CA I beseech you! (With poll)

[Vuk]

I have not played ETW, or a demo, so I obviously do not know much about the game yet, but, the impression that I have gotten looking at the reviews, interviews, screenshots/videos, etc was that the game may be being rushed a bit, and certain aspects of it not as developed as they should be. In particular, I mean naval combat and the SP campaign map. Naval combat is the flagship of ETW, and is something that fans have wanted for a very long time, so I am sure that know how important it is that it is as well developed as land battles and up to Total War standards. (I have not seen the naval combat, so I am not sure if it is up to par with land battles or not, but reviews have made me suspect that it is not) Also, MP campaign is something that everyone has wanted for a long time, and could be one of the largest and most popular features of the new game. This is something that SHOULD be included with the game, not added on later. It is also something that needs to be up to par with the SP campaign.
I am not writing this to bash you CA, but to tell you that if you need more time you should just postpone the release a month or two if possible. Everyone WILL still buy the game, AND they will probably like it a lot more. I know that your distributers have deadlines on you, but I do not think that it would be an unwise business move to delay it a bit IF you need to to make sure that those parts of the game are up to Total War standards. I have been a fan of Total War from the start, and am sure that you will deliver an excellent game again, but please, if you need the time and if it is possible, just take the time to get it out right the first time.

Vuk

[Polemists]

is that it is as well developed as land battles

The land battles have been through FIVE total war games, and countless expansion packs going back YEARS. To expect the Naval Combat to be as good as Land with only one internetation and a handful of naval simulators to feed off of is silly.

If it's playable, and a little fun i'm fine with it. No need for a delay that I see.

[Sir Beane]

I'm going to have to vote No, because if CA delay the game again then I will die a little inside.

Since I want my soul to stay intact they need to release it without delay.

If there are things that need changing and fixing I think we can probably leave it in the capable hands of the modders.

[Wausser]

Voted No, I just can't take anymore delay....

[Fisherking]

I understand that we want a good playable game on release. And I understand the desire to have it as good as it can get when it comes out.

The down side of another delay is that it gives the appearance of incompetence. I don’t think that is a good image for a company to have.

Evidently CA felt that they could have the product ready with the additional month. Development is continuing with the multiplayer portion. It doesn’t mean it is limited to that, however.

I am sure they have weighed these options before making the decision to delay the first time.

Many games have delayed several times and still been crap on release. Time is not the only factor, unfortunately.

Naval Battles are new and the complexities of controlling many ships presents a hefty learning curve. 20 ships per side is huge for a naval simulator. If it plays well single ship or with a few then it should in theory play as well with the full number. The added difficulties are not going to be overcome at a development level, they have to be learned by the individual players.

People averse to the need to develop skills at a game are never going to love large naval battles and likely describe the land battles as needing micro management as well.

Some love this type of game while others stick to first person shooters…You don’t know which kind of person is writing the reviews but most have given us a reason to look forward to a great game and not to worry about an over complex half finished product.

[Vuk]

I understand that we want a good playable game on release. And I understand the desire to have it as good as it can get when it comes out.

The down side of another delay is that it gives the appearance of incompetence. I don’t think that is a good image for a company to have.

Evidently CA felt that they could have the product ready with the additional month. Development is continuing with the multiplayer portion. It doesn’t mean it is limited to that, however.

I am sure they have weighed these options before making the decision to delay the first time.

Many games have delayed several times and still been crap on release. Time is not the only factor, unfortunately.

Naval Battles are new and the complexities of controlling many ships presents a hefty learning curve. 20 ships per side is huge for a naval simulator. If it plays well single ship or with a few then it should in theory play as well with the full number. The added difficulties are not going to be overcome at a development level, they have to be learned by the individual players.

People averse to the need to develop skills at a game are never going to love large naval battles and likely describe the land battles as needing micro management as well.

Some love this type of game while others stick to first person shooters…You don’t know which kind of person is writing the reviews but most have given us a reason to look forward to a great game and not to worry about an over complex half finished product.

Definately, and I agree that CA will probably release an excellent game, but if naval battles are not what they should be an a TW game and campaign MP is not ready, I think that they deserve and owe it to the fans to take the time to fix that. I do not think that it would make them look incompetent. In fact, the only time I have ever heard CA be called incompetent was in reference to rushing releases like M2:TW (a game that I particularly love).
A good game takes a complex thing and makes it simple; that is what is so good about the Total War games. Land battles were so complex, but they represent them with a simple gameplay formula, while not losing a lot of accuracy and realism at the same time. If they can do that with naval battles, they will have a winner. I guess we will just have to see.

[Vuk]

I'm going to have to vote No, because if CA delay the game again then I will die a little inside.

Since I want my soul to stay intact they need to release it without delay.

If there are things that need changing and fixing I think we can probably leave it in the capable hands of the modders.

Modders cannot change hard coding. 2 months later you would enjoy the game even more, and a month from that you would have a higher opinion of CA, and not even care that the game was delayed a month or two.

The land battles have been through FIVE total war games, and countless expansion packs going back YEARS. To expect the Naval Combat to be as good as Land with only one internetation and a handful of naval simulators to feed off of is silly.

If it's playable, and a little fun i'm fine with it. No need for a delay that I see.

It cannot be as polished, definately, but it has to be solid. The first time CA did land battles they were solid, and they got better since then. A lot of things that they learned with land battles can be applied to naval battles as well, so there is no reason NOT to have a well developed naval combat system. (I know it does not have to be perfect, or as polished as land battles) I am not saying that it needs to be perfect the first time, just up to total war standards. And esp since naval combat is one of their biggest selling points, it would not be wise to go half butt.

[Sir Beane]

You are right about hard coded limits, but CA did promise that there are much fewer of those limits this time around.

I think my confidence in CA would be damaged more by them delaying the game again than the game having a few faults out of the box. Then can fix things in patches and expansions, but they can't give me a month or two of waiting time back.

It's all a matter of opinion though really, and if they really, really need to delay it to get something important working then I suppose I could live with it.

[Vuk]

I do not want to wait anymore than you, but at the end of the day, I think that CA would be more appreciated if they took the time needed to get it right. Again though, I do not know if it is not at an acceptable standard now, I am just saying that if they really do need the time to get it to that standard, I wish that they would take it. I really do not like the idea of the campaign MP being added on later for instance. I would be willing to bet that there would be less limitations in it if they did it all together. Now if they get 3/4 through it and see that they need to change some hard coding, it will be too late.

You are right about hard coded limits, but CA did promise that there are much fewer of those limits this time around.

I think my confidence in CA would be damaged more by them delaying the game again than the game having a few faults out of the box. Then can fix things in patches and expansions, but they can't give me a month or two of waiting time back.

It's all a matter of opinion though really, and if they really, really need to delay it to get something important working then I suppose I could live with it.

[Polemists]

Modders cannot change hard coding. 2 months later you would enjoy the game even more, and a month from that you would have a higher opinion of CA, and not even care that the game was delayed a month or two.

Actually you'd be surprised what our modders can do and actually no, since every other game just got delayed to Apri-June period I'd be playing something else by then. Mar only has Empire, so that'd be all I play.

It cannot be as polished, definately, but it has to be solid. The first time CA did land battles they were solid, and they got better since then. A lot of things that they learned with land battles can be applied to naval battles as well, so there is no reason NOT to have a well developed naval combat system. (I know it does not have to be perfect, or as polished as land battles) I am not saying that it needs to be perfect the first time, just up to total war standards. And esp since naval combat is one of their biggest selling points, it would not be wise to go half butt.

Firstly they are not the same lessons, since most people are whining about wind, movement, and tacking.

DId you play shogun? I did, and I remeber the reviews that described it as good but not perfect, and let's pull a quote here,

But the tactical game isn't perfect. There are a few formation problems. While it's pretty easy to arrange individual units, it's nearly impossible to move a whole army and maintain their facings and positions.

That's from IGN. Like I said, you guys completely forget how total war started with land battles. It was fun, not perfect.

That's all they are saying about naval, I did not see a single quote in that entire article that called it "broken", or "Unplayable" . The only comment I saw was "Chaotic" which is the exact same word they used to describe shogun land battles.

You expect to much, it's a fun game, I want it out and to play it. There is nothing else in march. CA can do patches and expansions later to address fan concerns.

[Vuk]

Actually you'd be surprised what our modders can do and actually no, since every other game just got delayed to Apri-June period I'd be playing something else by then. Mar only has Empire, so that'd be all I play.


Firstly they are not the same lessons, since most people are whining about wind, movement, and tacking.

DId you play shogun? I did, and I remeber the reviews that described it as good but not perfect, and let's pull a quote here,



That's from IGN. Like I said, you guys completely forget how total war started with land battles. It was fun, not perfect.

That's all they are saying about naval, I did not see a single quote in that entire article that called it "broken", or "Unplayable" . The only comment I saw was "Chaotic" which is the exact same word they used to describe shogun land battles.

You expect to much, it's a fun game, I want it out and to play it. There is nothing else in march. CA can do patches and expansions later to address fan concerns.

Polemists, you know as well as I that there is only so much that modders can do. Also, you know that you buy ETW if it was delayed, and you know that you would play it.
Also, it is like I said about shogun, the gameplay was not perfect, but it was SOLID. That is what I want from Empire, and I think that is what fans are expecting. Also, technology has improved, and CA has learned a lot since Shogun, so I think that most people would expect naval battles to be quite a bit more polished than Shogun's land battles. While wind and tacking does not apply, CA has made so many changes in morale, formations, AI, etc that a lot of will surely be applicable in naval battles, so it is not like they are starting as completely new as with Shogun.
I think you missed my entire point.

[Polemists]

Let's take these topics one at a time, shall we

Polemists, you know as well as I that there is only so much that modders can do. Also, you know that you buy ETW if it was delayed, and you know that you would play it.

That's a question of when. If it comes out in march, I buy it on day one, I have the money, they get my money. We are all happy.

If it comes out after april there are other games, and as much as I'd like to I can't buy everything , every month, I'd probably delay buying it a month or two if I felt another game was out I'd enjoy.

morale, formations, AI, etc that a lot of will surely be applicable in naval battles,

I don't think people would want to see ships sail in formation or you'd run into similiar facing issues as water is not a hard surface as land is in the bland battles. The AI has more smaller units, so it is less they have to get to move, restructure.

I havn't heard a single AI comment. I've only heard it felt "arcadey". I don't mind that, that's how Sid Miers felt, heck I even enjoyed it. I don't want overly tactical to point I have to micromanage the wind flaps. Neither do most new players. New players beat vets, fact of marketing, more 12 yr old gamers then mature ones, if you don't buy that just talk to world of warcraft.

are starting as completely new

They are starting completely new, it's a brand new engine, brand new coding, lots of new.


End of the day I don't see a single justification to delay. Those of you who want a delay can just wait till a expansion.

If the game is addictive and getting high 90% reviews I think it will do just fine. There always are nay sayers, Ca can't make everyone 100% happy. They can however make some money and make the rest of us happy

[Zenicetus]

I voted "no." Obviously they should take whatever time is needed to release a game that's reasonably free of first-order bugs, and fun to play. That's a given. But if the idea is that they'd use the time to make naval combat more realistic and fun (for those of us who do know how to sail), then that ship has already sailed... the horse is out of the barn... pick your metaphor.

The devs have decided that a majority of players won't want to deal with tacking against the wind, with an enforced "no go" zone as there is in real life. So they're allowing square riggers to sail directly upwind with a speed penalty. They're not going to change that design decision, at this point. And it doesn't sound to me like something that can be modded (since the AI has to deal with it also).

So the only thing that remains, is to see whether the speed penalty for sailing upwind means that both the player and the AI actually sail and tack in a reasonable way in relation to the wind direction... or whether we end up with battles that are nothing more than circular tail chases. We might as well be driving powerboats if that's what battles will be like. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I want to see a naval combat demo.

[knoddy]

i like how 1 90% PLUS review gives birth to these sorts of threads. Give the guys at CA a break. ps they will not delay it now, its too late. there would be murder on the streets if they did :P

also MP was never in the original plan, they delayed it a month just to include it so ye

[Sir Beane]

i like how 1 90% PLUS review gives birth to these sorts of threads. Give the guys at CA a break. ps they will not delay it now, its too late. there would be murder on the streets if they did :P

also MP was never in the original plan, they delayed it a month just to include it so ye

Sadly 90% plus doesn't mean a great deal these days. I fully expect that Empire, like Medieval 2, will get nothing but high scoring reviews regardless of bugs, flaws and other problems.

It was the comment about naval combat being sub-par that had people worried. CA seem to be trying to address that issue however, so I'm remaining reasonably confident ETW will be a great game.

[USS Providence 1972]

I have not played ETW, or a demo, so I obviously do not know much about the game yet, but, the impression that I have gotten looking at the reviews, interviews, screenshots/videos, etc was that the game may be being rushed a bit, and certain aspects of it not as developed as they should be. In particular, I mean naval combat and the SP campaign map. Naval combat is the flagship of ETW, and is something that fans have wanted for a very long time, so I am sure that know how important it is that it is as well developed as land battles and up to Total War standards. (I have not seen the naval combat, so I am not sure if it is up to par with land battles or not, but reviews have made me suspect that it is not) Also, MP campaign is something that everyone has wanted for a long time, and could be one of the largest and most popular features of the new game. This is something that SHOULD be included with the game, not added on later. It is also something that needs to be up to par with the SP campaign.
I am not writing this to bash you CA, but to tell you that if you need more time you should just postpone the release a month or two if possible. Everyone WILL still buy the game, AND they will probably like it a lot more. I know that your distributers have deadlines on you, but I do not think that it would be an unwise business move to delay it a bit IF you need to to make sure that those parts of the game are up to Total War standards. I have been a fan of Total War from the start, and am sure that you will deliver an excellent game again, but please, if you need the time and if it is possible, just take the time to get it out right the first time.

Vuk

Here is a video of a naval battle. It looks good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU

I saw a reference to trying to make the naval aspect more fun. If that means deeper or more realistic I'm all for it but I hope the resist the temptation to add arcade stuff simply to make the game "fun". If they make it realistic with good AI it will be plenty fun.

[Belgolas]

I don't know if any of you guys remember Star Craft but it was released good but has had basically a thousand patches(well seems like it) after release. They have changed so much since the beginng. Then there are other games like Supreme Commander where they added extra content and units and fun stuff. Then there is Half-Life 2 and it is a first person shooter for those people not privilaged enough to play it and there are mods that turn it into a RTS. Infact there are several mods that do that with upgrading units and mounting guns and stuff that the original HL2 didn't have. So what I am getting at is that it can be fixed. Even after release I see no reason why CA can't release a patch that can change hard code. Why couldn't they since it is just some files that can be replaced. So no worries.

Please no more delays.

Although even when the game is released and got a perfect 100/100 there would still be people that would wait six months for a few patches anyways. I and the majority of the public do not want that. Besides we haven't even played a demo (which should get released this week if it goes to tradition). So who knows if it is good or not.

[Zenicetus]

Here is a video of a naval battle. It looks good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU

That video clip begins with two square-rigged fleets approaching each other head-on. Think about that for a minute. Where's the wind? If it's abeam (coming from the side) then this might be possible, but then why aren't the sails showing that? Each fleet's sails are showing that they're being blown and filled out from astern, but that can't be possible. Okay, maybe the sails don't show wind direction... I can live with that. But it gets worse...

At the 2:00 mark, a ship is shown being selected and making a fairly quick turn to starboard. It's doing that with every sail reefed (not deployed) except for very small sails at the bow and stern. Why is that ship fighting with its sails furled, when other ships in view are showing full sail? This might be due to damage, if we're coming in at the middle of a battle. That would be fine, but you still can't maneuver a sailing ship like this, when it isn't using sails as the "engine." These aren't rowboats.

At 2:49, that same ship is shown deploying full sails, in less than one second. It shouldn't work like that. It looks like the game is allowing very rapid furling of sails to minimize damage, and then deploying full sail again, all with no real effect on the ship's movement or turning rate.

At 2:56 you can see exactly the kind of circular tail chase, with no regard to wind direction, that I've been worried about. They're driving around like powerboats.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

[Polemists]

The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting...

Your against the main stream here I'm afraid. CA has stated once they did play testing back when ships could not sail into the wind and most players found it boring and dull. So they improved it to make it more "fun". Now most tw veteran historians get mad at "fun" because that usually means lack of "history".

Fact is your average gamer prefers a Sid Meyers Pirate like game more then a intense tactical naval simulation. At least that seems to be the design decision of CA.

Of course no one has seen final product, so we will just have to wait and see.

I still say no. The only argument now I hear is, well if they need time, give them time.

Yet the arguments here was basically, should we give them time to fix naval and mp.

Naval seems a design decision and MP will take a looong time. So I don't see much of the argument anymore, the release date is about as gold as it can get.

[knoddy]

i think this thread just proves that u cant please everyone.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

hate to say it but u will be in a minority here. this will be the reason why CA chose a more arcady style of battle, because they know the majority of people like big epic battles.

i have to say i didnt mind Pirates, but then i wasnt after a naval battle simulator. and also despite the crazy turning u could do in pirates the wind still did have an effect. this is how i suspect it will be in Empire, the wind will have a role, it will just be toned down to make the game more playable and exciting. which im ok with.


and finally aside from the 1 review that said naval combat was a bit worrying or w/e it was. all the other reviews have been full of praise for the naval combat so how bout we wait for demo/release b4 we start criticizing everything we see.


also the camp map looks so damn sexy cant wait :D

Cheers knoddy

[Ituralde]

Concerning the question at hand here, whether I think that CA should delay the game if needed is really easy to answer, I think. The answer is of course yes! If the game crashes every other instant then it should not be shipped. Why didn't I vote it then? Because I don't think it would answer the question asked by Vuk. So much depends on the definition of the if needed part.

From what I've read you seem more interested in getting one of the following answered.
1) Do you think ETW is ready to release in its current state?
2) Would you still buy ETW if it came out one to two months later?

Especially 1) seems to be the issue of much discussion and speculation in this post. My personal oppinion on this is, that I believe ETW to be polised enough to make the March release date. But I would stlly buy ETW if it came out two month later. Of course I would be initially disappointed about it, but as a gamer you learn to live with delays.

So I hope that answers your question without changing the numbers of the poll too much, as I don' think the numbers hold much value to the question at hand.

Cheers!

Ituralde


Besides, where is the Gah! option?

[Fisherking]

Thanks for the video USS Providence 1972.

I have to say I will have to have the game or at least a demo in hand before I can pass judgment on the naval battles.

The instant setting and furling of sails is arcade-like. But I fear that 12 year olds are not going to want to wait for their top men and deck crews to rig sail. I can’t say I actually really expected a sailing sim. That would be a bit much for the parent company to stomach unless it was the total focus of the game, I fear, and even then they would want the “fun factor” to be higher.

The wind moved around about 45° from start to finish, and I don’t know what the strength was.

It was very hard to tell what shot they were firing. Chain may have been fired but it was obvious that round was much over used. Not less than three and perhaps five or even six ships sunk.

Capture didn’t seem to be a priority. If a prize crew was put aboard the one ship, I sure couldn’t see a result.

It was a decisive battle and it sure didn’t take much time. To me it was reckless by both the player and the AI…but it was quick!


The quote from the article above shows they are not going to delay so that discussion is mute.

Besides the quicker we get it the less tweaking to make it “fun” they can do.

Though with Steam and continuing support it won’t be possible to stop it…

[Zenicetus]

Your against the main stream here I'm afraid. CA has stated once they did play testing back when ships could not sail into the wind and most players found it boring and dull.

That's not how I remember it. What I remember is a CA rep posting a message here saying that they tried realistic tacking, and playtesters (internally, I assume) got confused when they told a ship to "go over there," and the ship turned 45 degrees to the opposite direction because you can't sail directly upwind. Or anywhere near that direction, with a square-rigger.

This is understandable, but it's a question of education. Players learn other things about warfare in this period. We had to learn about phalanxes in Rome. We had to learn about pikes and horse archers. Why shouldn't the naval combat be as tactically interesting as the land combat? Why should it be dumbed down like this? It's not rocket science. You can learn the points of sail, and why ships can't sail directly upwind without engines, with a few minute's study of the Wiki on sailing. The basics of sailing are much less complicated than learning all the minutae of land combat. Without it, the naval combat is an arcade game.

So they improved it to make it more "fun". Now most tw veteran historians get mad at "fun" because that usually means lack of "history".

Do you know why many people still own, and even race sailboats, even though it's a totally outmoded form of transportation on the water? It's because sailing is fun! It's a challenge to move a boat with just wind power. Sailboat racing is fun too, and it involves exactly the same tactics as combat at sea.

Steering ships around as if they had engines and screw props can be fun too, but let's make that a WWI game about the golden age of dreadnought battleships, not the golden age of expansion of Empires by sailing fleets.

Naval seems a design decision and MP will take a looong time. So I don't see much of the argument anymore, the release date is about as gold as it can get.

I agree. But it won't stop some of us from wishing it could have been more.

[USS Providence 1972]

That video clip begins with two square-rigged fleets approaching each other head-on. Think about that for a minute. Where's the wind? If it's abeam (coming from the side) then this might be possible, but then why aren't the sails showing that? Each fleet's sails are showing that they're being blown and filled out from astern, but that can't be possible. Okay, maybe the sails don't show wind direction... I can live with that. But it gets worse...

At the 2:00 mark, a ship is shown being selected and making a fairly quick turn to starboard. It's doing that with every sail reefed (not deployed) except for very small sails at the bow and stern. Why is that ship fighting with its sails furled, when other ships in view are showing full sail? This might be due to damage, if we're coming in at the middle of a battle. That would be fine, but you still can't maneuver a sailing ship like this, when it isn't using sails as the "engine." These aren't rowboats.

At 2:49, that same ship is shown deploying full sails, in less than one second. It shouldn't work like that. It looks like the game is allowing very rapid furling of sails to minimize damage, and then deploying full sail again, all with no real effect on the ship's movement or turning rate.

At 2:56 you can see exactly the kind of circular tail chase, with no regard to wind direction, that I've been worried about. They're driving around like powerboats.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

I understand what you are saying. The devs responded to the review which complained about naval battles being too complicated by saying they were doing things to make them more fun. I'm not sure whether this video is before or after that change. Perhaps there will be a mod available to make the sailing more realistic?

Either way I'm looking forward to fighting the naval battles and adjusting to whatever realism level there is. It sure beats the RTW way of simming all naval battles.

[Buckwallis]

What's the past tense of beseeched? Besought? I wonder if CA has ever been besought.

No delay...let's have at it already. It can always be patched....

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, it's likely way too late already anyway. It's almost gone on sale - DVDs have been written, boxes made, logistics arranged.

If you had asked half a year ago or more, I'd say - take the time to make it good. Hopefully they've done that, seeing as they have delayed once.

CR