Moderator edit: Please read post #4
since when is stating a fact CA bashing ????
Moderator edit: Please read post #4
since when is stating a fact CA bashing ????
Last edited by UglyJun; 06-24-2011 at 06:48. Reason: CA bashing
UglyJun
never born never died 黒い山
Damned 2000s society caring only for appearances, let's stick to gameplay, stability, AI, features and such...
Really all games based mostly or solely on graphics are awful, last for a day and are made just to steal money...
The lack of fog of war in this game is unfortunate.
Scouting was always a crucial part of armies, but in this game, all you have to worry about is things hiding in trees.
I always thought off the 30 years war?Thats a great topic.
Ahem, what about Shogun 2: Mongol Invasion, or some similar themed expansion? Or is the notion of a TW title followed by an expansion a thing of past now? Not really aware if there is an (in)official policy to that issue now?
Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.
Proud
Been to:
Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming in France - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country. A novel set before the war.
A Painted Shield of Honour - 1313. Templar Knights in France are in grave danger. Can they be saved?
Definately a fantasy setting, but not LOTR or George RR Martins world, both are way overated, and I don't like Martin, he's too lazy to finish the series and charges too much for his Kindle books.
If you want a book theme try Steven Eriksson or even Warhammer, oh, I'm not too keen on gunpowder either.
Some tweaking of the campaign map functionality as it relates to movement as well as diplomatic/military action would be nice. For example:
- Military actions with more than one faction: I had a few matchlock ashigaru walking past a 1-province vassal that had a Christian rebellion going on (can't imagine why). The rebels attacked my ally. This was in a head-to-head MP campaign. My opponent chose 'play as AI,' and I chose 'decline attack' because I didn't want my ashigaru to help out my vassal. We were both brought to the battle map where neither one of us controlled anything. We watched the rebels walk around a castle and get shot at and then retreat, and then the game just sat there the siege animation on the campaign map. We dun broke it. In other words, it seems like a lot of the UI and logic in Shogun 2 is about faction A vs. faction B - but we had functionality in previous titles where you could have an army on the map that was nearby another engagement and decide in that engagement whether you wanted to get involved, even if it meant betraying an ally. Is this gone?
- Getting people on and off ships is a nightmare. Sometimes you capture a port and your army saunters off and can move and attack that turn. Other times you click to move your army and your fleet moves to a nearby beach, ignoring the port it captured, and lands the army on the beach, ending the turn for both the army and the fleet.
- It's not always clear exactly how far a unit can move on the campaign map, or how far its ambush/intercept radius is. Sometimes you think you're blocking a strategic point and the AI just walks right past you. Other times you think you have an ambush set up and the AI just walks right past it. I'm OK with ambushes being discovered, but that doesn't mean that they should be able to get past you without a fight - it just means that your ambush failed.
- Losing trade agreements because one side or the other lost a port isn't necessarily bad, but it's ridiculous that you take a hit for dishonoring treaties when this happens, even if it's the AI's port. Having a trade agreement should not require the actual capacity to trade - it's just an agreement that you will when you can. The game can either auto-balance who you actually trade with based on your profit, or it can give us a means to trade certain amounts with each clan. I'm fine with the KISS solution but I'm tired of re-negotiating trade deals every turn because one side or the other is at war and losing ports.
- Please bring back awarding titles. This was the single coolest thing about MTW and I've missed it ever since. I don't so much care about having a big impact on gameplay (as it did in MTW) but it really makes your generals stand out much more than 'commissioner for supply' does.
- Ship movement on the campaign map needs some attention. An all-too-frequent occurrence is that you obliterate a fleet on the battle map, but they then withdraw to an 'attrition' area where you don't want to chase them, and your choice is to either park your fleet there for a while to lock them up or else move on and then they all come back and harass your shipping. I think ship losses in naval battles need to be a lot more 'loss' and a lot less 'got away' unless you actually withdraw them successfully from the battle map. It makes no sense for galleons to blow up a whole opposing fleet with cannon and then run into them again on the next turn. And this is assuming you catch the enemy fleet at all -- the whole move / run away / move fight mechanic that sort-of works on land doesn't work well on sea and is very frustrating.
Still, S2TW is for the most part a fantastic step in the right direction. Keep it up!
Don't know if this is still on topic, but I, for one, very much prefer a "real" big expansion pack à la Barbarian Invasion over DLC. Mongol Invasion sounds good, but the Japanese invasions of Korea under Toyotomi Hideyoshi might be fun too, for a change.
Like Voigtkampf, I'm also interested to know if "real" expansion packs for TW games will still happen in the future?
Craig, is it possible to shed a light on this?
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
I agree for Korea, the Mongol invasion would have the Hojo killing diplomats, while Typhoons eliminate the invaders XD
Last edited by Arjos; 06-28-2011 at 10:17.
I also would like to see CA try their hand an original non-historical IP. Doing so would give infinite freedom to perfectly balance the campaign map and units, as there will be no need to replicate real geography or military units. Fantasy is one option, but why not simply do a fictional medieval-style setting? Medieval is clearly a very popular setting, and players are always keen on European-style castles, knights, etc. Why not do a fictional take on that with the objective being a perfected strategy gaming experience, freed from the constraints of historical realism?
If CA isn't willing to go fictional, I'd like to see the Warring States period. Though I have a feeling we'll be getting Rome 2 no matter what we say...
Sounds right on paper, as say in Starcraft, and yet this is not the reason CA does not balance better the campaign and units.Originally Posted by Tin Cow
For example the Napoleonic period is considered ideal for a perfect RPS game on the battlefield, and yet Napoleon did not really take advantage of that. On the other hand the original STW was very well balanced - only the WMs were slightly unbalanced in v1.12.
In reality it depends what sort of players the series wants to attract. If it is predominantly SPers that want to play sandbox games, then good graphics and immersion and lots of options will do, as in M2TW - the game did not need to be challenging or well balanced and it was not. It has a million exploits.
If it is though predominantly SPers that enjoy challenging strategy and MPers then things like gameplay calculations and unit recognisability take precedence over detailed 3D and zoom in mode. In Starcraft 2 the graphics, while clearly better than Starcraft 1 were not such a departure as to complicate unecessarily the gameplay as in what happened between MTW and RTW. Rather, they just made the core game look better and no more.
In reality the decision lies with those that determine towards what audience the game is to be marketed, rather than the setting. CA often have said that they "don't make the same game twice". For me - as a fan - this is a mistake. It makes for immediately better sales and reaching the mainstream, but it is responsible for many ills to anyone seriously interested from a gameplay perspective in TW, because it basically means that the engine and gameplay are always reset. So the developer behaves - intentionally - like an amnesiac: they forget the things they did right and the things they did wrong.
In any case, if CA policy makers decide to go down a certain route, members of the community can do little more than follow or drop out.
The other thing is that CA marketing strategy is a soup; they admit nothing in terms of what their games are and are not being clear on purpose in order not to exclude any potential buyer - of course they won;t admit to that either :) It would have been so much better for players - of course - if they could just come out and say what sort of gameplay and target audience they are aiming for in every release, although its also true that one can sort of make an educated guess.
Last edited by gollum; 06-28-2011 at 15:52. Reason: edited signature out
The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign
Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings
Download v3.3
Info & Discussion Thread
Balancing certainly has a huge programing aspect to it, but there are limitations placed on CA by the historical settings. RTW is a good example: there are several factions (i.e. various Romans, Carthage, Seleucid) which have clearly superior unit trees. The other factions can win with numbers or with skill if controlled by a human, but factions like the Gauls and the Goths simply do not balance out against their 'technological superior' opponents. Similarly, while both Shogun games have had decently balanced factions, there was almost no unit variety to speak of. Shogun is generally balanced simply because the factions draw mainly from a common unit pool. While that works, it is boring and you're pretty much facing the same units in every battle, regardless of the faction you are fighting. Medieval does a better job with this because it has several different cultures represented, generally divided into Western European, Eastern European, Muslim, and Horde cultures, generally with a couple minor unique units per factions. However, due to the nature of the time period, there's not many other cultures that can be added to the game, so we're stuck with the same cultures every time they revisit the Medieval time period.
If they broke from reality and went fictional, CA could use the Medieval-style method of having different cultures without being bound to the limits of historical warfare. In addition to the cultures I just listed, we could also have Japanese-style armies, Roman style armies, Greek style armies, and pretty much any other type of cultural military you could conceivably think of. You could even add in a faction of steampunk dwarves riding mecha-camels if you wanted. It opens up a door to variety that simply doesn't exist with the historical timeperiod. When CA tries to shoe-horn variety into history, we get stuff like the head hurlers and screeching women. I'll take a dwarven camel rider any day over something like that.
I see the points you are making and there are certainly truths in them, but they are in part half truths. If the game is well balanced, regardless wether there is a single or more unit pools, gameplay isn't boring because the variety comes from the different armies you can build up as well as the terrain that dictates diferent army choices and different tactics.Originally Posted by Tin Cow
Also the units you mention in RTW, as well as many others, had a clear impression effect, and i would argue that this was more important in their conception than unit variety.
As for the tech trees, CA did not had to choose a 300 year period of Roman warfare - they could use say only the 3rd Punic war, which would make an excellently balanced game both in the battlefield and the campaign (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2...me-vs-carthage)
edit: i meant the 2nd Punic War, pardon me.
The long tech trees and large periods were chosen for the sake of faction variety ie to have a large map with too many difrent cultures. I mean starcraft has 3 unique ones and it took something like 3-4 years to really balance it out. It is impossible to expect that the number of factions added in TW games can be realistically and properly balanced in the short time frame between every new TW game relaese.
Last edited by gollum; 06-28-2011 at 23:58. Reason: edited signature out and corrected a few lectic glitches
The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign
Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings
Download v3.3
Info & Discussion Thread
I don't think that's true. The balance in CA games is really about the unit types rather than the factions or units themselves. Swords -> Spears -> Cavalry -> Swords, with ranged as an independent group that always loses in melee. That's a very different balancing system than Starcraft. Blizzard created three completely different 'factions' which have almost completely different units and advantages/disadvantages. That kind of balancing has never existed in the TW games, because all TW units are designed to fit into one of the basic RPS categories. The main reason factions get unbalanced in the TW games are that they are stiffed in one or more of those basic categories. To keep balance, all CA has to do is ensure that the RPS nature of the unit distribution is still present, while using the cultures to create greater 'flavor.' Perhaps the Steampunk Dwarves focus on superior Camel Cavalry, but they would still be generally balanced as long as the had a couple units each of ranged, sword, and spear.
Last edited by TinCow; 06-28-2011 at 15:06.
In fact, its not that simple, or actually it wasn't always. In the original STW, there are RPSs' within the main RPS. For example, there was an RPS within the cavalry units. Heavy cavalry would beat Cavalry Archers, yari cavalry would beat cavalry archers and tie to Heavy cavalry in melee but win in terms of cost, and cavalry archers would beat either if they had a chance to shoot them.Originally Posted by Tin Cow
Similarly there was an RPS within swords; Naginata would beat No-dachi, as would WMs, but No-Dachi would be cheaper than either and would still beat spears, and also its high morale and speed made it good for flank attacks. WMs would tie with Naginata in melee but were faster and had better morale so other conditions in the battlefield would affect their match up.
There was also an RPS within range units - Musketeers would nearly tie with archers in a duel but they were cheaper yet the archers were having better melee and morale and could shoot in the rain while the muskets could not. Arquebusiers were toned down musketeers but they were cheaper and so could be used as a missile screen in order to purchase a better melee component in your army.
You also had two types of spears the Samurai and teh Ashigaru. The first were sturdier and more stadast and would beat the latter, but they were also costlier so they would take again ersources from your missile, sword or cavarly arm.
Then there were minor match up relationships in between categories ie in between swords and cavalry or missiles and swords. Hitting a Naginata with arrows was less efective than hitting a WM with the same. Attaching with cavalry WMs was less efctive than attacking No-Dachi.
All these relationships were unfolding within the general conditions (themselves changing constantly) of the battlefield and so were giving an interaction that was pretty complex. So was the types o armies you could make. They could be loaded in many ways and their use would vary accordingly.
The difference in starcraft is that with the unit management dimension the composition of army changes over time, while in TW it remains the same because there is no resources management and production. As far as match ups in battle though are concerned you have units of higher mobility and speed (cavalry), units of close quarter battle (melee and heavy pounders), and units that are best hitting their opponents from afar (artillery/missiles). And these need to be effectively coordinated in an RPS manner with one covering the weakness of the other to succeed. Of course there is not analogy 1 to 1 to TW, but the principle is basically the same.
Last edited by gollum; 06-28-2011 at 15:52. Reason: edited signature out
The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign
Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings
Download v3.3
Info & Discussion Thread
I really hope they don't go fictional and stay historical, or at least split into two projects and release both...
Just to explain myself; the whole argument i am trying to make is that balancing can be done in historical periods too. I do not have any problem though with TW going fantasy. In any case already good ground has been covered towards that direction :)
The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign
Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings
Download v3.3
Info & Discussion Thread
What you describe here still exists, and has existed in every TW game, simply because there are different units within each RPS category with different levels of 'quality.' Certainly, a higher quality unit will beat a lower quality unit of the same type, but generally they would still lose if properly countered with the right unit from the corresponding RPS category. That's why the imbalance mainly happens when factions are stiffed on an RPS category, not when they simply have differing levels of quality within the category. Faction A may have inferior swords units to Faction B, but that only makes Faction A unbalanced if it has no counter to Faction B's superior swords.
To be clear, I'm also only talking about SP balance here. MP balance is a totally different issue. Even Blizzard recognize that, as evidenced by the fact that many units in SC2 SP are not available for use in SC2 MP.
I do agree with you on this. I just think it might be easier for CA to achieve that balance with a fictional IP than with some of their historical settings.
Last edited by TinCow; 06-28-2011 at 16:29.
Certainly. I am not sure though if it was always as well thought out as in STW (with the exception of S2, which i haven't played). Not because CA became less competent. But because there were too many interactions (because of too many units) to balance out and also CA - my guess is - cared less about balance past STW. As i said, i do not know about S2.Originally Posted by Tin Cow
I certainly agree. The price of a unit in MP is dictated only by battle use and by match ups relative to the other units available in its roster in combination and against the rosters it has to face. In SP, unit availability and investment in infrastructure also come into it, that make it very very different.Originally Posted by Tin Cow
This is why it was - from very early on - suggested to have different stats and/or prices for units for SP and MP in TW. That's 11 years ago - and unless it has been implemented in S2TW, we are still waiting for it :)
Absolutely, there is no doubt, as they will have totally a free hand in shaping up the rostersOriginally Posted by Tin Cow
Last edited by gollum; 06-28-2011 at 16:52. Reason: clarity
The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign
Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings
Download v3.3
Info & Discussion Thread
It would indeed. Then people like myself couldn't come in and say "That's rubish!" when American light infantry are weak in melee as they are in Empire TW.
However, even in a fantasy setting I expect common sense to rule. Pike blocks should still resist cavalry for example. Whereas a melee unit that is excellent against cavalry but worthless against infantry wouldn't really make sense. It's the potential to make fantasy units using a min/max paradigm that could be annoying.
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.
What about a dark ages total war? Perhaps set shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire with various barbarian kingdoms set up in the area. There could be a arian/catholic divide as well as pagans and zoroastrians to the east. And at some point during the campaign, Islam would emerge, possibly wiping out several factions to the east. In the north, Viking attacks would become more common as time progressed. Throughout the campaign, different groups from the east such as the avars, the bulgars, and the magyars and perhaps others would show up. Also, there could be some mechanism to simulate the constant fracturing of the Frankish empire from internal strife.
How about something set in a more technologically advanced era? The engine would have to be quite different though I imagine to recreate WW1 or WW2 style battles, but I'm wondering if it could be possible - perhaps WW1 with its massed infantry charges might work better? Or would it be too dull and bloody for gamers to play?
"A short story is the best way to waste ten minutes"
For the very best in alternate history and historical fiction visit Alt Hist, https://althistfiction.com
For medieval musings and a dash of historical fantasy visit Mark Lord's blog Praeter Naturam at https://marklord.info
A game could also be built nicely around the Thirty Years War. Many, many different nations to play and an interesting combination of old and new (read: gunpowder) technologies.
Whichever game they make next I hope it has a better multiplayer campaign where one person's turn can be played while others are offline - like the hotseat function in M2TW.
frogbeastegg's TWS2 guide....it's here!
Come to the Throne Room to play multiplayer hotseat campaigns and RPGs in M2TW.
It goes beyond that as well, as pretty much every nation in Europe took the opportunity to attack their rivals or make a territorial grab. Even the Ottomans would be included. Lots of factions, lots of unit variety, and several religions (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Orthodox, Muslim). Plus a combination of steel and gunpowder weaponry on the standard European map we've seen in so many TW titles.
Eurasia total war.
Four turns per year.
1200 - 1300
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Bookmarks