The future of TW series - as I see it ;-)

[Gregoshi]

If RTW is indeed an RTS, then it is a failure at it. I don't know if Navaros is still around, but I'm sure some of you remember his strongly worded complaints about MTW. IIRC, he is a big RTS fan. One of his biggest complaints about MTW was that once the battle started "you can't do anything anymore" - something that is definitely NOT true about an RTS game. On some other generic gaming boards I've heard similar comments made about STW/MTW, so Navaros is not alone in his viewpoint. Those little guys in an RTS will fight to the last man. There are no flanks and there is no routing in an RTS, so those very important TW concepts are alien to the RTS gamer. The fast clicking RTS gamers will be stunned to learn that their fast click has to be intelligent too. "Why are my stupid men running!?" they will exclaim. Followed by "Dumb game!" (or worse). With the speed at which RTW units run and kill, this complaint about not being able to do anything once the battle started is magnified even more. No, I don't think RTS fans will bask in the glory of RTW's speed - no matter how fast they can click.

Similarly, I've read comments on the above mentioned generic boards (and in some RTW previews) about the awkward camera & unit controls of the TW series. So what is wrong with providing control features and keys that RTS fans will find familiar? After all, as you continuously point out, there are a LOT more RTS gamers than TW gamers, if they are indeed the target audience to expand the TW brand. These large numbers of RTS fans is also a valid reason for making the RTS controls the default. One of the biggest pains about learning a new game is learning how to control the game. By including the RTS options, they make the game that much more accessible to those gamers. They can concentrate more on learning the complexities of RTW rather than fighting the interface first.

About those hideous green arrows: I didn't much care for them either and wondered why CA felt they were needed. Until I saw how jumbled combat can get. Gone are the nice neat formation of STW & MTW. In RTW, the units mingle - A LOT. And they can get quite scattered too. One click on the unit banner brings up all those green arrows and then you can see how badly your unit formation (or lack thereof) is. The arrows also can give you a quick idea as to the facing of the unit - another thing that may be hard to tell in the chaos that is combat in RTW.

I could comment on a few other items, but that will have to be for another time (maybe ). Making the TW games accessible to other gamers is not dumbing the game down. Also, it is not very open-minded to think that features in those "other" (lesser) games are not worthy of a TW game. Other types of games have good ideas too.

Now, if CA would just slow down the RTW units enough so I can get in a double click on an enemy unit before it moves out from underneath my pointer, I'd be a little happier.

[King Azzole]

I dont know what you guys are talkin about , I played the gaul vs romans trebia mod and once all those 3000 total infantry were engaged it lasted several minutes of melee. Now imagine with 10000 as the engine promises it can handle. Engagements will last awhile. Your basing your opinions on battle speed with 180 spearmen and some uber cavalry vs 1000 much lower valor and other trait romans. maybe im wrong... If you do make melee longer though cavalry charges will play a bigger role in the game, unless you want to make those less effective also.

[Papewaio]

10,000 is normally an eight way MP battle... it very rarely got close to that many in MTW (which can handle that number) as maybe only two combatants plus a single ally where involved.

To get 10,000 regularly would require a different way of sorting how many units can be fielded and how many factions turn up... maybe the senate faction will help boost numbers on the field now and again...

[hoom]

While I agree with the assumption that CA is attempting to woo RTS gamers (they said it themselves), its certainly not true that SP TW players are happy or have any kind of dislike or lack of need for the tactical engine.
Similarly, I don't expect RTS gamers to like the new interface or find it any easier than the old style.

I play SP only & the tactical engine is vital to my enjoyment of it.

I can't understand how RTS players could come into Rome with the RTS camera & not fight the interface.

The beautiful thing about (especially Medieval) TW is that the complex tactical battles are almost entirely mouse controlled & have decently free camera movement.
I have been playing for years just with the only keys used being shift, ctrl, ctrl-a, space, pause, esc. and g.
Shogun needed / and * too but Medieval fixed that with the scroll wheel controling camera height. Similarly, I now use ctrl-t fairly often now but played perfectly happily for years without it as the mouse slider was well up to the task.

Its my opinion that Shogun & Medieval did so well is precisely because of both the depth of play and the great, simple, mouse driven interface.

I can't stand to play RTSes anymore for exactly that reason.
The RTS interfaces are horribly complicated & require so much effort to do simple things like move 100 people across the map in a coherent group.

The TW interface let you even move several hundred in perfect formation with two simple clicks so you can concentrate on stuff like flanking.

The only thing awkward about the old TW camera is learning that the bottom 1/3 of the side of the screen strafes the camera & the top 2/3 turn it.

[Sjakihata]

i always used WASD in both shogun and medieval to strafe the camera around, and mouse to rotate. Much simple, and you can do other stuff wiht you mouse while you use keys.

and i rely on mods to make up for stupidies CA come up with, btw wardogs arent entirely fantasy either are flaming pigs.

[Sinner]

and i rely on mods to make up for stupidies CA come up with, btw wardogs arent entirely fantasy either are flaming pigs.

That's true, but their actual historical use was so minor that it's almost non-existant, so including them when other more worthy subjects are overlooked suggests that realism was a minor concern when selecting units for the game. They add to the gimmick factor, giving extra and somewhat amusing eye candy, but I strongly believe that pigs belong on the dining table and not the battlefield. Dogs should just guard the table while I'm eating.

[The Scourge]

That's true, but their actual historical use was so minor that it's almost non-existant, so including them when other more worthy subjects are overlooked suggests that realism was a minor concern when selecting units for the game. They add to the gimmick factor, giving extra and somewhat amusing eye candy, but I strongly believe that pigs belong on the dining table and not the battlefield. Dogs should just guard the table while I'm eating.

All of this is nothing new.What about battlefield Ninja(The ones that could turn invisible ,if standing still.) ;Sword Saints ,and the Organ Gun ? Don't recall having read too much about those things dominating the battlefield of medieval Europe.

[Steppe Merc]

I am just an SP gamer, and I'm appaled. And while I fought to win, I wanted to win historically, danm it! The SP is nothing without the battles, as Civ 3 is better diplomacy wise. CA is digging there grave, and I wish they wouldn't torture us while they do it to.

[The Scourge]

I am just an SP gamer, and I'm appaled. And while I fought to win, I wanted to win historically, danm it! The SP is nothing without the battles, as Civ 3 is better diplomacy wise. CA is digging there grave, and I wish they wouldn't torture us while they do it to.

How do you know Civ 3 is better diplomacy wise?

[Nelson]

This SP guy is not shy.

Originally there were occasions when casualties seemed to occur too swiftly but after many plays involving prolonged melees I’m not so sure.

The run speeds are too fast. The scooting units look especially silly from afar and change the feel and pace of the game. This needs to be fixed.

That said, if CA slows the unit run speeds (and brightens the selected icons in the panel), I’ll be a happy camper. I would turn the radar off if I could. I seldom use it but I can ignore it. Toggling the interface panel all together would be best. I do not understand the groaning about the interface. It is not a disaster even if it isn’t what everyone wants. I have already mastered the cameras. People are WAY too wrapped up about the term “RTS camera”. LET IT GO! So long as the tactics are in one place and the strategy is somewhere else this CANNOT be an RTS. If the interface happens to share some aspects of certain popular games (God forbid), so what?

The green arrows we can turn off. The banners we can turn off. The camera has options. This is all good stuff!

MP will have a problem, as always, with mods and versions. Every MP game does. TW MP is a small crowd unlike, say, Unreal Tournament, so this fact compounds their trouble. The bitching over MP unit balance hasn’t begun yet but rest assured, it will. I sympathize with my MP cousins but none of this is new to Rome.

The manor in which people have been extrapolating demo issues into vast conspiracies is remarkable. As always, we continue to heartily entertain those devs who chose to visit.

Regarding some of Cheetah’s statements:

Velites, hastate, principes and triarii are not simplified names. In Shogun, arquebusiers were never called teppo like they could have been. Other units likewise had “simple” names. CA has always mixed the names around for a bit of flavor but has never used actual local vernacular in every case.

Special abilities. Ninjas had a special hiding ability in Shogun. Certain cavalry units could dismount in Medieval. These features were not called special abilities but that’s what they were. Having a toggle on the interface labeled as such is not a problem. This is one more case of getting wrapped around the axel over something trivial that is brought up because it reminds someone of Warcraft. Some abilities I dislike (flaming arrows), but there have always been some things I don’t like.

CA is on record as saying that they expect campaign battles will be less frequent but more important. I can’t quote chapter and verse on this but I am certain I read it in an interview. It might have been Michael DePlater. Anyway, this conspiracy idea about nerfing the tactical game in order to enhance the strategic game is laughable! We haven’t seen the strategy game yet, fer chrisakes! And besides, the tactical battles are still the sine qua non of TW. There is no evidence, none at all, that tactical battles have become less important in Rome.

In closing, if they fix unit run speed, wouldn’t Rome be fine? Isn’t every other issue really trivial?

[Husar]

Very well said, Nelson(although I still think run speeds are not too fast, I don´t want grandfathers and on my PC the animations look fine aswell )

[Thoros of Myr]

If the interface happens to share some aspects of certain popular games (God forbid), so what?

I could care less what it copies from other games, doesent change the fact that it offers less versatility and functionality and is just as bulky as before.

In closing, if they fix unit run speed,killing speed, UI, speed slider,wouldn’t Rome be fine? Isn’t every other issue really trivial?

[Aelwyn]

So what is wrong with providing control features and keys that RTS fans will find familiar? After all, as you continuously point out, there are a LOT more RTS gamers than TW gamers, if they are indeed the target audience to expand the TW brand. These large numbers of RTS fans is also a valid reason for making the RTS controls the default. One of the biggest pains about learning a new game is learning how to control the game. By including the RTS options, they make the game that much more accessible to those gamers. They can concentrate more on learning the complexities of RTW rather than fighting the interface first.

You're right, luring more gamers into buying their game is exactly what they want. BUT, why are they only focusing on the new players?

Sure, they threw in 'TotalWar Controls', but are they really TotalWar Controls? If the game played like 'vets' feel it should, would there even be debate? I use the term vets to refer to people who are very familiar with the other 2 games. So fine, bring up the argument that this is a new game. But why does it appear there was an attempt to give the player the option to play how they have in MTW, but this isn't obviously achieved? Its not like they don't know how to accomplish it, they've done it twice.

So why do I mention so much that is obvious? Exactly what Cheetah is saying, and has said already. The needs of the few are being overlooked for the recruitment of many. Great strategy right now, right? Well what about later when their focus shifts even less from the Tactical Engine because all those who cared the most about it have since given up and moved on, thus not being the "balance" to CA's "check" of their performance in this area. Then the game becomes more like what? An RTS.

And how well would they perform in the RTS market...like Cheetah already said, they'd be a little fish in a big pond. This whole argument/post by him is to further shed light on this. Does it matter? Nah. ~:p Sorry m8, but we're in the 'few', and our needs/wants aren't as important as the many. The focus from a business point of view is good right now by CA, but once part of their market is gone (the MP players), and they have less of a loyal fanbase, they better have a very solid product, because there won't be many people left who "have to buy that". Then where's the stability?

And don't take it personal Gregoshi. Just used your words to make a point.

[hoom]

Oi Aelwyn!
We SPers have already called Bollocks over the "MP is the people who really apreciate the tactical battles" suggestion.
Stop trying to prolong it.
Its not true.

However, This (+ the excessive movement speed of units) is entirely my complaint.

Sure, they threw in 'TotalWar Controls', but are they really TotalWar Controls? If the game played like 'vets' feel it should, would there even be debate? ... why does it appear there was an attempt to give the player the option to play how they have in MTW, but this isn't obviously achieved? Its not like they don't know how to accomplish it, they've done it twice.

If the UI (& movement speed) gets fixed either pre release or by a quick patch, then I'll be happy as larry & I think most everyone else will be too.

[Colovion]

Oi Aelwyn!
We SPers have already called Bollocks over the "MP is the people who really apreciate the tactical battles" suggestion.
Stop trying to prolong it.
Its not true.

However, This (+ the excessive movement speed of units) is entirely my complaint.

If the UI (& movement speed) gets fixed either pre release or by a quick patch, then I'll be happy as larry & I think most everyone else will be too.

True, it would make the majority of the nay-sayers (myself included) fall in line just with those two things done