What should CA concentrate on for future releases...

[Michael the Brave]

To start this off,I'll just point out that I hate those people that say:"Hey why the hell unit x swings it's sword like that,or unit y can't do this,blah this game is not realistic".
That's because the point of the Total War series is to put the player in command of huge armies,so the player should be able to control his troops just like a general from those days would.The problem is that he(the player) is not.
Certainly,you just can't call a game realistic when you have to control,micromanage 16 (or more) units,in every phase of the battle - deployment,mellee etc.
A real general would never be able to control all his units like this, and be able to assign new orders every second like in TW games...
Yeah,some people might just say..yeah but it's the only way to control your troops in a game - well,I think not,and I am happy to see that CA has also (to some extent)realised this.
I believe that in this game,the general with better tactic abilities should win, NOT the faster mouse-clicker,unfortunately,right now it's the latter who has an advantage over the first.
CA should concentrate on easing all of the tasks for the player by assigning them to be done by the AI,this has been implemented but it needs much more improvement; for example,in the Trebia demo battle,I should assign all of my cavalry that I am going to flank the romans with to a group and put them under AI control.Then I should be able to give them adivce on what units to preffer attacking.Right now,if I put any units on AI controlled,I cant give them any guiding.
I really like the new interface(looks like the one from Praetorians heh),but there is also one thing no one ever tought of....why in the world do I have to select every one of my individual unit then click on individual enemy units to attack..?? why isn't there an "attack" button like in other RTS's where u click behind or in front of the enemy any every unit will pick an enemy and attack(if you just click behind the enemy units,right now,your units' charge bonus wont apply).
I really thing they should work a lot more on this AI controlling your troops thing as it shows real promise...
I mean it's just ridiculous the way it is now,and I should give general guidance and advices to your troops before battle,and then your control should be very limited after melee starts...
So,what do you guys think ?

[Colovion]

It's nice to know that you hate people who have an opinion you don't share.

Certainly,you just can't call a game realistic when you have to control,micromanage 16 (or more) units,in every phase of the battle - deployment,mellee etc.

I dislike your view on this. It seems you think that anyone arguing for historical accuracy on one point must be a History Purist and can't abide to play a video game that has a camera, birds eye view of the battle ground which the General wouldn't have had. You realize this is a video game, right?

[fester]

It's nice to know that you hate people who have an opinion you don't share.



I dislike your view on this. It seems you think that anyone arguing for historical accuracy on one point must be a History Purist and can't abide to play a video game that has a camera, birds eye view of the battle ground which the General wouldn't have had. You realize this is a video game, right?

I think the thing that makes TW great is it is as realistic/accurate as it can be. There are plenty of games out there for people who like to fight with giant squid and mind control so the more historicaly correct TW can be the better.

[Colovion]

I think the thing that makes TW great is it is as realistic/accurate as it can be. There are plenty of games out there for people who like to fight with giant squid and mind control so the more historicaly correct TW can be the better.

Agreed

[quadalpha]

It's nice to know that you hate people who have an opinion you don't share.



I dislike your view on this. It seems you think that anyone arguing for historical accuracy on one point must be a History Purist and can't abide to play a video game that has a camera, birds eye view of the battle ground which the General wouldn't have had. You realize this is a video game, right?

It seems that you've ignored the rest of his post. Notice that he is arguing for more realism and accuracy, and has not said anything against history purists either. The first sentence, if I understood it correctly, is more against people who argue over petty details over what he sees as much more important problems, the discussion of which takes up the rest of his post.

And also, I submit that sarcasm is not the best way to welcome new posters voicing their opinions.

[Colovion]

It seems that you've ignored the rest of his post. Notice that he is arguing for more realism and accuracy, and has not said anything against history purists either. The first sentence, if I understood it correctly, is more against people who argue over petty details over what he sees as much more important problems, the discussion of which takes up the rest of his post.

And also, I submit that sarcasm is not the best way to welcome new posters voicing their opinions.

I never missed the rest of his post, but the beginning of his thread muddied the following paragraphs.

[exarchi]

Delete and Ban.

THREAD STOP.

[exarchi]

Oh, and what CA should concentrate in the (possible) future games of TW series:
Not releasing any information whatsoever (no demo, no pics or vids) before the release so that ungrateful sobs couldn't whine.

[Essex_Cohort]

It's just a demo, & there is still a month untill it is released, so this is not a 100% representation of how the full game will eventually play.

Not everyone will like it off the bat, but thats a fact of life. And perhaps the comments people are making, are to point out weaknesses in the game, that maybe even the developers might take note of before releasing the game, and improve it for all of us ?

[Michael the Brave]

It seems that you've ignored the rest of his post. Notice that he is arguing for more realism and accuracy, and has not said anything against history purists either. The first sentence, if I understood it correctly, is more against people who argue over petty details over what he sees as much more important problems, the discussion of which takes up the rest of his post.

And also, I submit that sarcasm is not the best way to welcome new posters voicing their opinions.

Ahh,someone finally understood what I tried to say...heh,sorry,it was kinda late at night when I posted this and didn't fully realise that by saying 'hate' I could spark off such reactions...
By "hate",I've meant that I disagree with the people that seem to talk all day about tiny historical unaccuracies,while they ignore the striking fact that babysitting 16 units on the battlefield is tottaly unrealistic.
They should do everything they can to help aid the player and micromanaging,as this game STILL is (altough many would disagree) a CLICKFEST.
I just expressed my view that the way to go would be to improve the AI capabilities to help and control player's units - and yes the player should still be able to control all of his units at any time,while giving the AI controlled units some general advice on what to do when engaging the enemy.
I hope that I've clearded that up now....so,now do you people GET IT ...??

[Colovion]

Ahh,someone finally understood what I tried to say...heh,sorry,it was kinda late at night when I posted this and didn't fully realise that by saying 'hate' I could spark off such reactions...
By "hate",I've meant that I disagree with the people that seem to talk all day about tiny historical unaccuracies,while they ignore the striking fact that babysitting 16 units on the battlefield is tottaly unrealistic.
They should do everything they can to help aid the player and micromanaging,as this game STILL is (altough many would disagree) a CLICKFEST.
I just expressed my view that the way to go would be to improve the AI capabilities to help and control player's units - and yes the player should still be able to control all of his units at any time,while giving the AI controlled units some general advice on what to do when engaging the enemy.
I hope that I've clearded that up now....so,now do you people GET IT ...??

sorry, I was having a bad day

you're right that there are other ways to do it, and yea - disagree is a better word

[Del Arroyo]

I think that a more realistic command and control system would be great, and quite possibly more fun to play, but the technical obstacles at this point are pretty large.

The basic paradigm has long been established in a long list of Old and Honourable wargames and the concept wouldn't need too much revamp to work with the TW model. Basically, You would only be able to directly control a certain-sized section of units, and the rest would have to either be assigned to fellow generals, or left under the independent command of their captains.

Before the battle, you would give independent generals and captains certain orders and directions. During the battle, you would only be able to directly control your own section, and your subordinates would carry out your orders to the best of their ability. You would be able to send them new orders, which would take a certain amount of time to arrive, and would have a certain chance of being intercepted or lost-- depending on distance and enemy activity.

Indpendent commanders would make some effort to react to changing circumstances, with the general's ability to adapt obviously being more sophisticated than that of a lone battallion commander. There would also be a certain chance that a cowardly, incompetent, arrogant, or even a treacherous commander (especially an allied or mercenary general), would screw-up or ignore part or all of your orders.

..

To make this work, the battle sequences would have to work a bit differently. A Meeting Engagement would begin with a timed phase during which each side would observe the other marching troops into initial positions. After this phase, both sides would have the option of withdrawing to their camp.

If one side withdraws and the other does not, the side left on the field would have the option of pursuing and attacking the enemy at their camp (which might be fortified).

If neither side withdraws, both would have a period of time in which to assign battallions to generals and give initial orders, for instance-- Numidian King A, attack Roman left cavalry wing, wheel to attack rear of infantry column. Then the battle would begin.

For battles other than Meeting Engagements, things would work a bit differently. For a Camp Assault, everything would be the same except that neither side would be able to withdraw before the battle (and there would be a baggage train and/or fortifications on the field). During an Ambush, the ambusher would be able to deploy and give orders normally but without being able to see the enemy, and the ambushee would be automatically deployed in a marching column (as per RTW preview), and only be able to assign units to leaders (no initial orders).

..

The design work necessary for such a system is considerable, and the AI development mammoth. It would also be nice to have about ten times more men in each unit, and it would also be nice if we all had 7.4 terrahertz mainframe computers to play on.

All in all, a next NEXT generation concept if you ask me, but we'll see what the prog-whizzes come up with. As generations go nowadays, someone might try it in a few years.

DA

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The problem michael is that for just about everyone who played the previous games the ability to control your units on the battlefield is the whole point of the game. In rome it is a clickfest but in the others it isn't. The point of the game is to have fun really and and making a few decisions at the start of the battle and letting the ai do it for you would not be fun for me. A good general has to change his strategy on the battlefield. If you make the game as realistic as possible it would be an rpg not a strategy game.

[Del Arroyo]

If you make the game as realistic as possible it would be an rpg not a strategy game.

On the contrary, Kojiro-san, it is my opinion that one would have more than enough planning to do before-hand, and more than enough direction to give during the actual battle. If implemented properly, such a system would liberate the player from a sea of "small stuff" and allow him to focus on true strategy.

DA

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you focus to much on strategy you lose sight of tactics...

[Colovion]

focus too much on tactics and you lose sight of your mind