From The Firing Squad

[Papewaio]

Review

With the larger maps, it became necessary to speed units up. They don't move unrealistically fast, but the difference is quite marked when compared to the original two Total War titles. Walking infantry move about as fast as the older infantry ran. Yet, despite this, there's no sense of awkwardness to the gameplay.

Ummm apart from looking like they are flowing over the terrain, doesn't anyone at all think it is slightly counterproductive to create larger maps then increase the speed?

End up with the same feeling of size of a map, but now with the units on turbo. Which does make the animations look slightly silly as they now seem to skate across the land.

The move to 3D has also permitted and necessitated some changes in gameplay mechanics. For starters, individual characters on the screen are now truly independent. They try to remain in formation of course, but aren't as tight as they used to be. This is most evident on three occasions - a rout, when undisciplined formations charge, and during a cavalry charge. However, the move to 3D means that units can't respond instantly - they must go through their animations. So if you order them to pull back, they don't just turn around instantly and go the other way, they must rotate. This has the unintended but very welcome effect of seemingly delaying battle orders. Combined with the faster pace of play, a player can't immediately adjust his forces to counter his opponent's moves - it is possible and quite likely to make mistakes now if you don't anticipate correctly.

This answers a few questions. Faster play and controls that now feel laggy because the animations must be played out. Laggy controls okay or Faster play ok, but both means you don't feel like what you are doing has any effect. You are pushed out of the immersion because your actions are not accepted in real time.

Finally, there is proper siege equipment, and it will no longer be stuck in place like in Medieval. Even the mighty catapults will be maneuverable, though very slowly - and they're quite devastating against tightly packed enemy units that have poor morale

No seriously, I'm going to go and get hammered so that it makes more sense...

Since the reviewer just stated this before writing the above quote:

As you may have guessed, the units are as historically accurate as possible.

Seeing a flaw here... whoops thats right all our historical lessons now come from Australian Action Stars ie Braveheart and Gladiator...

Anyhow I will do as I did for MTW. I will wait to see the reviews posted here by my fellow players and see what they think.

[Sinner]

I think one of the more common mods, and probably one of the first, among the old school TW fans will be to reduce the movement rates for all units.

I'm fascinated by just why it was 'necessary' to speed up just because the maps are bigger. Could it be that big maps and realistic speeds could result in longer battles, which would bore the poor little darlings who just want to see as many dead bodies as quickly as possible? A typical wargamer is unlikely to be bothered by long battles, so why not make the warp factor movement part of this arcade mode they've added.

Ugh... given the awful ham-acting voiceovers in the demo, I wish I hadn't thought of warp factors, because I'm now imagining Shatner as a Roman general commanding his troops Kirk-style. "Third. Cohort. You. Will. Advance." - with appropriate overly melodramatic hand gestures and grimacing of course. ~:p

[tombom]

If they provided a save in battle feature, I'd love to have long battles. But in the end I can't spend hours on battles because I don't have the time.

[Shahed]

When I read some of this stuff the only thing I have time to say is:

LOL !

Wish I could say more but if I could only stop laughing.

LOL !

[Sinner]

If they provided a save in battle feature, I'd love to have long battles. But in the end I can't spend hours on battles because I don't have the time.

Which is not really different than the situation we have in MTW now. We can easily have battles that can take hours, but complaints are rare, if anything I've heard more of the opposite, with players cheerfully describing the epic battle they've just fought. We have time advance controls, so it wouldn't be difficult for the player to speed up the game while their army and the enemy approach each other, dropping to real time speeds when close or combat begins, or even leaving it running at high speed if that's what they desire. In MTW we had the choice, in effect that choice has been taken from us in the unmodded game.

In any case, a big map doesn't mean that battles will always take longer, it all depends upon where the combatants set up in relation to each other, just like in MTW you could end up toe to toe from the very start.

[Elmo]

I've long been a critic of CA's support (patch) policy but not of their design expertise. However if the reviewer got this right then it certainly leaves me wondering what CA was thinking?!

From my limited experience with the demo so far, the units sure feel like they are moving faster than in MTW and the controls feel like they lag at times (my system meets or beats all the min specs). If that is how they are trying to portray the difficulties of command in ancient times, faster units and slower mouse response, then this game isn't for me.

Edit - OK after reading the review again there is no mention of lag in the controls. That is my own impression from playing the demo. If units respond more slowly now because they turn/move as individual men that would be an interesting way of simulating command and control issues. I'm not an expert on this time period, so how did generals issue orders after the battle started? Runners, hand signals, horns, flags? Or did they just sit back and watch it all unfold in 3D glory?

[Sinner]

I don't have a problem with slow response to commands, after all it is realistic, although I would hope that the leader of each unit and nearby men would tend to react more quickly, with the command effect then spreading through the formation plus disciplined troops reacting faster as well. I doubt that either will be true though since it sounds more like a side effect of the new engine and that they've just come up with a viable explanation to help fend off complaints.

[Maeda Toshiie]

1. I recall that there is an intentional time lag between issued commands and the actual carrying out of it, not due to lag.

2. Even in MTW troops do take considerable time to march, maneuver (a huge part of tactics) to high ground, etc. I have had out maneuver the AI and make it withdraw off the field (which I think was actually realistic). Shift-T would solve the problem. (of course, the kiddies wouldn't like it). Large maps as an excuse is ludicrous.

3. Modding wouldnt apply well to the community, only splitting it.

4. Saving during a battle spoils it. It is even worse than the pause button. Pre-battle saving is the best option.

[The Scourge]

I found plenty to look forward to from that preview.Seems like they've gone to town with the strategy side of the game.Towns have to be romanized ,before you can build Roman troop types ,better end game ,etc.

Right now I see the glass as half full

[Puzz3D]

The question is "Why is it only half full?". It's not the first pass at the gameplay. Was there someting wrong with the control you had in STW and MTW? Less control is better? Maybe CA should make that into a one liner marketing blurb. The fact is the target market has changed. Here's one for them that I thought up:

"Don't worry kids. RTW is not a hardcore wargame. You don't even need a manual to learn how to play it. You'll be up to speed in no time, blowing away enemy armies with your elite troops and special ability units."

[The Scourge]

The controls in STW and MTW were fine.But to tell the truth that hovering above the battle field,and micromanageing every unit was getting old as far as i was concerned.And I really don't see that as being very realistic.
I've always wanted a game where you really see things from the perspective of the general ,let the AI take care of certain things with you trying to guide the chaos instead of controlling it all.
Playing around with the Demo is as close to having that feeling as I've yet experience
Alright so the Roman army's not really up to the task yet ,so it's not that challenging ,but as has been said many times ,this only the demo.
Plus it has to be said ,the strategy side of the game sounds far far more interesting than anything that's gone before ,so if it lives up to expectations ,then yep I am optimistic.

[shingenmitch2]

holy hell...

I spent hours worrying about the Units that make up the Ptolemaic army or some stupid Iberian fake hat. At worst, we would see an imbalanced unit or faction... but essentially the game would be just like MTW w/3d units and a better campaign... right? right?!

OMG, I never dreamed they'd mess with the actual game-play to this extent. Even the Kensai and BFN, and slight speed-up we experienced with MI didn't change the essentials of game play!

With out a doubt, RTW has been dumbed down and sped-up with an eye for the x-box crowd, if not for the x-box itself.

BTW
The fact that they've insisted on keeping upgrades in the face of all evidence that it wrecks tactics is proof that they don't want tactics, but as Yuuk says they want a game where kiddies get up-grades, do a "monk rush" and overcome all armies. No strategy, no learning curve... 8 year olds can play... that's the target.

Faster units because of bigger map? Um... is that why they kill faster too? Not likely. How about: they kill faster because of "quicker better monk rush?" Again, less tactics, less learning... sounds logical.

But lets touch on that map question. If I make a bigger map, but increase my movement speed, I've just cancelled each other out. Small map/slow speed takes me 4 minutes to cross... Bigger map/Faster speed, I still cross it in 4 minutes... only thing is now I can't control the turbo units in a tight space.
AND as pointed out, there is a speed slider so I can get close to the enemy in "real time" quicker. CA's arguement for faster units is bogus. What you want is same speed/bigger map. BUT that assumes the whole point for a bigger map to be: A.) give larger armies more room to maneuver B.) open the game up for slower, but more meaningful army maneuver.

They should stop the pretense and admit that it was sped up for "faster quicker monk rush" in order to satisfy the kiddies' rapid-eye-movement endorphins.

It seem that there is an overall decision for more battles, faster. The idea would be that you have tons of quick battles. FUN FUN FUN... GAH. That almost pre-supposes a lack of strategy and tactics -- which, by their very nature, would work to slow a battle down.

What they should have aimed for in the campaign is less battles -- but the ones you do have are EPIC struggles, that last a while, involve great strategy and whose outcome is more decisive for the campaign.

Oh, right, I forgot that would require more than an 8 yr old's attention span and learning curve.

[Puzz3D]

The Scourge,

Well you're right that the gamestyle is moving away from controlling your army to controlling a single unit while the ai takes care of your other units (see the camera option in the demo to limit to the general's view?). I don't know about you, but I'm better than the ai in this game. Of course, you'll be able to jump to and control any unit you desire, but the idea of coordinating all of your units at once as you might do in a game like chess is going away. The challenge was to do that well, but now it's for the most part beyond reach. RTW most likely represents a transitional step from STW/MTW to this new gamestyle. I can already see in the demo that's it's more fun to get down to ground level, zoom in and control one unit than it is to stay up high and try to control your army. I've played some flight sims that are like this where you can jump around from one cockpit to another. It's actually been a feature of flight sims for a long time. BTW, I've played many 1,000 of battles in STW and MTW online for the last 4 years, and I haven't gotten tired of it.

[shingenmitch2]

The controls in STW and MTW were fine.But to tell the truth that hovering above the battle field,and micromanageing every unit was getting old as far as i was concerned.And I really don't see that as being very realistic.

Hmm, not very realistic, but perhaps the best (maybe only way) to simulate full control of an army in a game.

I've always wanted a game where you really see things from the perspective of the general ,let the AI take care of certain things with you trying to guide the chaos instead of controlling it all.
Playing around with the Demo is as close to having that feeling as I've yet experience

But this game isn't designed to do that properly and so the chaos/AI will overwhelm you.

Plus it has to be said ,the strategy side of the game sounds far far more interesting than anything that's gone before ,so if it lives up to expectations ,then yep I am optimistic.

Um... much better Campaign the past, but a not so much better (if at all) than Civ3 or any of the dozens of similar games. Only the in-game battles both in their look AND tactics (especially tactics) separated TW from the pack. Unfortunately, they look to be trying to take steps to join the pack. Sadly, it will probably be profitable for them.

[shingenmitch2]

Just thinking about the idea of quicker battles...

It kind of dove tails with the expanding of the Campaign game. The battles now only slow down the Campaign. If you have a huge continent to conquer, you will have tons of battles... then you need to get through them quickly.

Has CA lost its Vision for the game?

In STW the campaign was the excuse FOR the battles. It gave the battles some overall meaning, but the POINT WAS THE BATTLE. We played the campaign to get the chance to do the ground breaking in-game fights.

In RTW, with such an emphasis on the campaign, I'm getting the sense that the battle only GETS IN THE WAY. The battles have become the necessary, and repetative evil that must be repeatedly endured before you conqour the world -- just like in the CIV games.

[Sinner]

The godseye view or from the general's point of view is a seperate issue to the speed issue.

Personally I have no problem with managing STW/MTW style, perhaps zooming down close to follow the action if I so desire, or even trying to command purely from that viewpoint - all RTW does in effect is add an automatic 'follow-me' link between the general and the camera, akin to viewing artillery shots in MTW.

The general's view feature is fine, no problems whatsoever, especially since it's switchable. Personally I'll probably flip back and forth between the two, using the general's viewpoint not because I wish to see the action close up, but simply because it will make it harder to command the army. If I wanted close-up action, I wouldn't be playing a TW game anyway, I'd be playing Quake/Doom/Deus Ex/whatever.

I can live without MP, so modding the game to reduce the speed isn't an issue for me, the same as I'll mod out the more questionable units - pigs should be on the dinner table, not the battlefield - and perhaps remove some of the special abilities, which are beginning to feel way too gimmicky and more like power-ups. In the end I'll be playing my RTW, not the RTW CA intended I should play.

[Puzz3D]

For single player, you will apparently be able to adjust things by modding if you want to get into that. Multiplayers more or less have to play the game in it's released form. Players often make rules about unit selection to improve balance, but you can't make rules about the speed of units. We're going to have normal, double and triple speed for battles in multiplayer. I can't think of anything more fun than triple speed, arcade mode, RTW multiplayer. Just thinking about how exciting it will be almost makes me wet my pants. I think I'll go watch "Gladiator" again. I just love that opening battle sequence, and I must have watched over100 times already. It never gets boring, unlike STW and MTW which bore the hell out of me.

[Papewaio]

Puzz3D is it the wardogs, flaming catapult, ballista, charge through forest or the sexy aussie accent that keeps bringing you back to Gladiator.

[Sjakihata]

I don't understand why people thin that wardogs, flaming pigs and other animals are so bad? I mean they were used, and it is the same people crying for historical accuracy...


now the druids and womez and hurlerz are another matter.

[Puzz3D]

Papewaio,

No. The reference to "Gladiator" didn't come from me. It came from a Creative Assembly executive in an official interview. Studio marketing manager Ian Roxburgh's statement about RTW in an interview with GamesDomain:

"We're genuinely at a point where the player is effectively commanding and participating in a battle scene from films like Braveheart and Gladiator."

[The Scourge]

Puzz3D.
I'm not saying the old system was bad.(I still play Shogun ,after all.)
It's just that if RTW had just been a rehash of the first two games with better graphics ,then I would have been a little disappointed.
And if that style of play is still an option in the final game ,then all well and good.
You may well be right about units being a tad too fast ,and kills coming too quick .But surly these are things that can be tweaked ,so lets wait and see.

I've been playing the demo from the "Generals only" perspective and give over control of certain units to the AI(Which it seems you can still give orders when you're close to them.)
And for me it's a totally new game.And so far it's harder ,because of that limited perspective you now have.
I've made mistakes ,and gotten myself into some tricky situations ,and this has meant that I've had to think more about deployment ,and where I 'am at any given time .Not to mention ,when I should jump into the fray.
It's been great fun ,and against the real AI in the full game ,It's got to get even better.

[Papewaio]

I know Puzz... just trying to keep smiling and not grinding my teeth.

But if we could have the crossover of Gladiator and STW it would be awesome... I think it is seeing the potential in our grasp and then it going to Xbox crowd... it is comming so close and then potential DOOM.

Speaking of which for those who want hectic action in first person shoot 'em ups isn't Doom3 the title to buy?

[The Scourge]

Speaking of which for those who want hectic action in first person shoot 'em ups isn't Doom3 the title to buy?

Nope ,I think I'll go with RTW mr snotty

[Barkhorn1x]

With out a doubt, RTW has been dumbed down and sped-up with an eye for the x-box crowd, if not for the x-box itself.

Not saying that you don't have a point here - but I am waiting for the release version as it this demo may be a bit "pumped up" to please the massess.

At least I hope so.

Barkhorn.

[shingenmitch2]

Well the point of TW was never to BE Bravehart, but to be Caesar or Shingen Takeda in command of an army. TW will always be a poor first person game in that case.

Either way, slowing things down could only benefit that first person veiw anyway. Hell if they want to go for the FP reality, the battle should last 4 hours, then we might be able to command as a general would in reality -- giving orders to adjuants and receiving updates. These battles are over in 5 minutes, I couldn't dispatch a rider to move a formation up to save my life!

----------

BARK...

I HOPE you're right, but FEAR you're not

[Steppe Merc]

Good lord, I knew it... were all doomed.

[Colovion]

Personallly I think the stupidest thing is how fast units die. I mean sure, units with no armour being taken on by some elite troops will get ground up pretty quickly, but armour makes it so that units will take longer to take down (seeing as that's the reason it was invented). I mean Cannae would've taken 15 minutes on this battle system.

Hopefully it's just a question of the units you command in the demo being buffed significantly to attract new customers.

But let's face it, good and pure out-of-the-box strategy games have gone the way of the dodo - why else would CA have made this one (theoretically) easier to mod? Seems to me they do things to attract the kiddies and then assume that a mod pack will appease the hardcore gamers.

[Steppe Merc]

To true, Colovion. Like I said, were all doomed.

[Puzz3D]

The Scourge,

I don't play against the ai. I play against other human beings. If chaos governs more of the action than before, skill will be less of a factor in dertermining the outcome. There will also be a shift in tactics. They will shift more toward striking before the enemy has time to react and the distance over which you'll be able to pull that off has increased in RTW , and if the combat resolution is fast you won't have time to use much flanking tactics. The scale of the battles and distances involved are already highly compressed in STW and MTW, and you can be overwhelmed in those games when someone with good unit management skills attacks you. Now what happens when you speed up the game? It becomes easier to overwhelm a defender because he has to react to the attacker's threats, but the defender has less time to react so he's disadvantaged. An analogy would be driving a car and someone steps out in front of you. The faster you are going, the less time you have to react so the further away the pedestrian can be for you to have insufficient time to avoid hitting him. RTW has now made a big shift to an offensive style game.


Papewaio,

Well, it's Creative Assemby's game and they can make it play any way they desire. What I don't like is what I imagine they see as clever marketing to hold onto their old customer base while actually turning the game into something that appeals to a completley different type of gamer. All these posters concerned with informing Creative Assembly about what's wrong with the gameplay in the RTW demo are missing the fact it's been designed that way intentionally. Creating a game that makes you feel like you're in a movie with lots of closeup action is certainly a great accomplishment, but CA wasn't up front about how much the old gameplay was going to be alered. The Trebia battle in the demo was accomplished with scripting and skewed upgrades on the units. You'll never be able to pull off anything like that in a multiplayer skirmish. You can't split your forces in a game where a group gets blown away by a centralized army before help arrives. Yes the units run faster, but the decentralized commander has a more difficult management task and less time to do it. So, forget about emulating great tactical commanders such as Hannible with RTW. I predict that splitting forces will be a loosing strategy in RTW with morale turned on. It was already extremely difficult to do successfully in STW and MTW. STW and MTW multiplayers are in for a big adjustment with RTW multiplayer.

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, ou should be able to split your forces in the face of a stronger foe effictevly. Look at Alexander and Robert E. Lee. They did it all the time. Speaking of Alexander, I've had trouble using his famous pin the infantry with your pikes then charge. My infantry doesn't tend to hold long enough.