The "feel" of the game(s) / A brief foray into RTW:BI

[Roark]

Remember all the posts over the years by MTW afficionados who struggle to explain the many ways in which MTW is superior to its series counterparts? It often comes down to the "feel" of the battle field, the "immersion", or other slightly intangible factors which can be hard to put into words...

So anyway, I got a major system upgrade and thought I'd have another crack at RTW:BI now that I have more than 256mb of RAM.

Man, it's depressing... It looks really nice at first, and you've got a whole bunch of attributes for characters, but once you hit the battlefield WHOA. Chaos. Heavy cavalry can steamroll pretty much anything, even spears. When you charge into a formation, there is no cohesion on either side. Just a mess of mixed troops. Kinda hard to play the "genius puppet-master" in that situation. A 3 star general is pretty much guaranteed to slaughter any army with no command stars, regardless of size. Archers are freaking deadly!!! You can deplete a unit by half with just a couple of rounds of missile fire!! None of my battles have lasted more than 5 or so real-time minutes, and I've never lost more than 30 troops in any battle.

I thought that maybe, after this long, some patches might have been developed to improve the game to the point where it might be enjoyable or a little closer to MTW, play-wise, but it seems like the basic game mechanics are profoundly flawed.

Sorry for the whine. I posted it here because I didn't want to offend any die-hard RTW fans. I just needed to offload some of my chronic depression...

So many cool iron-age European tribes... So many interesting units... Multiple siege options... Sweet looking campaign map...

It could've been so cool if they just tarted up the graphics for the MTW battle engine and firmed up the campaign map AI...

Anyway, you've heard all this before. I hope I haven't given anyone the irrits too badly.

Anyone know any games made by other developers that are comparable to, or better than, MTW:VI?

Thanks for listening.

[Martok]

No need to apologize for the rant, mate.


As it happens, I myself actually spent some time playing RTW/BI this past weekend while I was home and visiting a friend's house -- I confess that lately I'd been toying with the idea of picking up a copy (since I can pick it up for about only $20.00 these days). However, a few hours with the game were enough to cure me of any temptation I might've had to do so. The AI, the battlefields, and the combat mechanics were all about as bad as I'd remembered. Barbarian Invasion does seem to improve things marginally -- I actually once saw the AI attack me en masse instead of piecemeal -- but not enough to be worth it.

It's sad, really. Rome had a lot of potential.

It could've been so cool if they just tarted up the graphics for the MTW battle engine and firmed up the campaign map AI...

Agreed. I think most people would've been thrilled if RTW had simply been MTW with a graphics upgrade. (Indeed, I think that's what many of us were expecting at first.)

Anyone know any games made by other developers that are comparable to, or better than, MTW:VI?

Depends on what aspects of MTW you like the most. I've seen numerous recommendations for both Knights of Honor and Europa Universalis 3.

Personally, I also very much enjoy Lords of the Realm II. It's an old game -- I believe it was released in 1997 -- but I still play it now and then. It's one of those titles that never leaves my hard drive.

[Lokiss]

I actually have a good system, good RAM, good video card, etc but it's always run kind of... sluggish on my computer, patched and everything. It's annoying, and so is the troop movement change. I liked the risk board style more.

[Tony Furze]

I'd second Knights of Honor as a close game to MTW campaignwise. It's battle system is greatly inferior but the campaign has a real depth that's a pleasure to play.

[caravel]

...you've got a whole bunch of attributes for characters

Confusing and overly complex retinues and traits. They are a great idea but trying to decipher their effects requires a pen and paper. There should have been a better breakdown with the information displayed in a tabular form with the end results i.e. +2 command, -2 morale, +1 influence etc in plain black and white.

...but once you hit the battlefield WHOA. Chaos. Heavy cavalry can steamroll pretty much anything, even spears.

I think it's hard to get used to if you're coming from MTW. Spear units come in two types: Those with Phalanx ability and those without. Those without are not the same as your MTW spear units, even when in guard mode (Hold Formation/Hold Position). For cavalry destruction and generally very strong defence, you need phalanx units. There is not much chance of even heavy cavalry surviving for long when charging a unit of Armoured Hoplites head on. Also remember that your generals' cavalry units are 2 hit point units which basically means that every man in the unit takes two critical hits to kill. This is what makes them seem overpowered.

When you charge into a formation, there is no cohesion on either side. Just a mess of mixed troops. Kinda hard to play the "genius puppet-master" in that situation

Well this is pretty much how battles would have been, not fighting in solid blocks but becoming fragmented and intermingled. It's confusing at first but IMHO this is one small improvement.

A 3 star general is pretty much guaranteed to slaughter any army with no command stars, regardless of size

Not in my experience. In MTW/VI an army composed of crap units could take on anything if they had a 9 star general leading them. This is definitely not the case in RTW where your units individual merits count for more.

Archers are freaking deadly!!! You can deplete a unit by half with just a couple of rounds of missile fire!!

Yes archers are grossly overpowered, and the physics are all wrong for missile flight in general.

None of my battles have lasted more than 5 or so real-time minutes, and I've never lost more than 30 troops in any battle.

Yes the battles are far too fast because the movement rates are unrealistically fast and there is poor balance as regards morale, fatigue and general kill rate. Morale also appears imbalanced but that is also down to kill rates.

As for the campaign map, it's not perfect and it took me a long time to get into it, but I can now see it's merits and find it quite playable.

Have any of you thought of trying any of the mods such as EB or RTR?

[drone]

As for the campaign map, it's not perfect and it took me a long time to get into it, but I can now see it's merits and find it quite playable.

To me, the campaign map was manageable with a small number of cities, but once your empire got medium-sized it became very cumbersome, especially dealing with agents and rebels. The TW series in general have lacked the "cities summary" screen that many TBS games have that allows a quick glance and control over multiple cities' status and build queues. For me, the in-turn battles compounded the campaign map management issues, they tended to break up my train of thought. I eventually just forced myself to do break a turn into sub-turns, with a city phase, then an agent phase, then a troop and ship phase, then combat, then cleanup. Still took forever though. So, what's your secret?

[caravel]

To me, the campaign map was manageable with a small number of cities, but once your empire got medium-sized it became very cumbersome, especially dealing with agents and rebels. The TW series in general have lacked the "cities summary" screen that many TBS games have that allows a quick glance and control over multiple cities' status and build queues. For me, the in-turn battles compounded the campaign map management issues, they tended to break up my train of thought. I eventually just forced myself to do break a turn into sub-turns, with a city phase, then an agent phase, then a troop and ship phase, then combat, then cleanup. Still took forever though. So, what's your secret?

Pretty much the same as you and I find the large empires tedious - though the same goes for MTW. Once an empire has become large enough to be quite secure I tend to give up anyway.

[Mooks]

Pretty much the same as you and I find the large empires tedious - though the same goes for MTW. Once an empire has become large enough to be quite secure I tend to give up anyway.

Glad im not the only person that does this. When your not shifting a army or two around constantly to repel invasions from all sides, or waiting for that to happen, then its just not that fun.

I liked RTW though. The risk board isnt my thing, and I liked having to choose my battleground (even if occasionally I get the downside of the mountain and the enemy attacks from the above ground). It defintely could use some tweaking, the unrest thing was a game killer. Its almost impossible to roleplay in that game.

[Drunk-Monk]

Despite its fault's I enjoy RTW, however only when it is modded. Otherwise the Battles make me want to quit, because they require little strategy and are generally over in around 3 1/2 minutes.

I don't find the campaing management a problem, to be honest MTW always seemed harder seeing as every province seemed to have 30 buildings + and the titles, armour and morale bonus's always seemed so time consuming, trivial and pointless. (Sorry to all the micro-managers out there)

[Roark]

Well, I just spent 8 or 9 campaign seasons chasing microscopic remnants of a Hun Horde around the map to get them out of my territory.

*uninstalls*

[caravel]

I don't play BI myself so I don't know about that. If you're looking for a better game than MTW or STW you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for something to move on to after you've exhausted all other possibilities and mods with MTW, then RTW is ok, if you give it a chance and don't expect too much. Did you try any of the mods?

[Roark]

Sadly, I don't have internet at the moment, bro. Otherwise, I would have definitely taken your advice. Hell, if you think it's playable, then it must be. Just not for poor old unmodded me...

I really enjoyed getting down into the battlefield action with the camera. Very pretty. I just can't see how my skills as a general added value amongst the mess. In 2 out of 3 battles, I was sending my archers charging in for the crescendo, just because I knew it would rout the enemy troops due to numbers and/or surround penalties. That just ain't right... Oh well.

[caravel]

I really enjoyed getting down into the battlefield action with the camera. Very pretty. I just can't see how my skills as a general added value amongst the mess. In 2 out of 3 battles, I was sending my archers charging in for the crescendo, just because I knew it would rout the enemy troops due to numbers and/or surround penalties. That just ain't right... Oh well.

Yes when I first got the game I also went through the phase of watching my cavalry collide with the enemy infantry. Nowadays I rarely zoom right in as it makes no sense whatsoever from a tactical viewpoint.

Another important step is to read at least the first part of frogbeastegg's guide and turn off the crap that makes the battles look a joke: The horrible interface and the green arrow markers. Once you've done this It's also a good idea to hit F6 when a battle starts to give you the line of familiar icons along the top of the screen that we all know and love (or something similar to them). These do appear when you mouse over the top of the screen but it's very annoying and they often appear by accident when you're trying to select a unit. I also disable all the voices and all of the movies and enable the classic TW style camera controls (disables the awful RTS style controls that many of the RTW players love and highly recommend). Making all factions playable is also vital unless you're happy with CA deciding that you need to win a campaign with the Romans first? For those of you that are as sickened by the default setup of RTW as I was, this makes a big difference. Maybe not enough to sway you to like the game but perhaps enough to make it tolerable enough to spend a few hours on every once in a while.

[Axalon]

Hey Roark,

I’ve done a little something for MTW called erhhrrm…… hrmm……….................……… Yes and perhaps you could try that?!? Maybe that would make you happier?

- Cheers
(Is it ok to do what I just did here? I am bit uncertain. Anyone care to share some guidelines with me here for the future?)

[Martok]

Axalon: If you're referring to your Redux mod, feel free to start a new thread here.

[DisruptorX]

Rome: Total War is pretty much a disaster for the reasons listed above. The game plays in fast forward, and cavalry is pretty much as broken as you describe. More time is spent re-sacking your own cities to prevent revolt than is spent fighting the enemy.

If you want MTW in 3d, check out MTW 2. It misses many of the great things MTW 1 had, but it brings back the strategic combat and is a pleasure to watch the armies in action. It restored my faith in the series, which I had given up on with Rome. Most of the main problems (unit movement occasionally bugging) are simply related to re-using the Rome engine.

[Roark]

I’ve done a little something for MTW called erhhrrm…… hrmm……….................……… Yes and perhaps you could try that?!? Maybe that would make you happier?

I'm deeply confused...

[Axalon]

Hi again Roark, (and everybody else as well)

I will be a little bit clearer for you. I have done a major mod for MTW (MTW-Redux) and its free and available right here at the Org. The only thing it will cost you is your attention and some 20-30 min of waiting for the download(s) and it is compatible with all the usual versions of MTW. Since it’s quite different from the original game it might very well offer you some new fun for a few months to come. Perhaps you should try it out? And maybe this will cheer you up some?

All the info and stuff is available over here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106497


Sorry for the side-jumping in this thread.

- Cheers

[Roark]

Cool! Thanks man!

[Axalon]

My pleasure, Roark.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Feel free to join the discussion regarding redux over at it's regular thread with questions or anything else you might want to share about it.

[Koga No Goshi]

Remember all the posts over the years by MTW afficionados who struggle to explain the many ways in which MTW is superior to its series counterparts? It often comes down to the "feel" of the battle field, the "immersion", or other slightly intangible factors which can be hard to put into words...

So anyway, I got a major system upgrade and thought I'd have another crack at RTW:BI now that I have more than 256mb of RAM.

Man, it's depressing... It looks really nice at first...

Sorry for the whine. I posted it here because I didn't want to offend any die-hard RTW fans. I just needed to offload some of my chronic depression...

So many cool iron-age European tribes... So many interesting units... Multiple siege options... Sweet looking campaign map...

It could've been so cool if they just tarted up the graphics for the MTW battle engine and firmed up the campaign map AI...

Anyway, you've heard all this before. I hope I haven't given anyone the irrits too badly.

Anyone know any games made by other developers that are comparable to, or better than, MTW:VI?

Thanks for listening.

I feel the same way as you. Some "oomph" was gained in some ways starting with RTW. But also, quite a bit of "oomph" was lost. As you say, they are mostly inexplicable things that aren't easy to fingerpoint. But I have felt the same as you for quite some time, but it was a vague feeling and I suspected the change in "feel" and "atmosphere" would be called out as being just old boy purism. (Which, maybe, a little, it is.)

I don't think it's something really localized in Total War. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an opinion from me about games in general, of all genres, of the last five or six years that is hands-down more positive than you would have heard 7-10 years ago. I think the frantic, helter-skelter manic panic rush to cash in on the "casual market" has had an effect on every single genre, including the most hardcore of RPG and strategy games. And I think that however subtle (although in most cases it's overt and not subtle) the trend has been to fixate ever more on things like graphics, impressive graphics engines, levels of graphical detail and rendering that are completely aesthetic and insanely resource-intensive, and much less emphasis on gameplay innovation or creativity, story, options, etc. I think the attitude there largely has been "well we left editors/back doors open for you guys to hack up the game and mod it yourself" while game designers seem hellbent on capturing that perfectly realistic reflective water that ups the system requirements by 30% while contributing nothing to the game that will make a loyal fan.

This is not to say that the Total Wars have been dismal disappointments or aren't still extremely high quality strategy games. I consider them to still be basically the pinnacle of what's out there in terms of well developed, high profile strategy games. And I think they have "dumbed down" far less than most other games have in the last five years in the mad rush to capture casual gamers. (I think, though, that the day they announce that a Total War release will happen on PC after its console release, it's all downhill from that moment, mark my words-- taking a complex game and dumbing it down to something that can be easily navigated with six handheld buttons has lobotomized plenty of other high quality game series that hybridized out to consoles to capture more casuals.) But I think this trend to temporarily attract superficial players to games for things like graphical effects (it's the best-looking thing out there right now, but I won't be playing it anymore in two weeks type gamers) has had a dominant hand in game design for several years now, and I'm hoping a backlash to it or at least the emerging of even LARGER numbers (out of all the new gamers being exposed) of people who want genre specific, gameplay oriented games over simple flashy casual ones will rectify the industry/game market. (Not counting on it, but hoping.)

Again, Total war has probably suffered the least from this out of all the game series I have played and followed over the last five/ten years. But I think this bigger effect is at least a little of what people "sniff twice" about regarding the most recent Total Wars, wondering if the paint has a funny smell or what the problem is that they just can't pinpoint.

I think this line you said sums it up nicely, as a general comment about the direction of game advancements of the last five years:

Man, it's depressing... It looks really nice at first...

[Koga No Goshi]

Rome: Total War is pretty much a disaster for the reasons listed above. The game plays in fast forward, and cavalry is pretty much as broken as you describe. More time is spent re-sacking your own cities to prevent revolt than is spent fighting the enemy.

If you want MTW in 3d, check out MTW 2. It misses many of the great things MTW 1 had, but it brings back the strategic combat and is a pleasure to watch the armies in action. It restored my faith in the series, which I had given up on with Rome. Most of the main problems (unit movement occasionally bugging) are simply related to re-using the Rome engine.

I'm both shocked and relieved to see so many people saying the same thing. I regained a positive attitude about Total War, at least somewhat, after MTW2. I didn't like some of the aspects of RTW's changes it kept like I hate the walk system with the progress bar and having to practically handhold your units across large distances because the thing doesn't let you tell them to just walk to x destination unless it's a short distance. I got really worried when RTW was first out because it attracted a huge fanbase to the series who neither played nor cared about the earlier games, and really just came because of the graphics and the buzz/hype and the fact that it was set in OMG ROME. I hope that Total War stays somewhat in the pre-modern eras because the creeping towards modern settings that so many strategy games do somehow seems to turn every series into Rise of Nations sooner or later. I pretty much find post-gunpowder warfare/tactics to be boring and uninteresting to follow, let alone command. (Subjective, I know, but I feel like so many "modern" war games are out there that the ones that excel at simulating ancient warfare styles should stay there, and not go make a "Napoleon Total War" or whatever.

Sigh... that's what I get for staying away too long. I peak in the next TW forum and see that it's exactly what I hoped they wouldn't do. ;)

[Martok]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I feel the same way as you. Some "oomph" was gained in some ways starting with RTW. But also, quite a bit of "oomph" was lost. As you say, they are mostly inexplicable things that aren't easy to fingerpoint. But I have felt the same as you for quite some time, but it was a vague feeling and I suspected the change in "feel" and "atmosphere" would be called out as being just old boy purism. (Which, maybe, a little, it is.)

I don't think it's something really localized in Total War. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an opinion from me about games in general, of all genres, of the last five or six years that is hands-down more positive than you would have heard 7-10 years ago. I think the frantic, helter-skelter manic panic rush to cash in on the "casual market" has had an effect on every single genre, including the most hardcore of RPG and strategy games. And I think that however subtle (although in most cases it's overt and not subtle) the trend has been to fixate ever more on things like graphics, impressive graphics engines, levels of graphical detail and rendering that are completely aesthetic and insanely resource-intensive, and much less emphasis on gameplay innovation or creativity, story, options, etc. I think the attitude there largely has been "well we left editors/back doors open for you guys to hack up the game and mod it yourself" while game designers seem hellbent on capturing that perfectly realistic reflective water that ups the system requirements by 30% while contributing nothing to the game that will make a loyal fan.

This is not to say that the Total Wars have been dismal disappointments or aren't still extremely high quality strategy games. I consider them to still be basically the pinnacle of what's out there in terms of well developed, high profile strategy games. And I think they have "dumbed down" far less than most other games have in the last five years in the mad rush to capture casual gamers. (I think, though, that the day they announce that a Total War release will happen on PC after its console release, it's all downhill from that moment, mark my words-- taking a complex game and dumbing it down to something that can be easily navigated with six handheld buttons has lobotomized plenty of other high quality game series that hybridized out to consoles to capture more casuals.) But I think this trend to temporarily attract superficial players to games for things like graphical effects (it's the best-looking thing out there right now, but I won't be playing it anymore in two weeks type gamers) has had a dominant hand in game design for several years now, and I'm hoping a backlash to it or at least the emerging of even LARGER numbers (out of all the new gamers being exposed) of people who want genre specific, gameplay oriented games over simple flashy casual ones will rectify the industry/game market. (Not counting on it, but hoping.)

Again, Total war has probably suffered the least from this out of all the game series I have played and followed over the last five/ten years. But I think this bigger effect is at least a little of what people "sniff twice" about regarding the most recent Total Wars, wondering if the paint has a funny smell or what the problem is that they just can't pinpoint.

I think this line you said sums it up nicely, as a general comment about the direction of game advancements of the last five years:

Man, it's depressing... It looks really nice at first...

An interesting and well-thought-out post, Koga. Definitely food for thought.

I hope that Total War stays somewhat in the pre-modern eras because the creeping towards modern settings that so many strategy games do somehow seems to turn every series into Rise of Nations sooner or later. I pretty much find post-gunpowder warfare/tactics to be boring and uninteresting to follow, let alone command. (Subjective, I know, but I feel like so many "modern" war games are out there that the ones that excel at simulating ancient warfare styles should stay there, and not go make a "Napoleon Total War" or whatever.

As it happens, I completely agree. I dislike the thought of the series going anytime past the Renaissance era. (I'm already not happy about Empire's time period, but I'm reserving judgment until I actually see/play the game.) I especially cringe every time someone suggests a Total War game set during either of the World Wars -- the TW style of gameplay simply would not lend itself very well to those conflicts.

[Koga No Goshi]

An interesting and well-thought-out post, Koga. Definitely food for thought.



As it happens, I completely agree. I dislike the thought of the series going anytime past the Renaissance era. (I'm already not happy about Empire's time period, but I'm reserving judgment until I actually see/play the game.) I especially cringe every time someone suggests a Total War game set during either of the World Wars -- the TW style of gameplay simply would not lend itself very well to those conflicts.

Empires: Total War, what little I see/know of it, looks way too much like Age of Empires III. The game that, in my mind, effectively murdered the Age of Empires series and it will remain dead unless a new, truer to AOE roots sequel emerges and resurrects it. And I find, like you, pretty much the war and politics of the 18th through late 19th centuries boring. It's such a different style from ancient warfare that I don't know why all the games that rock at ancient empire battle always feel compelled to creep up the timeline and do rifles and cannons.

Spears, bows, horses and swords =/= bayonets, trenches, guns and howitzers.

[HansMoser]

Actually, after having played a lot of "fancy" Strategy Games in the past (early C&C series till Generals, Warcraft 3 etc.), and having tried and found to like tactical games as well ("Myth" at its release, gave me a blast, or the long forgotten "Z") I recently rediscovered Shogun:Total War and MTW:VI in my CD rack.
Thinking, the graphics might be outdated and that my brand new flatscreen couldn't handle the resolution, I played around a little with both of them, but since MTW:VI crashed a lot (all thanks to my new graphics card) I left it alone and went along to buy MTW 2.
After having played it for a few hours, I found it hardly addictive and not really alike the old MTW (great campaign map and graphics aside) so I messed around with MTW:VI. After I got it to run, I played for 5 hours straight, just so my Danish empire could conquer the whole east and then be thoroughly eradicated by the Byzantines.

Anyhow, the feeling of vanilla MTW is so different from the new one, the battles are tough (also thanks to XL mod), a lot of factions and a campaign which I found to be more straightforward.
Adressing the trend towards casual players: with the last epic RPG, namely "Planescape Torment", the software industry ceased to develop games with great story, well-thought out backgrounds and innovative gaming, maybe with one or two exceptions.
All in all I hope that the current trend will somehow stop, and that monopolistic publishers will stop buying developer studios and trash good ideas for the sake of success on the mass market.

[Ironsword]

^^ Completely agree with all of the above posts.

However, I downloaded an update for my nVidia graphics card about a month ago and subsequently have had major problems with M:TW ever since.

After going through the sweats, pangs and panic attacks I installed R:TW in cold turkey induced delirium. As Martok might put it, it's like having the cool, attractive girl from the library, but losing her because I bought a diamond stud for my tooth. Now, the smokin' hot blonde however, loves it, but i'm really not into her...

Oh deary, deary me, I'm ranting. I want my M:TW back. See what drivel i'm reduced to without it!

[caravel]

Create a support thread in the apothecary you may get some help with that. The fact that it worked before the update is encouraging.

[Ironsword]

^^ I'll give it a try.

Thanks Caravel.

[Lokiss]

^^ Completely agree with all of the above posts.

However, I downloaded an update for my nVidia graphics card about a month ago and subsequently have had major problems with M:TW ever since.

After going through the sweats, pangs and panic attacks I installed R:TW in cold turkey induced delirium. As Martok might put it, it's like having the cool, attractive girl from the library, but losing her because I bought a diamond stud for my tooth. Now, the smokin' hot blonde however, loves it, but i'm really not into her...

Oh deary, deary me, I'm ranting. I want my M:TW back. See what drivel i'm reduced to without it!

I've been there, with nvidia. I used to switch to my onboard video card, but found upgrading to Windows XP Service Pack 3 solved it for me. No more CTDs with nvidia.

[Tony Furze]

I feel really guilty that I have this RTW game sent all the way over by my Mum... Is there no way to redeem it???

Which is the most decent mod that turns it into a decent game..?