Has anything really changed from CA?

[Didz]

Judging from the increase in sales of ETW over the previous two releases, a lot of folks disagree with that. Don't get me wrong.......

Well I bought it because I believed the sales spin that it was a historical strategy game. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else with an interest in wargaming or history, and the only reason I'm still playing it is because I found some mods to correct most of the errors, and managed to work out how to switch off all the fantasy units.

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

[Fisherking]

Well I bought it because I believed the sales spin that it was a historical strategy game. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else with an interest in wargaming or history, and the only reason I'm still playing it is because I found some mods to correct most of the errors, and managed to work out how to switch off all the fantasy units.

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

Which are you calling fantasy units?

There are things they have done in the game that disturb me and from a decent beginning, less the crashes and bugs of course, I see it getting farther and farther away.

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

Why do the French lack light dragoons but have rifles. Why does Austria lack rifles other than the air rifles and that is only two units. They also lack regular dragoons, at least in Europe.

Some of the things just seem totally subjective and I can’t see any reason for it, game play or anything else.

It would seem they are searching for their audience but only see the three hecklers in the back row and are trying to please all the wrong people.

[Didz]

Which are you calling fantasy units?

Basically, any unit which would not have been available to the faction in question at the time depicted, or which would not be capable of being used in the role that the game allows it to be used in.

So, for example I have currently turned off. Native America Artillery, Native American Lancers, Bomb-Ketches and Rocket Ships. The main things I wanted to be rid of were the bomb-ketches and rocket ships, which are basically only in the game as a sop to the American flag and could never have been used in the way depicted by the game.

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

I know what you mean. The sad fact is that if they just stuck to the historical theme the results would be far more playable and interesting. For example: Why depict the Royal Ecossais in kilts when their real uniform was just as distinctive and interesting?

To me such things are insulting, its basically the game company saying we think that your all too stupid to cope with a game that's historically accurate so to make it easier for you to understand and play we are going to give you the 'dumbed-down' version. Its terribly demeaning to be treated like an idiot, and as a customer I object to it, but its a common trait when producing products for the American market particularly when the supplier is an American company, and you get it a lot in film and entertainment industry. For example the title of the film 'Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone' had to be changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' and the entire film re-dubbed for American audiences just because the American distributors thought their audiences would be confused, and yet a Frenchman, German or Dutchman who did not even speak the language managed to understand it.

The other driving force behind a lot of these changes is of course the multi-player sub-game. Something that I don't have the slightest interest in and will never play but seems to be 'the tail thats wagging the dog' on a lot of these ridiculous 'play-balancing' idea's. Personally, I have nothing against the multi-player sub-game as long as it doesn't have any impact on the actual game itself. So, if they want to stick fantasy units and over-powered rowing boats in the MP game, I have no problems with that as long as they don't appear in the campaign. Just give the MP community their own version of the unit tables or something, then you can stick whatever you like in there and I don't give a monkey's.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

I reached that point with M2 and gave it away to a friend...........RTW only gets played because of all the mods, and the only one that gets played with any regularity is Samurai Warlords...........

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

I do not mind ahistorical units or situations that may be placed in a game. They can make for fun diversions when you get tired of the same old, same old. But there should be in-game functions to turn them off when you don't want them.

The other driving force behind a lot of these changes is of course the multi-player sub-game. Something that I don't have the slightest interest in and will never play but seems to be 'the tail thats wagging the dog' on a lot of these ridiculous 'play-balancing' idea's.

I might agree with that, but........that's where the money is and, whether one likes it or not, that is the bottom line.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Well, I steadfastly refused to buy the game, given what happened with M2TW (I loved RTW, though--still play it regularly). I must say that I'm very glad that I did: from what I see posted on these boards every few months, little has changed. The game still came out half-finished, and that's unacceptable. The only question that I have left, really, is if they'll pull another M2TW and stop fixing it so that they can release their next titles instead. Honestly, I kind of hope they do, so that more of us will learn our lesson for the next time.

[econ21]

I might agree with that, but........that's where the money is and, whether one likes it or not, that is the bottom line.

I don't think the TW money is in the multi-player scene - I suspect only a small minority of TW players do MP.

But in a more general sense, I agree with you - the money is not in a historically realistic game. Rather, CA, particularly Lusted, see better "balancing" as improving the historically flavoured game (both SP and MP) that most customers want to buy.

Ditto putting Scots in kilts, including rocket ships, mortars and other anachronistic battlegear, RTW Egyptians in Moses era outfits, geishas in STW etc - it's what is thought will most appeal to the mass market audience.

Personally, I am probably not in that target market but I can live and let live, so long as realism mods are possible. I still find TW a much more engaging platform for historical wargaming than most of the more drab hardcore games.

I loved RTW, though--still play it regularly

Um, if you loved RTW, not buying M2TW and may be ETW could be your loss. M2TW is very similar to RTW, but with better AI. I can't see why anyone would love RTW and not like M2TW, unless it was due to lack of interest in the period.

ETW is a more revolutionary change and only time will tell if the AI has kept up with the change in the game engine. At the moment, it reminds me of RTW in that the AI has so far not kept up with the changes (in RTW, the changes were the move from the Risk style map and the change in the battlefield engine; in ETW, the changes include the reduced number of provinces per faction, trading theatres and the greater importance of naval operations).

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Um, if you loved RTW, not buying M2TW and may be ETW could be your loss. M2TW is very similar to RTW, but with better AI. I can't see why anyone would love RTW and not like M2TW, unless it was due to lack of interest in the period.

ETW is a more revolutionary change and only time will tell if the AI has kept up with the change in the game engine. At the moment, it reminds me of RTW in that the AI has so far not kept up with the changes (in RTW, the changes were the move from the Risk style map and the change in the battlefield engine; in ETW, the changes include the reduced number of provinces per faction, trading theatres and the greater importance of naval operations).

You misread my post. I did buy M2TW (not Kingdoms), and was sorely disappointed by the quality of the game. The most egregious of my problems was that I could not control battles myself for the first six months, until a patch was released to fix the specific problem I was having (one frame per minute or so due to bugs with the animation). I was even more disappointed in the decision to stop fixing M2TW so as to release Kingdoms, and the subsequent decision to stop fixing Kingdoms so as to release ETW. These decisions have resulted in three unfinished games with serious bugs and promised but non-existent features, and that's just not acceptable to me.

Again, you did not read my post properly. My reasons for not purchasing ETW have nothing to do with the style of the game, or with its perceived dissimilarity to RTW: they have to do with the quality of the products which I purchased after RTW, which seems to have been in steady decline. Reading these boards since ETW's release, I find few indications to the contrary. I mentioned RTW because I considered its engine and concept to be significant improvements over MTW's, and not just mere graphics-glitz. RTW certainly had a number of problems, yes, but in my estimation they were fairly minor and were largely fixed before M2TW was released. This was not at all my experience with M2TW.

I would love to play ETW, or to properly enjoy M2TW--but that's extremely hard to do when I am forced into the role of an un-consenting beta tester, and when the efforts to complete the game and streamline the product are half-assed at best, and quickly abandoned for the empty promises that come with a new release. Many people have enjoyed M2TW, Kingdoms, and ETW, and that's great. Nonetheless, I stand by my decision and refuse to purchase any more half-finished products from the TW line.

[Slaists]

Basically, any unit which would not have been available to the faction in question at the time depicted, or which would not be capable of being used in the role that the game allows it to be used in.

So, for example I have currently turned off. Native America Artillery, Native American Lancers, Bomb-Ketches and Rocket Ships. The main things I wanted to be rid of were the bomb-ketches and rocket ships, which are basically only in the game as a sop to the American flag and could never have been used in the way depicted by the game.

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

[Fisherking]

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

I think what he means is that they were never used in sea battles. They were for shore bombardment.

They had to be anchored on springs to swing and adjust to the target. That wouldn't work at sea.

[Slaists]

I think what he means is that they were never used in sea battles. They were for shore bombardment.

They had to be anchored on springs to swing and adjust to the target. That wouldn't work at sea.

That's true. I misread Didz's point.

[Didz]

That's true. I misread Didz's point.

The problem is that whilst as a player you can avoid using these ships (they actually have no legitimate purpose in the game, as CA failed to include any land in the naval battle game) you cannot stop the AI recruiting them, so the best idea is just to remove them until CA get round to finishing the naval battle engine.

[Didz]

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

Never said they were, seems that Fisherking understood the point.