dissapointed with the Demo somewhat

[HopAlongBunny]

It looks pretty good

Fast? yup; seems less like your units fight...more like they meet/auto-resolve/carry out appropriate action

I am a dedicated SP only player. I thought I had gotten pretty good at moving units around; the number of times I had to "pause" the game was a shock to me as well (and there ain't that many things going on in the demo)

I'll have to play it some more and maybe modify some of the control buttons. hehehe but it does look good

[barocca]

my thread on the speed topic at the com was closed

below is my reply as i typed it, but it did not get posted becaue the thread closed after i typed it,
luckily? i am an old hand at posting and i always copy content before hitting the "post" button.

=== !!! ===
On my system the game runs like a bat out of hades, quite literally,
This is on MY system, which is why i repeatedly mention MY system,
i have a p4_3Gig HT with 512MB ram and 256MB video.
I dont have a DVD or Burner in this machine, they are in a backup PC,
i dont run my internet from this machine either, my internet server is a different machine again.
This machine has almost nothing in the way of services running in the background, i dont even share files.
My Drive is partitioned, with OS exclusively residing on a 10Gig partion.
Add to that Sata drives and a pared down install of XP with minimal overheads and services and i have a machine that almost literally flies.

Perhaps the games internal clock does not allow for super quick machines,
I bet if i were to install RTW on my athlon1G with 256MB ram and a 64MB video, then i would not have a complaint about the speed.

As RTW demo runs on MY system currently I dont have time to check how any unit is faring in battle, because within a second or two of a unit engaging in combat, the unit is either annihliated or victorious.
by the time i look around for another target (assuming the unit wins) the entire battle is over.

The skirmishers, when seen running across the field, would beat the worlds best 100 metere sprinters hands down.
Cavalry? well if we put the RTW Cav into a two mile horse race you had best not be late placing your bets, the race will be over before you can raise your binoculars.

This contrasts MARKEDLY with the TV shows i have seen which were based on the RTW engine.
Had the same speed setting been used for TV the battle segmentof the show would have been over in 5 minutes.
While i fully appreciate we are seeing some un-natural extension of time when the cameras focus on the generals and then switch back to the "action" the Demo runs much faster than the engine shown in those shows.

In FACT the demo runs MUCH faster than the teaser clips we have been shown by CA !!!

All we ask is some means of slowing the engine down for those of us who are not happy with the speed of the game, this will not impact those of you who like the game the way it is,
our request is for a slider to allow us to run slower than the default (current) speed.

Online lag - those who say it has no impact have obviously NOT played any of the previous TW titles online.
Lag is a major factor and impacts online battle speed.
My comments was "perhaps the engine runs so fast to try and compensate for the effect lag will have."
You can sit there and not believe me, thats fine, but when the game is fully released Then you will have the pleasure of seeing first hand that my aseesment of the impact lag will have on a 4v4 with players scattered all over the globe is indeed correct.

I'd like to reiterate one point.

The Demo, on MY system, runs MUCH MUCH faster than what we see in the video teaser clips that CA have released.

=== !!! ===

cheers,
B.

[Puzz3D]

I posted this at .com in another thread, but it's very difficult to have a discussion there, so I repost it here before it drops off of page 20 because it has some objective measurements.


The speed relationships in STW and MTW were:
inf walk x, inf run 1.6x, fast inf run 2.0x, cav run 3.3x, fast cav run 4.0x.

In RTW you have roughly:
inf walk x, inf run 2.5x, fast inf run 3.0x, cav run 4.3x, fast cav run 5.0x

x = 3.72 miles per hour =1.68 meters/sec (RTW x speed measured by CBR).

CBR has made most of the measurements, and they match my own less extensive measurements. MTW was set at 14 frames per second, and I expect RTW is set at the same 14 frames per second. It certainly feels like x is the same in both games. The point is the STW/MTW speeds worked well, so why the change them in RTW? This substantial increase in running speeds has made it more difficult to co-ordinate the units in the heat of battle, reduced ranged unit effectiveness on advancing men and negated some of the local positional superiority gained through maneuver since a supporting unit can come from farther away. It also tends to make the interface more of an impediment to playing the game. The interface gets between the player and what he wants to do on the field. The only place this faster running helps reduce the length of battles is near the end during the mopping up when enemy units are routing off the field. A lot is being sactrificed tactically just to have men run off the field faster.

The absence of xbows and arbalesters is going to be a big factor in shortening the battles. Those units require 15 minutes to use all their ammo, and many players online were fighting two stage ranged duels which would stretch things out even longer than that. If you play MTW in early era, the battles in multiplayer are rarely more than 15 minutes long. The walking speed in RTW is the same as in the earlier games, so you aren't going to gain time there since the maps are even bigger, and you can't run everywhere to save time because of excessive fatigue. The double and triple speed options are what should be used to gain time. That's the purpose of those options. They will speed up everything including the walking and the routing off the field. Of course, that will also speed up the fighting so it's not the same thing as changing the relationship between the fighting speed and the movement speed.

There was an issue with fatigue being rather high on large maps in MTW because the fatigue rates were optimized for the small map size of STW and were not adjusted for MTW. This lead to players resting units for long periods of time to recover fatigue which is another factor that lengthened the battles in MTW. I don't think making units faster is the proper way to address fatigue. If there is a problem with fatigue, the proper thing to do is adjust the fatigue rate.

The pavise units and some of the heavily armored infantry in MTW also march slower (0.67x) which added to the length of battles in MTW. As far as I know, there aren't an units slower than speed x in RTW. Once the battle lines engaged, it wouldn't last more than 5 minutes before one side routed. It's not the melee itself that is the cause of the long battles in MTW. However, the ability to issue orders so as to maneuver units around is substantially affected by the increased running speeds. Given that you'll have 20 units instead of 16, and that the running speeds are increased at least 50%, you're looking at issuing orders around twice as fast as you do in MTW to maintain the same level of control.

As has already been pointed out, the reinforcement system in single player battles is a major factor if not the major factor in causing those battles to stretch into 3 hour ordeals.

As far as the need for increased anticipation at faster speed, that's true in a situation where you are responding to an attack on the unit you are controlling. If however the situation is one of bringing a unit from a distance to support a unit already engaged, faster running speed means you don't need as much anticipation. At slower running speeds, you have to get that supporting unit moving sooner possibly before the primary units even engage. You have to anticipate where the enemy is going because it takes you longer to get places. I'm afraid that too much speed will cause most battles to turn into massive furballs.

To add to this post: we did ask for10% faster cav in MTW v1.0, and longjohn declined to make that adjustment. He used the historical argument that cav didn't run faster than about 15 miles per hour as the reason for not increasing the run speed. In RTW, the cav is 25% faster than in MTW. It's a pretty substantial increase, but might still be within what most players can handle. What I don't really understand is the more than 50% increase in infantry running speed. It's out of proportion to the other speeds in the game which I think will make the tactics less realistic and I'm afraid will push unit management in multiplayer beyond what is possible for most players.

[CBR]

A slight correction on cav run speeds:

Fast cav ran about 6 times faster than inf walk speed.

Other cav was about 4.75 times faster. That was medium cav so maybe heavy cav like Sacred band is same or slightly slower.


CBR

[Puzz3D]

Ok. Thx CBR. Then cav is about 50% faster which is consistent with the infantry speedup. That makes more sense. My measurement of sacred band cav was 4.375x. It would appear that there are 3 cav speeds just as there is in MTW. So, the gameplay in RTW compared to MTW is going to be less time to react, and the ability to come from a greater distance to assist fighting units if you can get those units to fight for as long as they do in MTW.

[ToranagaSama]

I've played the demo on 2 occaisions so far.

I agree with EVERYTHING barocca said, plus a WHOLE lot more that I won't bother to mention at this time, except:

I am also unhappy with routing units trying to flee through the units they were just fighting, all of them running for one of a select number of exit points!!

which is not to say its not an issue, I was just too dumbfounded with everything else I didn't notice this.

I've got a question, what's with the throwing spears, Javelins or whatever the F they are?

The animation is TOTALLY ridiculous and unrealistic. What's with the increasing and decreasing visual perspective?? As soon as they leave the hands of the throwers and begin their arc of ascent they gradually INCREASE in size and DECREASE as the throwing arc descends; and the *Trailing* animatics is a JOKE!

Also, they must have an army of Goliaths, because the throwing distance, again, is a JOKE! You'd think they were shooting arrows or something.

What the H was wrong with the way they worked in MTW??

I can't get over the feeling that Rome was designed for 10 year olds with "Attention Deficit Disorder" taking Ritalin and Steroids.

Lastly, for the moment, going into a Forest is supposed to supposed to be disorienting, but I can't see Shit through the trees!!! Not a damned thing!

The way Forest worked in STW was the BEST! and the way they worked in MTW was acceptable, but Rome is wholly unacceptable.

Guess what? I'm NOT interested in the ZOOM feature. Way too much emphasis has been put on this feature. It adds ZIP, ZAP, NOTHING, NADA, to gameplay.

Finally, the game is way too fast, the graphics behind the times, the animations are unrealistic, the sound localizations TOTALLY unnecessary, adding NOTHING to *gameplay*, the voice acting is worse than a High School play and the Cut Scenes are annoying as all H. Funny thing is you almost need the Cut Scenes otherwise you'd never know the enemy general was killed, haha.

I feel I'm in a Total War nightmare.

Excuse me, but wasn't one of the CA design tenets, to stick with realism, unless it effected gameplay negatively, or something?

This game isn't going to stand up to the HL2 competition, at least not the battles.

Awww....forgetaboutit.

[ah_dut]

sorry torangasama, watch the language but i agree with you.

[King Edward]

The way Forest worked in STW was the BEST! and the way they worked in MTW was acceptable, but Rome is wholly unacceptable.

Guess what? I'm NOT interested in the ZOOM feature. Way too much emphasis has been put on this feature. It adds ZIP, ZAP, NOTHING, NADA, to gameplay.

Finally, the game is way too fast, the graphics behind the times, the animations are unrealistic, the sound localizations TOTALLY unnecessary, adding NOTHING to *gameplay*, the voice acting is worse than a High School play and the Cut Scenes are annoying as all H. Funny thing is you almost need the Cut Scenes otherwise you'd never know the enemy general was killed, haha.

Perhaps if you were interested in the zoom feature then you could see what was going on in the trees.

with the Graphics whacked up to the max the speed was fine on my machine (too fast on default settings) but perhaps im just lucky in that i have a mid end spec machine.

I Like the demo, i was playing it again last night. only prob i do have with it is the flare from arrows but that seems to be an ATI card prob which hopfully will be fixed for the final release.

[Puzz3D]

I've got a question, what's with the throwing spears, Javelins? They must have an army of Goliaths, because the throwing distance, again, is a JOKE! You'd think they were shooting arrows or something.

The range of javelins and archers was no doubt increased because of the increase in the running speed of units.

I can't get over the feeling that Rome was designed for 10 year olds with "Attention Deficit Disorder".

Attention Deficit Disorder has now been linked by scientific experiment to young children watching too many fast changing images such as on TV or in video gaming. As I recall 14 hours per week for 3 year olds increased the chances of developing ADD by 50%. It is believed that the developing brain in these children physiologically adapts to suit the environment of these fast moving images.