MTW after RTW

[Morindin]

Now that the "ohh-ahh" factor has worn off with RTW, I've been playing a succession game of MTW along with a few friends alongside my new RTW campaign.

This is an extremely frustrating experiance. To put it bluntly, MTW makes me want to play RTW, and RTW makes me want to play MTW.

Things I noticed about MTW after going back:

1. The controls suck and its very "cumbersome" trying to move around when you're used to using the arrow keys in RTW. Also the whole left click thing is a pain in the ass, since you could accidently move troops when you're trying to select them. I do like the removal of the pink arrows when moving troops around and the fact you can keep them in formation/facing. Also - NO BUGS!

2. The UI is superior in almost every way to RTW's UI. The unit cards are much easier to see (1280x1024) display much more useful information. The game feels like you've got more cooler options to play with than the RTW UI, which takes up way too much space. Overall (when you get used to the MTW controls again!) its way easier to control your MTW army.

3. RTW battles have way more atmosphere. Graphics obviously, but mainly the sounds. MTW sounds suck compared to RTW. Can't hear arrows whizzing through the air, all your soldiers are silent, marching doesnt sound as cool, etc.

4. Strategy map. The MTW strategy map is very annoying now after RTW and its really hard to tell what the hell you're doing. You cant just glance over all your provinces and see if you're constructing stuff there. However the MTW strategy map has a very cool board game feel to it now.

5. AI. Overall the MTW AI on the battles is PROBABLY better than the RTW AI. On defence the AI in MTW manouvers way more than you see it do in RTW. Strategy map im not so sure, but the MTW strategy map is more simple than the RTW system so the AI doesnt screw up as much. Also the bigger MTW battles (combined stacks) is way more fun.

6. I used to have fun sieging in MTW but not anymore.

7. Movement speeds. In general movement speeds seem better in MTW. Apart from the fact that your guys slide around everywhere (which is point 3, atmosphere) they make more sense.
However its not perfect, cavalry seems too slow charging in MTW but too slow trotting around in RTW.
Also cavalry seems a huge anticlimax now in MTW (altho I dont miss the school of fish effect)
I charged some 66 Knights into some poor 15 odd tired miltia expecting them to be bowled over. But no. My knights just get "stuck" on them killing a couple then hacking away at them for ages before the militia routs. Which brings me to my next point.

8. I really missed the flashing flags for routing units.

9. Bugs. MTW battles go far smoother (especially sieges) without any bugs that want to make you rip your hair out.

10. Voices. This is partly point 3, but the guy for the MTW voices is so much better than the crappy Roman voice actor. He actually sounds his part. Troop voices are way better in MTW too.

11. Killing speed. Melee is vastly slower than RTW but at the same time it looks really stupid now. Large numbers vs Large numbers is way better and units take longer to rout. Large numbers vs small numbers however in MTW is incredably unrealistic and MTW seemingly lacks the snowball effect.
Everyone is complaining that the arrows kill too much in RTW but MTW is the same if not worse (it should be though, more powerful bows etc). I had 20 foot knights standing around being hit by arrow fire. I was concentrating on something else for no more than 20 seconds, come back, and I now have 3 foot knights standing around being hit by arrow fire.

12. There is more depth to MTW tactically. Formations in particular. Different units need different formations for different situations. RTW it doesnt seem to matter what formation you put your units in.

Really, both games feel like they've been made by different companies. MTW feels nothing like RTW. MTW (including the battles) feels like a grand game of chess, more of a strategy game like the oldschool hex based war games. I dont know what RTW feels like, part RTS, part civ game.
The big part MTW is lacking is in the atmosphere department and some clunky controls, but I have to say that if you kept MTW exactly the same, but gave it RTW graphics and sounds - MTW would be the better game.

The frustrating part is RTW could have been this, but it wasnt.

[Edit]I forgot to add, the AI in MTW has way more good generals. You might see one or two good generals in RTW but the AI has literally tons of them in MTW. MTW far far superior here[/Edit]

[Colovion]

true story through and through

[DisruptorX]

Yea, I know exactly what you mean. However, I found that when playing MTW after rome, the controls were simply wonderful. I only needed to click once and didn't need to fight with my men over orders. The left/right click switch messed me up though. I really wish that they had just made RTW a 3d MTW with new skins, it would have been the greatest game ever. Now, medieval doesn't seem quite as impressive, but RTW has me enfuriated at its blatant flaws and inferior controls and AI. What you said about each making you feel like playing the other is exactly it.

Btw, you do use the arrow keys to move arround in mtw....don't you?

[Morindin]

Yea, I know exactly what you mean. However, I found that when playing MTW after rome, the controls were simply wonderful. I only needed to click once and didn't need to fight with my men over orders. The left/right click switch messed me up though. I really wish that they had just made RTW a 3d MTW with new skins, it would have been the greatest game ever. Now, medieval doesn't seem quite as impressive, but RTW has me enfuriated at its blatant flaws and inferior controls and AI. What you said about each making you feel like playing the other is exactly it.

Btw, you do use the arrow keys to move arround in mtw....don't you?

Yes I do, but I prefer the straff left/right in RTW.

Im not sure if you can set this up in MTW but I find it more logical to use the keys to move, and the mouse to look, click buttons, etc.

Being a gamer of many genres the typical FPS setup is "wsad" to move and mouse to look, with RTW simulates quite well. MTW is OK when you get used to it, it just takes a bit of getting used to.

Also the camera seems to move sloooowwwwly in MTW even with shift held down, meaning you double click on units more to get over to that side of the battlefield (which means you cant rely on the mouse to look around as much since your clicking!). RTW you could zip around the battlefield quite quickly.

At least the damn tilt works properly in MTW tho.

I guess it comes down to personal preference really. The fact that the MTW controls are bug free is incredably refreshing. No more units ignoring your orders, running/walking when you want them to do the opposite, etc.

[DisruptorX]

I guess it comes down to personal preference really. The fact that the MTW controls are bug free is incredably refreshing. No more units ignoring your orders, running/walking when you want them to do the opposite, etc.

Yea, thats the main thing there. Bugs over shadow all the good points about rome's controls, negating them out completely.


I never had problems with left click everything in MTW before, but now I'm making mistakes with it all the time. However, I miss the camera tilt so much now, and REALLY hate the new "click on ground to focus" method.

[Slaists]

Yea, thats the main thing there. Bugs over shadow all the good points about rome's controls, negating them out completely.


I never had problems with left click everything in MTW before, but now I'm making mistakes with it all the time. However, I miss the camera tilt so much now, and REALLY hate the new "click on ground to focus" method.

the camera tilt actually is there: first, you have to unlock it in the options. there are a few for the camera: by default, it comes to be locked. once you unlock it in the options you have to unlock it in the battle as well: press SHIFT+INSERT and the "-"/"+" keys start to work properly :)

[Beirut]

Excellent observations. I mostly feel the same way.

I find the bottom panel too big and looks like an RPG spell & incantation screen. Also, in M:TW, the units usually did what you told them too. I wish R:TW was just like M:TW except with the better graphics and change in eras.

And maybe it's just me (because I am easily confused ) but I HATE the campaign map. All this stuff about "oh, but it's soooo intuitive". It just looks like an RPG screen. I liked the Risk look of the M:TW campaign map.

But the battles in R:TW, aside from a few really annoying things, are great fun!

[DisruptorX]

find the bottom panel too big and looks like an RPG spell & incantation screen.

Actually, I feel that it looks like something else....



Nope, no similarities here, move along...

[Slaists]

Yes, that was my feeling as well: it seems, as if RTW and MTW were made by completely different companies... or is it: their programmer teams changed completely and the old know-how got forgotten?

[Morindin]

Yes, that was my feeling as well: it seems, as if RTW and MTW were made by completely different companies... or is it: their programmer teams changed completely and the old know-how got forgotten?

Because these games were made in parallel it could be two different teams making two different games.
I dont know and havnt followed the 'scene' long enough. They are undertaking a new project apparently even as they were finishing RTW.

Let's hope its MTW2 but with the MTW gameplay developers and RTW graphics/sound engineers ;)

[Thoros of Myr]

Really, both games feel like they've been made by different companies. MTW feels nothing like RTW. MTW (including the battles) feels like a grand game of chess, more of a strategy game like the oldschool hex based war games. I dont know what RTW feels like, part RTS, part civ game.
The big part MTW is lacking is in the atmosphere department and some clunky controls, but I have to say that if you kept MTW exactly the same, but gave it RTW graphics and sounds - MTW would be the better game.

The frustrating part is RTW could have been this, but it wasnt.

The frustrating but true conclusion. Good read. My hope lies in heavy patching (CA) and HEAVY modding.

[Medieval Assassin]

Lets just all play STW...

[Red Harvest]

I agree with a lot of what Morindin wrote. There are playing style issue differences, but I see the comparison of MTW to RTW in roughly the same light. There are fewer, "Oooohhh! Aaaaaaahhh!" units in MTW while RTW is full of them (to its detriment.) Ironically, in RTW the foot sloggers, the bread and butter of warfare of the time suffer for this. They become bit part supporting players in my armies where I regularly make decisions like, "I guess I better build/buy two or three infantry units to work the seige equipment." The battle UI in RTW is simply cludgy. That would be less of a problem if battles were fought at reasonable speed. When the enemy begins its charge, I have to pause to issue commands. Otherwise I have almost no way to counter charge.

[Thoros of Myr]

Lets just all play STW...

If only STW didnt have a crash bug on this PC that I'm not able to fix

[Servius]

Yep, gotta agree on all points so far. RTW battle graphics are better, almost everything else is worse. I like that we got a map (but lost the unit tree in the trade). It's just my opinion, but it feels like the superficials (graphics, audio, etc.) were improved while the fundimentals (unit control, game controls, simple modability, etc.) were worsened.

What was it that Macbeth said, "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The more like MTW the patches make RTW, the better.

[Midnj]

Well, I am enjoying the single player campaign in Rome. But let's not even talk about multiplayer. MTW for multiplayer, RTW for single player. Best of both worlds.

I am really dissapointed with CA though. They obviously don't give a damn about multiplayer (and haven't in any previous iterations of the franchise) but have no problems slapping "multiplayer support" all over their marketing material.

I would also like to second that the UI in Rome needs a lot of work. I especially hate how I can't organize unit cards how I want them (in terms of where they are in the list) and how we can't hotkey units across groups. Some of us used particularly complex grouping systems for MTW multiplayer to perform complex maneuvers and it's all but impossible to achieve that kind of control over your army in Rome.

[foop]

This is partly point 3, but the guy for the MTW voices is so much better than the crappy Roman voice actor. He actually sounds his part.

IIRC, a lot of the voice work on MTW was done by Sean Pertwee. He also played deputy sheriff Hugh Beringar in a UK TV adaptation of Ellis Peter's Brother Cadfael novels, so he has an authentic mediaeval pedigree.

I agree with an awful lot of your points. After finishing my first short RTW campaign last night, I'm sorely tempted to go back to MTW. Last night, in my final battle, I lost two units of missile cavalry because they wouldn't stop running around in a &*^!*&** Cantabrian circle and run away like I wanted them to.

[ToranagaSama]

Now that the "ohh-ahh" factor has worn off with RTW, I've been playing a succession game of MTW along with a few friends alongside my new RTW campaign.

This is an extremely frustrating experiance. To put it bluntly, MTW makes me want to play RTW, and RTW makes me want to play MTW.

I think you're quite right, the "ohh-ahh" factor in RTW is HUGE! Actually, its blinding in many ways.

I was telling my bother the other day, that RTW is *overwhelming*, just like MTW was extremely overwhelming in comparison to STW. Its just that going from STW to MTW involved dealing with so many open *choices* mostly as a result of the much larger map. I remember loading MTW for the first and having no clue where to begin.

RTW is different, I told him that the overwhelming factor is not with the open choices as with MTW, but with the difficulty in comprehending the *underpinnings* (Economy, etc.) of the game, in the face of all the graphical changes, including the UI. The grahics combined with the UI are like a bright like shone into your eyes while your trying to drive down the road.

1. The controls suck and its very "cumbersome" trying to move around when you're used to using the arrow keys in RTW. Also the whole left click thing is a pain in the ass, since you could accidently move troops when you're trying to select them. I do like the removal of the pink arrows when moving troops around and the fact you can keep them in formation/facing. Also - NO BUGS!

I know a lot of people seemed to have a problem selecting the wrong unit(s), but I never had that problem. Lucky I guess.

I'm a bit confused, do you mean that in MTW you have to use Left-Click, both for *selecting* and to click on the spot you want a unit to move or attack?

If so, then, yes, on occasion this would happen to me, but not to any great detrimental effect.

The thing with right-clicking is that for heavy computer users and/or heavy Windows users, there is a natural dispostition to the manner in which Left and Right clicking is used. Right-clicking just doesn't feel natural, and goes against years indoctrinated use. I have to mentally force myself to right-click at times.

Is it reversable in RTW? I like to switch right-clicking for selecting and left-clicking for move/attack.

2. The UI is superior in almost every way to RTW's UI. The unit cards are much easier to see (1280x1024) display much more useful information. The game feels like you've got more cooler options to play with than the RTW UI, which takes up way too much space. Overall (when you get used to the MTW controls again!) its way easier to control your MTW army.

NUFF SAID! Total Agreement.

3. RTW battles have way more atmosphere. Graphics obviously, but mainly the sounds. MTW sounds suck compared to RTW. Can't hear arrows whizzing through the air, all your soldiers are silent, marching doesnt sound as cool, etc.

Here we disagree. STW was the best of the series in terms of Atmosphere, and I prefer MTW to RTW.

I'm not necessarily impressed with the sound effects of RTW, most of which add nothing to gameplay. It's not as if you can hear an Army sneaking up on ya, or something equivalent.

What is really different between STW/MTW and RTW, in terms of atmosphere is map Terrain. In STW and to a bit lesser degree in MTW, Terrain played a greater part in the game.

All I need say is Shiano (is that right?), and all the STW vets will smile...

In STW virtually, if not literally, each Province had a distinctive and very effecting terrain map. When considering whether to move into a Province, you'd best give thought to not only the opposing army and it's composition, BUT also the Terrain you'd be fighting upon. Terrain was either going to be an advantage or a dis-advantage, rarely did Terrain have a *neutral* effect.

In MTW, Terrain was a couple of degrees less effecting, in terms of the outcome of a battle, but it still was and could be used to effect. Where MTW improved upon STW was in having multiple terrain maps for each province.

In RTW, Terrain, so far in my experience, is mostly a non-factor, MUCH less so than with MTW. So far, it hasn't caused me to win or lose a battle, and only in two did I notice a mild effect. Advancing my troops sideways upon an upward sloping hill, the troops moving upon the higher portion moved *slower* than those moving upon the lower portion. Yet, I didn't notice any any determining *Fatigue* effect, both sides performing equally well in battle. This is noticeably different than with MTW, and degrees different than STW. Nagato (sp?) going up such a hill would be completely useless.

4. Strategy map. The MTW strategy map is very annoying now after RTW and its really hard to tell what the hell you're doing. You cant just glance over all your provinces and see if you're constructing stuff there. However the MTW strategy map has a very cool board game feel to it now.

You may have something here, but I still haven't figure out what all those icons mean in RTW, so at this point I have no opinion. If you're correct then this is a step up, but the way I see it, even with the icons you *still* need to check each City/Province before End Turn.

As far as feel goes, I like both equally as well. Though, I saw something the other night that was VERY AMAZING and hinted at the potential of the RTW map. I've yet to see a post to mention this potential, and I'm waiting to check it out more. I don't think ANY of us have, as yet, grasped the FULL potentional the new Strat Map. If they can't get this Map work for Campaign Multiplay....

5. AI. Overall the MTW AI on the battles is PROBABLY better than the RTW AI. On defence the AI in MTW manouvers way more than you see it do in RTW. Strategy map im not so sure, but the MTW strategy map is more simple than the RTW system so the AI doesnt screw up as much. Also the bigger MTW battles (combined stacks) is way more fun.

THIS is what we Veterans have been saying from Day 1 of the Demo!

I can still remember my first true campaign battle in STW. The armies facing each other from a far distance, slowly advancing, and all of a sudden the AI sends some units racing to my left manuevering them into perfect flanking position. I was like, oh yes! This is going to be better than any game I've played before.

Then came MTW, and I still remember that first true campaign battle. Similar circumstances, armies advancing slowly, then wam! The AI sends, somewhat expectedly, not only units out to the left flank, but SIMULTAENOUSLY to the RIGHT flank. I was like, OH SH*T!

In RTW, I've yet to have an OH SH*T! moment.

6. I used to have fun sieging in MTW but not anymore.

MTW sieges, to me, were never great fun. I always wondered why some seem to enjoy them so. Though, I admit, I enjoyed using the Catapult and watching the walls crumble. That was the best part, for me. Nice effect by CA!

I said it before I think RTW s/b changed to Seige: Total War, cause its ALL about the Sieges. IMO, I think the Kill Speed is too fast, in terms, of sieges. City Gates are like meatgrinders. The biggest I've assualted, so far, has been a Large Town, so I've yet to see what more of the game has to offer in this area.

7. Movement speeds. In general movement speeds seem better in MTW. Apart from the fact that your guys slide around everywhere (which is point 3, atmosphere) they make more sense.
However its not perfect, cavalry seems too slow charging in MTW but too slow trotting around in RTW.
Also cavalry seems a huge anticlimax now in MTW (altho I dont miss the school of fish effect)
I charged some 66 Knights into some poor 15 odd tired miltia expecting them to be bowled over. But no. My knights just get "stuck" on them killing a couple then hacking away at them for ages before the militia routs. Which brings me to my next point.

I don't know about "sliding around", don't recall such, but, AGAIN, this is what the Veterans have been saying from Day 1. You VEHEMENTLY opposed what we were saying, and DEFINITIVELY presented your *opinion*, though it wasn't presented as *opinion*, but as if it were FACT.

This is what upset a number of us.

Pleased to see that you now comprehend what we've been stating.

Personally, I've never comprehended why so many had such a problem with MTW's calvalry. I never did. You get, what I guess could be termed as the "bowling over" effect in RTW, but to me its a yawnnnn.... and doesn't look very realistic, but that's jmo.

In any event, I never used my Cav as *Line* troops anyway. I preserve them for Pursuit, and only used Knights as emergency reserves and/or, only when the outcome was obvious, to tip an even battle to my favor. Though, I often used my Cav in a deversionary manner.

I prefer the Gameplay effect MTW Cav have vs the Gameplay effect of RTW.

8. I really missed the flashing flags for routing units.

You mean the way they are in RTW? I've gotten used to the RTW way, but still prefer MTW flashing Cards. I think a combo would be best.

9. Bugs. MTW battles go far smoother (especially sieges) without any bugs that want to make you rip your hair out.

RTW's disappearing Generals and Armies are pissing me off! This is an obvious *dumbing down* of the game. I think the "Casual Gamer" wasn't adept enough to annihilate the AI's armies, so they came up with this! It should be OPTIONABLE.

10. Voices. This is partly point 3, but the guy for the MTW voices is so much better than the crappy Roman voice actor. He actually sounds his part. Troop voices are way better in MTW too.

The Euros seem especially bothered by this. I wonder if they'd feel better if the guy had a British or Aussie accent?!

Anyway, in general, I think the voice acting is sub-par, at best.

11. Killing speed. Melee is vastly slower than RTW but at the same time it looks really stupid now. Large numbers vs Large numbers is way better and units take longer to rout. Large numbers vs small numbers however in MTW is incredably unrealistic and MTW seemingly lacks the snowball effect.
Everyone is complaining that the arrows kill too much in RTW but MTW is the same if not worse (it should be though, more powerful bows etc). I had 20 foot knights standing around being hit by arrow fire. I was concentrating on something else for no more than 20 seconds, come back, and I now have 3 foot knights standing around being hit by arrow fire.

Not sure what to say. First, its been a LONG time since I've played vanilla; Second, what do you mean by "snowball effect"?; Archers ARE more effective in RTW. My RTW archers have gotten 150 kills or better, and I haven't perfected using them!!! In MTW playing Expert, it would take a good player and 2 units of archers to rack up such kills. With the MedMod on Expert, you'd have to be an EXPERT to rack up such kills.

There have been MANY discusions over the years as to the effectiveness of Archers. Many put VERY little stock in their use during crucial battles. For me, they are my stock and trade and form the CORE of my MTW army. I have posted virtual disertations on their effective use. It takes SKILL to use Archers to maximum effect.

With RTW, the necessary skill level has been greatly lowered, and I believe this was CA's design, in order to make the game "more accessible", read that easiser and simpler.

12. There is more depth to MTW tactically. Formations in particular. Different units need different formations for different situations. RTW it doesnt seem to matter what formation you put your units in.

AGAIN, do you here the Veterans WHINNING???!!! We, I, have been say this ALL along, day 1 of the demo. RTW precludes the use of HIGH TACTICS. I'm a bit miffed, as it took me approximately a YEAR to become what I consider a master.

In MTW and STW, a *skilled* player could use Tactics (formations, manueverings, terrain) to overcome (significant) numerical, weaponry and armour, disadvantages.

I'm still early in my progross with RTW, so I have to hedge my comment, as perhaps at higher Difficulty and futher in the game, things change; but as I've experienced so far. RTW requires a MUCH lower Tactical skill level. Again, I believe this is how they intended.

Really, both games feel like they've been made by different companies. MTW feels nothing like RTW. MTW (including the battles) feels like a grand game of chess, more of a strategy game like the oldschool hex based war games. I dont know what RTW feels like, part RTS, part civ game.
The big part MTW is lacking is in the atmosphere department and some clunky controls, but I have to say that if you kept MTW exactly the same, but gave it RTW graphics and sounds - MTW would be the better game.

The frustrating part is RTW could have been this, but it wasnt.

You know I recall some of the noobs screaming "its a different game!". I believe they were right. It is different, and I believe that's just how it has to be taken.

Yeah, for me, if they put the RTW Camp Map with the MTW Battle Engine, it would be the best game of all. Oh, yeah, and better, more terrain derived maps.

[Edit]I forgot to add, the AI in MTW has way more good generals. You might see one or two good generals in RTW but the AI has literally tons of them in MTW. MTW far far superior here[/Edit]

Dude, your next step s/b to give the MedMod version 3.14 ago and report your observations. I'd be interested.

Finally to search the Bargin Bins and pick up a copy of Viking Invaison, patch it, and tack on the MedMod.

I'd *really* love to hear that.

All in all, yours was an good evaluation and an excellent post, but you gotta admit that its what we've been saying all along, and you have been opposing us.

[Longasc]

but I have to say that if you kept MTW exactly the same, but gave it RTW graphics and sounds - MTW would be the better game.

Add in the Strategic Map of RTW, and you are right.

I still feel sometimes sad because the battles in RTW lack so much depth.

If at least the spears would work against Cav and unit balancing would be better! I could even adjust to the higher speed, because it has some merits, too... battles do not last forever.

[Arakasi]

Toronaga, you objected to Morindin presenting his opinion as fact. What does your post do than do just that, basically saying "admit that we were right all along". So if I think that RTW is as good a game overall and has the potential to be the better game, than I'm wrong and you're right?

[DisruptorX]

As I said before, he's probably pissed at Morridin making a topic a while ago that was simply flamebait. He(morridin) admitted as much in the thread, too. All's good now, though.

[ToranagaSama]

Arakasi, please would you adjust your profile to state your place of origin, because if English is not your first language, perhaps we're having a communication problem.

An Opinion cannot be fact.

An opinion can be based upon one or more facts.

A fact is something that is without, question, doubt, nor is it subject to opinion.
A fact is a reality, it exist; contrary to nothing.
Please consult your dictionary if necessary (no insult intended).

The problem *I* had with his comments had little to do with the content, but to do with presentation, specifically, the comments were presented to be *Definitive*.

A definition is similar to a fact, it exists, it is a reality, there is no opinion upon a definition.

Certain comments, opinions, experiences, were presented as definitive and factual. They were not.

I object to anyone "presenting his opinion as fact".

Further and Finally, what has occurred is a complete about face.
What previously was presented with an air of definition and fact, is, now, being contradicted.

Regarding *my* post, NO! my post does not do *that*.

So if I think that RTW is as good a game overall and has the potential to be the better game, than I'm wrong and you're right?

First, the above is a VERY general statement of opinion. You are neither wrong nor right, you have simply stated your opinion with no basis of fact.

Now, if you were to follow up your *opininon* with statements of *fact* upon which you have based your opinion, then there *might* be points for disagreement or argument (in the literal sense, not the emotional).

Regarding your viewpoint upon my comments, as demonstrated by these words, "admit that we were right all along":

First, you shouldn't put those words in quotations, as I did not say that. It is *your* inference from my comments.

Second, I was responding DIRECTLY to the Post, meaning that Reply was based upon the original post of this thread AND upon previous comments by the poster. Unless, you were privy to the previous posts, you may be at a loss to fully comprehend.

If you are privy to that which precluded all the above, then its rather simplistic to discern what I am conveying is an unsophisticated, "admit that we were right all along". From my viewpoint, this is neither here nor there.

What disturbs *me* is when anyone presents THEIR experience and knowledge as being the sum total of; as such that the experience and knowledge of others can be discounted without credence, because one is not open to the possibility, let alone the probablity, that one's experience is, indeed, not the sum total of.

Using the medium in which we are communicating, how can anyone prove to anyone that one's experience and knowledge is greater than another's? It is extremely difficulty and, finally, impossible, if one is closed to the possibility, and particularly, the probability that one's own experience and knowledge is less than definitive or factual.

It is impossible to argument against such a mindset. Any attempt to do so is bound to devolve to a *personal* level.

This is what I believe occurred and there's little I can do to explain it better. I do hope I have proffered something for your comprehension.

That's all I have to say.

---

Now, if you want an OPINION from me, its this: I think that many people come to the Org, with the mindset that this is just another forum. The same as any *game* forum on the Internet. Some come here and conduct themselves and continue with a mindset as they might within those forums. To the contrary, the Org is unique and special place. I, personally, consider the Org, its admins/mods, and members to be a 'cut above'. Some notice this straight away, and some never get it. Some like it and stay, some don't and go. Some like it and never adjust to the difference, some adjust and and don't like it.

Whatever, I came here to figure out how Protectorates work....

later

[SpencerH]

---

To the contrary, the Org is unique and special place. I, personally, consider the Org, its admins/mods, and members to be a 'cut above'.

True said. This and poly are the only sites I inhabit.

Whatever, I came here to figure out how Protectorates work....

later

If you find out will you tell me. It seemed like a bad deal to me to take one on.