild) Communist-like Minder imposing (mild) Taliban-like policies. But be aware that I am out of patience now.

On the subject of being bored by battles and the steps that CA appeared to take in order to circumvent this, I'd just like to say a few things.

Firstly, in every TW campaign to date, maybe only barring Shogun TW since it was a smaller game, there have been too many battles overall. At the start of a campaign everything's fine since the small skirmishes are essential in defining your faction's initial progress - each battle can and most likely will be critical, even against the rebels sometimes. Towards the mid to late game, none of these small skirmishes have any profound relevance. They don't define anything, and a victory or defeat even in a big battle can mean relatively little in the grander scheme. When you may have anywhere between 2 and 10 battles per turn at this stage, this is where the boredom starts to derail every TW campaign.

In my opinion, CA tried to alleviate this mid-late boredom by making battles quicker to resolve by upping the speed. If you have 2-10 battles per turn, better to make them take only a few minutes each... so to speak. Ultimately, however, that only derailed the cmapaign further as each battle became a monotonous charging melee fest and the autoresolve button became the only true solution. Given that the results of autoresolving battles were unfortunately tied to campaign difficulty rather than battle difficulty, this meant that operating a difficult strategic campaign with autoresolve was impossible without dealing with heavily and unfairly stacked odds.

So, wherein lieth the solution? In quicker battles certainly not, and in actual fact probably the opposite is key, especially if it could be combined with each battle retaining a critical nature. As I said, at the start of any campaign, each battle is critical. If this momentum can be carried throughout to the mid to late game, then people will take far more care over their battles, particularly if the number per turn can be reduced to 1-3, say.

In late game RTW it's possible to have large stacks everywhere. Lose one battle in the field and there's another equally sized army ready to take its place. There are no critical battles as such anymore. On the very high campaign difficulty level the AI will have constant streams of stacks suicidally throwing themselves against your castle defences, turn after turn.

Maybe this new recruitment pool feature will help resolve this, my second greatest of pet hates with TW (only second after the battle AI)?

Good analysis there Jambo. The route EB came up with to try and alleviate this problem was to significantly increase the cost of armies, so that one can't have stacks all over the place, even towards the end of the game. This had the dual effect of making battles less frequent and more decisive; losing a single battle versus the AI could be disastrous. Admittedly, the AI does get massive cash injections, so it can have more stacks. Then again, as the battle AI isn't really capable of giving a half decent human player a challenge on a level playing field, it's to some extent understandable.

As you say, the new game mechanic of the "recruitment pools" they're adding may indeed be a more elegant solution. Assuming the battle AI is now capable of basic tactics...

Although much could be said about M:TW and it's system of only allowing sixteen units per side in a battle at the same time, it still made for more decisive battles. Odds are, your borders with a powerful faction were defended by more than one stack, and the AI often accumulated massive multiple-stack armies, especially in one-province-borders like in northern Africa. If one side or the other finally decided to fight it out, it was one epic battle (though divided into sixteen-unit-per-side portions), after which the outcome of that war was very much decided. This made battles much more important, as there were fewer of them, and as multiple stacks could participate in them. Of course, beating the first wave was often enough to win the whole battle, which was unrealistic in itself.

The fact that in R:TW stacks often march around the map without keeping together makes this kind of "wipe out their eastern army, then their provinces are open to you" strategy more or less tedious: It can't be done in one big battle; rather, you'll be fighting many smaller ones. This can usually not be done in one turn, giving your opponent time to field more troops - often several turns. So it might be that a strategic AI that was keeping it's armies more or less together for one region would force the human players to do likewise, lest their armies be wiped out in several smaller battles.

This kind of bigger, more decisive battle would further need to be enhanced by better performance. Most players don't own a PC that is younger than, say, one or two years. An abundance of beautiful but processor time consuming graphical effects slows the battles down too much for fifty or one hundred units per side to be processed at the same time. Such a large battle would easily be possible to be fought in R:TW where unit availability is concerned, but the engine doesn't support them because of performance issues and possibly so as not to put overdue demands on players.

In this kind of battles, the faster speed might be very welcome. But it is just not ideal for the army size throughout R:TW, i. e. only twenty units. Also, the killing rates are rather absurd, not only historically speaking, but also in gameplay terms. I don't like to lose the full 1500 men I sent into battle because of one blunder. More realistic would be something like 500, with the rest probably losing some experience or whatever. And knowing full well in advance that, after I attack this or that stack, it will cease to exist, is a bit ridiculous, too. It would make for more realism as well as more fun to know that this is the enemy's only army, and if you can beat it, you'll be a good step further in winning the war. But killing three, four stacks in a single turn, not losing more than 200 men in all, only to face three, four stacks more only a few turns later... is not nearly as interesting.

While the speed issue has seriously put me off, freshly coming from M:TW a few years ago, I can by now win most battles with even odds reliably. But somehow the battles don't feel important, don't feel right, and don't last long enough. Often I feel that my tactics didn't make much of a difference: Charge in your cavalry at the right moment, then that's that. There's simply no time for using tactics!
I voted both: speed and AI detract from gameplay. But, as somebody mentioned before, the AI is actually quite OK. Still, the M:TW battle AI was so much better it was just more interesting. You usually couldn't cheap it, it would always aim for a good unit-to-unit matchup, it would keep it's troops together, it would flank and so on. In R:TW there's no cohesion in armies, there don't seem to be strategic goals, at least not in building, and keeping large armies under captains while sending family members with just a few units up front doesn't impress me either.

So please, ye bringers of computer game goodness, who have given to us loads of fun in the past, hark! Low battle speed and good enemy AI give your players fuzzy feelings when they win. It is these fuzzy feelings that make them buy the AddOn. I never rued buying Viking Invasion, but will never touch Barbarian Invasion or Alexander. In M:TW it felt like an accomplishment to win. In R:TW it feels like they let you.


BTW: If anybody voted they liked AI and speed as is, please comment! Why do you think it was good the way it was, and in what regards? Don't be afraid of Samas or Puzzes, dogs that bark don't bite!

Gah! I'll show you my mild taliban! Where's my "ban" button! :wall: ~;)

One can insult with a smile, and Toranagasama, you did exactly that. Btw, adding the suffix "sama" to your name isn't exactly the definition of modesty...? Alas, two can play that game.

Let's not. The policy of Org is simple, as already stated so there's no need for me to repeat them. If it means anything to you, you bring dishonor to yourself by "kindly" insulting a formidable, compassionate, hardworking moderator of the Org like econ, which is something he surely does not deserve. If you feel the need to take on a hard case, try me instead.

Besides, calling someone "dude" can go by only if you are a teenage mutant ninja turtle. Or Bart Simpson. Shame to see patrons treating moderators with less respect they get in return, and think its a proper way to behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voigtkampf

Gah! I'll show you my mild taliban! Where's my "ban" button! :wall: ~;)

One can insult with a smile, and Toranagasama, you did exactly that. Btw, adding the suffix "sama" to your name isn't exactly the definition of modesty...? Alas, two can play that game.

Let's not. The policy of Org is simple, as already stated so there's no need for me to repeat them. If it means anything to you, you bring dishonor to yourself by "kindly" insulting a formidable, compassionate, hardworking moderator of the Org like econ, which is something he surely does not deserve. If you feel the need to take on a hard case, try me instead.

Besides, calling someone "dude" can go by only if you are a teenage mutant ninja turtle. Or Bart Simpson. Shame to see patrons treating moderators with less respect they get in return, and think its a proper way to behave.

---

Regardless of insults or whatever, this episode was dealt with already, by two other moderators and there was no need to rekindle it IMO

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Downplayed get only those who get their hopes up to unrealistic high levels, and inevitably fall.

---

I agree. Expecting the gameplay to equal the original STW game is unrealistic especially when CA has made it clear that they are now aiming for the lowest common denominator (maximum customer base).

---

What I meant was (going overboard on) historical accuracy and realism, not in particular gameplay. You can never have too much gameplay, as it defines the gaming experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

If you change the kill speeds (number of times you throw the attack dice should go up, the percentage to hit should go down) back to MTW levels, those bonuses will automatically start to matter.

---

A hardcore consideration brushed aside in RTW/BI. I haven't heard anything to suggest that CA has become more receptive to hardcore considerations.

---

It doesn't require them being receptive to hardcore gamers to work: The graphics programmer artists simply require more rolls of the attack dice in order to show off all the cool new combo moves they've made. Incidentally, those considerations also benefit the hardcore gamer. If CA were totally unreceptive to the hardcore gamer they would not have fixed the load-savegame bug, would not have made podcasts, would not have admitted their faults in RTW, would not have posted on these forums, would not have been human, and in general, would not have created Shogun in the first place.

Essential to understand is that an AI is improved incrementally, which means step by step. The room to grow is large, the initial version was found lacking. Some important gameplay parameters have been changed, and you can read the effects of that in this thread. Did we know precisely why we liked playing MTW over RTW? If you would have asked me before RTW's release, I could not have told you. Now we can, and CA obviously also learns from that. Getting gameplay right is every game designers dream and goal. If new features destroy that gameplay at first, you can always try to restore it later. But it will never be the same.

I blame a 3D engine, motion captured animations and a campaign map designed from scratch for the gameplay problems we face. Not CA. We know how they welcomed new ideas into the game, much like inviting pretty girls into their offices. And then they jumped on them and partied implementing them until the sun went down. Next morning, when ordinary gamers go to game, they find out that all those new girls require a lot of extra intention. Instead of giving that intention, what did they do? You guessed it, they got more girls. They also spent a large amount of time getting the girls into their boxes and making them jump through the right hoops, resulting in a pretty stable game that you can play for over 8 hours without crashing. Believe me I've tried.

Now, with MTW2, the girls are finally getting the attention they need and hopefully, enough. The gameplay gods will severely punish CA again if they failed to resist the temptation of getting even more girls/ideas into the game. Then again we are only men :cheerleader: :dancing: :girlslap: :iloveyou: :gorgeous: :sweetheart: :kiss2: :love: :2thumbsup:


ps.: Hopefully Penny Sweetser (game designer) will have a positive influence on giving attention to ideas already in the game.

Well, does speed detract from my gameplay experience? You bet, since I COMPLETLY STOP PLAYING RTW BECAUSE OF THAT ~:pissed: ~:angry: ~:pissed:

And let me add a couple of ~:mad ~:mad ~:mad on top.

I would call THAT detracting me from playing the game at all!

I don't really care about AI, I play (or rather, used to) MP mainly, and there is no AI there, so it's really all about gameplay, gameplay, gameplay, and tactically challenging game.

How tactically challenging is RTW? Well, picture a stack of 20 cavalry all in 1 group, stacked on top of each other, charging anything in sight, and winning or losing in 30 sec. That's how challenging that game is.

RTW MP is neither fun nor interesting, and it's mainly because of kill speed and ensuing randomness in fight + moving speed detrimental to tactical thinking.

On the positive side, I am not sure that MTW2 can do worse than "not playing at all" as far as detracting goes.
Well, maybe "not buying at all" is a valid alternative.

Louis,

Well, I voted that the speed is good, but the AI could use some help. If anyone has a problem with the speed of units, then they can download one of the numerous mods which reduce speed, or they could mod it themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roman pleb

Well, I voted that the speed is good, but the AI could use some help. If anyone has a problem with the speed of units, then they can download one of the numerous mods which reduce speed, or they could mod it themselves.

---

This does not work for MP game :embarassed: ~:pissed: ~:angry: ~:pissed:

Not to mention that as far as I have seen, those mods don't really do a good job at it, the most common mistake being that slowing down units just make them more tired when it comes to fight, there fore they break faster when it comes to fight...
Game is slowed... but it got some nasty side effects...

And anyway: this does not work for MP game :embarassed: ~:pissed: ~:angry: ~:pissed:

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

What I meant was (going overboard on) historical accuracy and realism.

---

Is history really that boring? I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Now, with MTW2, the girls are finally getting the attention they need and hopefully, enough. The gameplay gods will severely punish CA again if they failed to resist the temptation of getting even more girls/ideas into the game.

---

It remains to be seen doesn't it? This time however, I will wait until those whose opinions I respect report that this new game is actually worth buying

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

This does not work for MP game :embarassed: ~:pissed: ~:angry: ~:pissed:

Not to mention that as far as I have seen, those mods don't really do a good job at it, the most common mistake being that slowing down units just make them more tired when it comes to fight, there fore they break faster when it comes to fight...
Game is slowed... but it got some nasty side effects...

And anyway: this does not work for MP game :embarassed: ~:pissed: ~:angry: ~:pissed:

Louis,

---

My apoligies, Louis. I do not play multiplayer and was not aware that it doesn't work. We must continue to look to M2:TW and hope it corrects this problem!
:sweatdrop:

I just realized something, CA has decreased combat speeds. I have no doubt in my mind about this. Why? Because they have to. Had they simply kept the same movement and killing speeds as seen in RTW combat in MTW2 would look utterly ridiculous. Fast paced combat would ruin the special move laden, mano y mano combat in MTW2 that the devs are constantly talking about. It would look ridiculous if a guy is about to lay a finishing move on a wobbly opponent when that opponent is already laying in the dust, dead as dirt. It would also look positively comical if CA kept RTW's high speed combat and compensated by increasing the animation speed for the special combat moves; everything would look like a silent era action film.

Well they can easily reduce combat speed without doing anything to movement.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

I just realized something, CA has decreased combat speeds. I have no doubt in my mind about this. Why? Because they have to. Had they simply kept the same movement and killing speeds as seen in RTW combat in MTW2 would look utterly ridiculous.

---

Hopefully you are right. But Dawn of War had really good special killing moves etc and is still frenetically paced. Ditto Battle for Middle Earth. Logically, you are right, but maybe people are used to fancy images racing past their eyes from pop videos etc. (Boy, I'm starting to sound like a past it old fool: "kids today, I don't know, when I were a lad...")

I voted "speed detracts/AI okay". In my experience, the games AI never bothered me as much as the speed does. Maybe if I played RTW as much as some of you have I'd have a different impression of the AI, but from where I am with the game, the speed is the main killer.

BTW, excellent post Jambo. :2thumbsup:

I think this thread is rather invalid because CA has already confirmed that they will be improving both in a big way.

Papewaio :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Rusher

I think this thread is rather invalid because CA has already confirmed that they will be improving both in a big way.

---

And if they haven't, they would still say they have improved both in a big way. We don't even know what they mean by "improved", and I'm not spending $50 to find out that their idea of "improved in a big way" is a 5% reduction in battle speed.

I voted for the AI, as IMO it is something of a joke.

Thinking about it after reading posts, I did not realise how speed (or at least the mechanics of play) affected me.

Cavalry don't charge down fleeing enemies. I don't know how to make them do that. A gentle jog alongside appears to be closer to reality.
Archers fire far too infrequently / troops close far too fast. They can charge up a hill in full gear in the same time it takes to loose two volleys of arrows.
Once battle is enjoined it is a wait of about 20 seconds before one side bottles it unless the units are fanatical / generals are very high powered.

I don't want or need special kill scenes for every troop. I find the way they die already is OK.

What I WOULD like is that a pile of 100 bodies might perhaps slow the next wave down possibly????... Nah - but there's this cute cutscene when that soldier hits the other one... :wall:

I have almost given up bothering with unit types. No way I can tell the real difference in battle. Attack a phalanx in front or in the side doesn't make enough of a difference either (oh, and troops can somehow force themselves into a phalanx).

So, there are masses of new types of troops, but I still use them as archers, spearmen, swordmen and cavalry. The AI is generally so poor that as long as the unit is not obliterated I'll win by such a margin that I'll make up the losses easily.

In MTW I used to laugh out loud as my halbediers clanked in from the woods and meted out some punishment to some poor fools that were attacking some basic blocker unit. I honestly can't remember when I last bothered to do so - the enemy runs so quickly that I just chuck anything into a flank.

All in all the game has improved enough that it is better than the predecessor. But it has not been a universal march forward.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Attack a phalanx in front or in the side doesn't make enough of a difference either (oh, and troops can somehow force themselves into a phalanx).

---

I find that hard to believe. I guess the phalanx may turn if you don't pin it, but otherwise, it really does make a difference, front or side. For example, I've found levy pikemen can walkover Praetorians in a frontal battle. From the flank, there are few infantry that can't beat them.

Maybe the strengths and weaknesses of the phalanx formation are more apparent when you control them. The AI does such a bad job of keeping a solid phalanx line, you may not realise how formiddable it can be. (Until you unleash one on the poor AI).

If you want more of a challenge with RTW, try a realism mod. I tried a Julii campaign with SnakeIVs mod for RTR: Platinum. The beginning was very tough on VH/M (so tough, I've paused playing it :sweatdrop: ).