A boardgamer's perspective on Rome:Total War

[Warlock]

The database errors are extrmely irritating. I assume this is a temporary problem.

Intro
=====
I've been a board wargamer for nearly 25 years. My current favorites are the card based games (Paths of Glory et al). I play more by PBEM than FTF these days. I've been playing computer games for a long time as well, but have generally been unsatisfied.

I have a bit of prior experience with the Total War series, having played Medieval, so I'm not coming to Rome:Total War cold. I've played campaigns to completion with the Julii and Carthage and have played the other factions enough to get a good feel for them.

My opinions are mixed. Some things are very nicely done; others really irritate and frustrate me. Hence this post. I've read a fair bit of these forums and will try not to repeat complaints made repeatedly by other posters.

Battles
======

The good: Very impressive visually. Terrain looks good, units look good, everything is smooth, no crashes noticed. Not convinced about the bright faction colouring that all the units have, but I understand that it makes friend and foe easy to distinguish.

The bad: Battlefields are too small and have hard edges - with a large army it's possible to have a line that runs from one edge to the other.

The AI is moronic. It's many failings are easily exploited because the player has far too much fine control over events. I understand there is an option to lock the camera on a general and will try that to see if it helps. I'm also thinking of prohibiting myself from ordering any unit that is combat except for my general's unit (and if the general is in combat, no ordering anything else around, he's busy).

Combat values assigned to many troop types seem excessive compared to their historical performance; I'm not just talking about the strength of missile units or cavalry that I've seen other complaints about, but the distinctions made between the different infantry types. Prior to becoming a professional army the Romans weren't appreciably better man for man than their opponents - and the strengths they did have are better explained by experienced troops than by fine distinctions in equipment.

Terrain, particularly woods, has too little of an effect. Charging a unit of cavalry through even sparse forest should be a BAD idea. Dense forest should be impassable to cavalry, at least as a formed body.

A general's ratings have too much of an effect on unit performance. Ironically, the better your general is the less tactics that you need to bother with. What should happen is that the unit values stay the same and a better general lets you command them better - faster response to commands, more willing to run or even move when tired and not directly threatened, etc.

The Ugly: Many types of military operation are impossible to represent as only field battles and seiges are included.

Campaigns
=========
The Good: It's pretty. The characters and their acquisition of traits and retinue are well done. I'll accept the Borg economic model (get bigger so you get more money so you get more troops so you get even bigger so you get more even more money so you get even more troops...) as standard for a game of this type. It's not accurate or historic but it can make for a decent game which is all I'm worried about here. I'll also accept that troops are generally purchased and trained rather than called up for the same reason.

The Bad:
There is no mechanism to allow interception or evasion of an enemy army during it's turn. Walk up to a weaker force and it will back off once and then get run over - it should be able to make a fighting withdrawal, delaying an advance it cannot stop. This would also help the AI, since it insists on sending it's leaders alone into my territory.

The AI should respect borders more. Indeed at all.

Specialisation of cities is not just a good idea, it's almost essential, but it feels wrong to me. I think there is too much detail in cities and it's all arbitrary - why does a whole province forget what horses are because someone torched a stables?

Unique and elite units aren't - once available they get built in quantity and everything else that does the same job becomes obsolete. It's not like money is an issue.

Bribing is far too powerful. Bribing an army should get it to at most go away, and that only if the enemy general keeps his word. Since you've just demonstrated that you'll hand over cash when threatened, it'll probably be back next year... and the year after that. Danegeld should be better at getting rid of the geld than of the Dane.

Bribing a city should not be possible at all. Oh, you might get someone inside to sell out and open the gates (already represented in the game by a spy), but turning the governor of a whole province, a position of immense prestige and power, and getting him to bring the entire population with him? Nah. In any case R:TW is fundamentally a game about armies and seiges; the chequebook shouldn't be better at conquest than armies are.

No-one who lives on a farm ever volunteers for the army, only city dwellers can be recruited.

The cost of building roads should increase in the larger provinces and in harder terrain. The idea that a paved road can be built across the sahara and then last forever without further attention is laughable. In general there isn't enough difference between the provinces - a forest is much the same as a mountain is much the same as a river plain.

The higher city sizes are too close together, it seems like only a few turns from one to the next. The population needed for each level and the effect of that population should scale with the unit sizes in the game.

Military campaigns are too fast and easy. It took the Romans the whole length of the game to gain their empire and that was a spectacular achievement. Has anyone had to rush to reach the victory condition in game?

The difficulty is off. Regardless of difficulty level, the only hard period is at the start with limited resources - once I get properly established, I know for sure that I will win and it becomes just a matter of crunching through the turns. There is little challenge once I weather the initial storm; I've abandoned several campaigns because I couldn't be bothered playing for several hours to enforce a win that is beyond doubt.

Having to move leaders out of towns every so often to check for desirable mercs is annoying (most noticed with Carthage, which really needs mercs because her own troops are so pathetic. I'm not sure why the Spanish fight so much better than the Iberians, but they do. I'm impressed with the Spanish, they are almost as good as Hastati - clearly showing why the Romans adopted their armament in the Marian reforms :D

Where do bodyguard cavalry come from and go to when their leader comes of age or is killed? These men just appear and evaporate. Ideally the leader would be a single man that could be attached to any unit. Leaders and Agents should have a very high movement allowance when moving alone on the campaign map, so as to reduce the tedium of redistributing governors. Independent sea movement would be nice too, getting a spy out to each island took far too much effort (especially since I could see all those merchant ships sailing there - I'd be much more suspect of a guy dropped off by a whole enemy fleet than a sailor who deserted a merchant ship!)

When an attacker first comes up to seige the defender should have the option of fighting outside the city. Often I'd much rather do this than sortie through that tiny gate.

Towers on siege maps should be better placed to defend the gate. I've lost count of the number of towns I've simply walked up to the gate with a ram without ever coming under fire.

Naval combat is unsatisfying, especially on high campaign/moderate battle difficulties. That forcing a battle is trivially easy doesn't help.

The Ugly: All civilisations use the same economic model - whether urban and settled, seaborne traders, horse nomads or barbarian tribes they all play like Romans except for the units they can build.

[Tocca]

I agree with most what you say. A solid, unbiased, "review" in my view, thanks for a good read!

The AI is moronic. It's many failings are easily exploited because the player has far too much fine control over events. I understand there is an option to lock the camera on a general and will try that to see if it helps. I'm also thinking of prohibiting myself from ordering any unit that is combat except for my general's unit (and if the general is in combat, no ordering anything else around, he's busy).

This, restricting myself to only the general, is something i've considered too. It would make the battles both more realistic, and probably more challenging too. I'll try this the next campaign.

A general's ratings have too much of an effect on unit performance. Ironically, the better your general is the less tactics that you need to bother with. What should happen is that the unit values stay the same and a better general lets you command them better - faster response to commands, more willing to run or even move when tired and not directly threatened, etc.

Agree 100%!!

Bribing is far too powerful. Bribing an army should get it to at most go away, and that only if the enemy general keeps his word. Since you've just demonstrated that you'll hand over cash when threatened, it'll probably be back next year... and the year after that. Danegeld should be better at getting rid of the geld than of the Dane.

This would improve the game a lot, it's one of the most irritating things in my view. I found the bribing so powerful that i, after only half a campaign, decided to stop using the bribing possibility entirely.

The difficulty is off. Regardless of difficulty level, the only hard period is at the start with limited resources - once I get properly established, I know for sure that I will win and it becomes just a matter of crunching through the turns. There is little challenge once I weather the initial storm; I've abandoned several campaigns because I couldn't be bothered playing for several hours to enforce a win that is beyond doubt.

This is, ulitimately, the biggest problem with this game in my view. There are lots of games that has the same problem, and it's very irritating!
I'd rather have it the other way around, easy to start off and then more and more challenging.

I think the games is superb as is, but with some things fixed it would be THE game without competition.

[Tocca]

Argh, mispellings and messed up quotes! Someone promote me so i can edit my posts! LOL!

[The Tuffen]

welcome,

The database errors are extrmely irritating. I assume this is a temporary problem.

They are annoying, tosa posted in the watchtower to say that the host has been contacted about the errors. Hopefully they will be sorted soon.

[Tocca]

"Last edited by Papewaio : Today at 17:47"

Thanks!

[Warlock]

A couple of last things

(campaign)
There is no option for attrition, even though one of the introductory vids talks about how invaders keep leaving their bones in the desert. Not everyone would want to play with it, but grognards like myself would appreciate it as a realism option. The attrition rate would depend on unit type, terrain, the size of the army, enemy presence and the general's statistics. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics ;)

Hiring mercenaries should be more expensive and harder in enemy territory. Modify by public order and law of the territory you're in?

It seems impossible to withdraw in good order. In one battle my 800 Carthaginian light troops attacked 2400 Romans - it was that or get seiged and I figured I could give them a bloody nose before retreating inside the city. I killed 1600 of them (AI *sighs*) including both generals and then retreated because I was out of ammo, having taken only a couple of hundred losses. After the battle only my general and one other unit survived, the rest of my army just disappeared. That these two units didn't have any movement left and that the garrison I'd deliberately left in the city to hold it had reinforced the battle and evaporated - therefore allowing the Romans to just walk in - didn't improve my mood.

==========

I should also say that my opinion of the game is better than it looks from reading the above and my first post. If the game didn't have so much promise it's flaws wouldn't irritate me. Things that don't bother me in an RTS do here - I don't expect more from that genre.

[Sociopsychoactive]

The database errors are extrmely irritating. I assume this is a temporary problem.

Yes, they should be temporary and eveyone is just as annoyed about them.

The good: Very impressive visually. Terrain looks good, units look good, everything is smooth, no crashes noticed. Not convinced about the bright faction colouring that all the units have, but I understand that it makes friend and foe easy to distinguish.

I agree, it looks great, it's smooth and well rendered. Crashes have happened but ususally they are few and far between and hopefully that will be addressed in a patch. The unit colouring for the romans isn't so off, they would have a standardised colour of uniform for their armies and it wouldn't be geared towards stealth. The barbarian factions have far less of a uniform for the most part which, when fighting a human, helps to disguise their location. That works well.

The bad: Battlefields are too small and have hard edges - with a large army it's possible to have a line that runs from one edge to the other.

The AI is moronic. It's many failings are easily exploited because the player has far too much fine control over events. I understand there is an option to lock the camera on a general and will try that to see if it helps. I'm also thinking of prohibiting myself from ordering any unit that is combat except for my general's unit (and if the general is in combat, no ordering anything else around, he's busy).

Battlefields arn't that small, the only time I've been cramped for space is when sieging or defending a massive city, and the city takes up nearly the whiole map. Other than that the map is large enough for two of three 2000 man armies to comfortably fight without running out of room, especially with the larger deployment zones than you had in MTW.

The AS (Artificial Stupidity) is bad, VERY bad. It's not about fine control of the player, it's about the AI playing like a man with no legs in an arse kicking competition every time. For example, Sallying out from a besieged city is one of the worst situiations for an army in real life. You are often outnumbered, the enemy are smart enough to stay out of bow and tower range and also ready to fall upon your disorganised army when your halfway out the gates. It shoudl eb a distaster, yet with less than 500 men I managed to repeatedly beat off 1500 ROMAN soldiers several times (around 1500 new men each time).

Every single time the AI would march up to the walls with no siege equipment and no breahces, throw javlins at the wall mounted archers, and get slaghtered by arrows and towers. by the time I actually sent troops out of the city it was to mop up, rather than to do any actual fighting. You don't need to restrict yourself, you need to have an AI that actually knows basic battlefield tactics and strategy.

Combat values assigned to many troop types seem excessive compared to their historical performance; I'm not just talking about the strength of missile units or cavalry that I've seen other complaints about, but the distinctions made between the different infantry types. Prior to becoming a professional army the Romans weren't appreciably better man for man than their opponents - and the strengths they did have are better explained by experienced troops than by fine distinctions in equipment.

I agree to a point. What made the roman armies so mighty in history was more about disciplin than anything else. The british armies did the same several hundred years later. For a commander to know he can send a squad of soldiers to draw enemy fire, even though they will all be killed, allows him to rely on distraction attacks and other great manouvers. Romans were far less likely to run than the other factions of the time because of the level of disciplin they were instilled with in training. yes, they had better training and to a certain extent better arms and armour, but it should all be about starting moral levels in game, with slight advantages in attack and defence values to counter the alrger numbers of the tribal factions units, thats all.

Experience is fine and should stay as it is, it works better than valour or honour did in previous games.

Terrain, particularly woods, has too little of an effect. Charging a unit of cavalry through even sparse forest should be a BAD idea. Dense forest should be impassable to cavalry, at least as a formed body.

As far as I know cavalry get a penalty if they fight in woodland or forest, but you right it's not enough. Currently siege equipment finds forest imassable and it;s a real drag in some battles, so I'm not suggesting that, just make them much slower in forests, thats all.

A general's ratings have too much of an effect on unit performance. Ironically, the better your general is the less tactics that you need to bother with. What should happen is that the unit values stay the same and a better general lets you command them better - faster response to commands, more willing to run or even move when tired and not directly threatened, etc.

Actualy, I disagree. Better generals historically were able to inspir their troops to fight harder, to fight better and to willingly put themselves in harms way. maybe the values are a bit off, but again they are better than they were in MTW so I'm happy. I find also that without exploiting behaviour of the AI i can beat an 8 star general with a one star or even a captain if the battle is fought well and the 8 star doesn;t have to significant an advantage in numbers, troop strength or experience. it;s alot more about how you fight the battle than how good the geenral is.

The Ugly: Many types of military operation are impossible to represent as only field battles and seiges are included.

True, and though you do have ambushes there are many more that would be apreciated, like the fighting retreat, cevauchee and missile exchnages during prolonged sieges (not battle map sieges). These would be good, but I think the best you could ever hope for is to get an autocalk option on a fighting retreat. That would just not be worth it.

Campaigns
=========
The Good: It's pretty. The characters and their acquisition of traits and retinue are well done. I'll accept the Borg economic model (get bigger so you get more money so you get more troops so you get even bigger so you get more even more money so you get even more troops...) as standard for a game of this type. It's not accurate or historic but it can make for a decent game which is all I'm worried about here. I'll also accept that troops are generally purchased and trained rather than called up for the same reason.

The borg economic model is, this time, nicely offset. Squalor makes a large empire VERY hard to maintain and control, not to mention keep loyal because there is no real way to combat it (apart from certain governer traits that have minimal effects). Yes, it's inacurate, but squalor makes those who rush outward and gain a huge empire watch it collapse into riots, rebellions and plauge ridden peasents around them. The troop bit there is no real way to counter or change, but it is good that you cannot recruit troops when your population is minimal, that is a very nice touch. Also that troops are litterally taken straight from your population is a good touch.

The Bad:
There is no mechanism to allow interception or evasion of an enemy army during it's turn. Walk up to a weaker force and it will back off once and then get run over - it should be able to make a fighting withdrawal, delaying an advance it cannot stop. This would also help the AI, since it insists on sending it's leaders alone into my territory.

There is an aswer, more than one infact. Not once have you mantioned ambush. Ambush works very well to catch a smaller force unawares, especialy in the more barbaric lands were you have more rebels and more places to hide aswell. Also, most of the time the enemy will only withdraw a short distance, so they are catchable with an army that doesn't include very slow units like siege equipment. There doesn;t seem to be anything wrong with this to me.

The AI should respect borders more. Indeed at all.

Specialisation of cities is not just a good idea, it's almost essential, but it feels wrong to me. I think there is too much detail in cities and it's all arbitrary - why does a whole province forget what horses are because someone torched a stables?

Well, if you torch the stables you would also torch everything and everyone in it. It would need rebuilding from scratch, new people recruiting and breeding of horses would have to start all over again. If they are torched during a siege then you can geenrally just repair, rather than retrain, the building and it's back up and running in a year, so what about that do you not like?

yes, the AI should respect borders, like i said, it needs a basic knowledge of tactics and strategy.

Unique and elite units aren't - once available they get built in quantity and everything else that does the same job becomes obsolete. It's not like money is an issue.

True, and historically innacurate but I havn't had it happen like that so much. Generally, you will have one city capable of training, say, pretorians, while the others are still on cohorts so your army will be a mix of both. Even if you train one evey time pretorians will not make up your entire heavy infantry because I find that troops are almost never recruied from one city alone.

Bribing is far too powerful. Bribing an army should get it to at most go away, and that only if the enemy general keeps his word. Since you've just demonstrated that you'll hand over cash when threatened, it'll probably be back next year... and the year after that. Danegeld should be better at getting rid of the geld than of the Dane.

YOu do se this when bribing other factions armies. Rebels and none romans, when bribed by romans, will vanish at best, and then be back in a year or two. yes, bribing of other romans is very powerfull, but I refrain from doing that because it just doesn't feel right to me.

Bribing a city should not be possible at all. Oh, you might get someone inside to sell out and open the gates (already represented in the game by a spy), but turning the governor of a whole province, a position of immense prestige and power, and getting him to bring the entire population with him? Nah. In any case R:TW is fundamentally a game about armies and seiges; the chequebook shouldn't be better at conquest than armies are.

Again, I agree. While diplomatically handing a city over is fine, bribing one is just not on. It is slightly realistic in that most of the population will strongly resent your rule (loyalty levels are usualyl rock bottom) and I have found that briobed cities are usually lost to rebellions soon after being bribed.

No-one who lives on a farm ever volunteers for the army, only city dwellers can be recruited.

The cost of building roads should increase in the larger provinces and in harder terrain. The idea that a paved road can be built across the sahara and then last forever without further attention is laughable. In general there isn't enough difference between the provinces - a forest is much the same as a mountain is much the same as a river plain.

True, the cost should be relative to the amount of road being built the the terain it covers. The roads on crete cost the same as the roads through the shara is a bit to much.

The higher city sizes are too close together, it seems like only a few turns from one to the next. The population needed for each level and the effect of that population should scale with the unit sizes in the game.

Military campaigns are too fast and easy. It took the Romans the whole length of the game to gain their empire and that was a spectacular achievement. Has anyone had to rush to reach the victory condition in game?

I find the higher ciy sizes harder to get to while keeping the empire loyal, because you have to be VERY carefully about pop growth and squalor when you get near the 24,000 mark. I think this system works far better than most and am very happy with it.

I would say more, but have run out of time.

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Fantastic posts, Warlock and Sociopsychoactive! So good, in fact, that there isn't much that I could add (from a newbie's perspective).

I play on Hard/Medium, as I dislike the crazy bonuses given to the AI. I do, though, have to limit myself in many areas just to force the game to retain some of its challenge.
Bribing, as has been mentioned, is far too powerful of a feature. While there are the checks and balances of bribing an actual city (as Sociopsychoactive mentioned), the liquidation of whole armies is way too easy. At present, I restrict myself to only bribing stackless generals, and yet I may just stop doing that as well.

While there have been times that the AI did some pretty amazing things, all too often it sputters and wheezes itself to petty deaths. One of the more annoying aspects to the AI is its constant 'trickle policy' once you beat down their initial armies; instead of amassing troops in the fog of war for a big push, it will constantly send 2-3 units to crash upon your full-stack fortified cities to their doom.

This game is truly one of my favorites, but there are a couple of things mentioned in this thread that hinder it from being the best ever (imo).

[Red Harvest]

I agree about the lack of terrain effect. There is some elevation effect seen with archery, and elevation is helpful for movement speed/fatigue and combat. But that's about it... Terrain is really toned down from its influence in MTW, and that is a shame.

I agree units like cav should be more disordered by the woods (wait til you watch chariots fly through the woods.)

The battlefield AI of RTW is weaker than STW or MTW.

[Sin Qua Non]

Great to see a boardgamer here. I got hit by 3 hurricanes and became reacquainted with them over many powerless nights.

[Theodoret]

I think the point about farms is a good one. The game is very city-based, and whilst this makes sense for the 'civilised' factions such as the successors and the Romans, it means that agrarian cultures like the Celts and the Germans are not well represented. Germania is a push-over in the game, and yet in reality the Romans never managed to gain much control over it. I'd like to see some farm-type buildings raise the population cap for barbarian provinces, so that they can raise bigger armies. Okay, so this might be a little unhistorical, but it would make the barbarians tougher to conquer. Besides, playing the Gauls is a big 'what if' exercise and who is to say they would have stuck to small towns if they had conquered much of Europe?

[Warlock]

Thanks for the responses.

Most of the battles I've played only use the centre portion of the map - about 1/4 of the total area. I've been able to stretch my line and anchor it on both edges without feeling that it was too thin.

The fine control is there. My general can be busy riding around one end of the enemy and I can still give detailed, immediate instructions to units at the other end on the other side of a hill. It's as if he was in a blimp overhead with a wireless LAN link to every unit :) Order delays and the chance of them being misunderstood would frustrate a casual player though, so should only be an option.

I'm not saying it's a good AI - not in the slightest, just that it's too easy to manouevre to take advantage of it.

Roman discipline is a factor, but they certainly had their share of bad troops. At their best, they very very good indeed, but legion quality varied widely. Post reform, with the long service professional army, I have no qualms with the high factors (though I agree with you that it would be better to start units with some experience rather than improving their basic stats, so that a battle or two doesn't improve them still further).

I would like to see heavy infantry better overall than they are now. They just have too many vulnerabilities. Perhaps using armies of 2000 rather than 50000 is a factor here.

A general improving unit morale I'm quite happy with - it makes sense. Improving their basic attack factors... a point or two perhaps, especially for his bodyguard unit, but not to the extent shown in the game. This isn't a major issue compared to the others.

I've never had a real problem with squalor. Maybe if I played every game out to completion I'd notice it more, but the late game mopping up bores me. Even though an extra city isn't going to be as productive as your capital, it's still helpful.

I feel that the effect of recruiting troops on population is too severe in small provinces - the barbarian factions might only have small urban populations, but they had no shortage of actual manpower. Ideally I'd like to see different factions use different economic models (eg. Gauls wouldn't train troops in cities, they would use something similar to the mercenary system).

On withdrawal and evasion - that it's always possible to run down and kill an enemy army is my problem. With armies of equal speed, the defender should be able to walk away from a larger enemy and refuse combat. Instead they move one square and get squished. Withdrawing before combat wouldn't be automatic, it would depend on the relative skills of both generals and their army composition. Trying to chase light horse with legions while commanded by Crassus should be futile, not just require a second click!

On interception - it's often possible to walk around an enemy army to attack something else. The army in the way should be able to react to your movement and move to block. Again, depending on the skills of both generals and the composition of both armies.

I've bribed rebels and enemy armies. The troops disappear, not just move back to their base.

[Warlock]

As an aside - I think computer games are the root cause of so many excellent boardgames coming out in the last few years. Board wargames have more or less abandoned the 'insane amounts of detail' game type (which includes Rome:TW) to the computer, which can effortlessly handle all the calculations and present the player with a result. So boardgame designers have had to look in other directions, and have come up with some brilliant systems and games as a result, abstracting some elements and focusing on those the designer feels to be important.

For instance, comparing a campaign and subsequent seige in Rome:TW with one in Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage (assuming both were playable with a human player on both sides)....

Rome:TW - you can see the exact number of men you have with the equipment and experience of each, the exact stats of the commanding general, the specific buildings making up the enemy city. With a spy around, you'll have the same information about the enemy forces too and therefore be reasonably sure who will win any battle that occurs. Every man you send will arrive at the destination on time and in good health, barring battle. Once at the target city, you should know who will win any assualt and can certainly starve it into submission if it's not you. Every man in your nation will instantly follow out your orders, you know your income and expenses down to the last denarii and can be sure of both the quantity and quality of your reinforcements.

Hannibal - you know that you've got eight legions and a few local allies with a skilled but cautious general and can see he's got a smaller force with slightly inferior leadership but more allies defending a walled city. You know that his allies will desert him if you can force a battle as you have that card in your hand. Barring bad weather (enemy card) you'll be able to reach him and probably win the battle, but it's still a risk, especially if his hand has a combat card or two or he discovers your movement and manages to intercept (die roll) as you cross that pass - and if you do lose a battle deep in enemy territory your force will get severely mauled as it retreats back to a space you control. You could take things more slowly, establishing garrisons and political control as you go, but that will need more effort and take longer so you'll have less time for the seige. If and when you do reach the city taking it before winter is no sure thing, and you'd really rather your army wasn't caught in the open by the snows.

[PFJ_bejazuz]

great posts - i enjoyed viewing the game from a different perspective

[henoch]

what a relief..(RTW isn`t perfect, yet)

to the boards!
-but i doubt that Rome would be adaptable as board-game. shogun was a board game, yes, but "total" different.

there is the map..woo..i can put you one in settlers of catan, too..put still not shogun.

put think of a shogun:pc where you still have the "koku"-setting`[in board game everyone puts koku in buckets, and who has most "efford" takes it) to fnd out who builds the castle, who hires (?!?) the ninja..etc. half the fun.

all battles etc. would be directly linked to the "gamers" efford in army-micromanegment, sheet-herding, and feel for atmosphere...so, it`s a shogun:rpg anyway??

but i`m still waiting for a new (and much more complex in all terms) "diplomacy-risk" game.

---rome&germania-control: no they didn`t, yes they did,... i mean it`s always hard to put a few centuries into one sentence..

[jjnip]

It appears this game is in its element when you have 8-16 mixed units fighting against another army of 8-16 mixed units. That’s the soft spot and what the game does best. Unit size is probably geared toward normal although they allowed for large and huge to simulate larger battles.

Reasons for map size and unit size and the ability to cross an entire battle map is what happens when you allow so many variables in your game design. It really is on the “responsibility” of the gamer to educate themselves of the limitations of the game, and its accompanying AI.

You want a good fight then you got to fight on the AI’s terms, he is a honest, simple guy, who follows the rules for the most part.

You can not if you were a boxer, put weights in your gloves and salt on your gloves and hit below the belt then say, “Hey, man the AI boxer is stupid, the AI referee didn’t check my gloves or call me on the low blows.”

The design problem as a software developer is probably mind blowing when one not only has to create a game but also has to attempt to limit every possible exploit by the human player on the AI. With these known limitations in mind a gamer, a pc player, should look to give the AI player a “stand up fight”, not look to hit below the belt.

With that said, I will address the other things raised by the initial poster:

I break them down into categories:
Category I: His personal opinion

A. Very impressive visually.
B. Not convinced about the bright faction colouring that all the units have
C. The AI is moronic. (he goes on to admit its easy exploited)
D. Combat values assigned to many troop types seem excessive compared to their historical performance
E. A general's ratings have too much of an effect on unit performance
F. Military campaigns are too fast and easy.

I say, personal opinion, everyone has one, all differ, and they are subjective.

Category II: This is really a design game issue complaint of his, or does he want a completely different game? Are they realistic complaints, comments?

A. Battlefields are too small and have hard edges
B. Terrain, particularly woods, has too little of an effect.
C. The Ugly: Many types of military operation are impossible to represent as only field battles and seiges are included
D. Another game design complaint -Ideally the leader would be a single man that could be attached to any unit. Leaders and Agents should have a very high movement allowance when moving alone on the campaign map, so as to reduce the tedium of redistributing governors. Independent sea movement would be nice too, getting a spy out to each island took far too much effort,

I say maybe a mod could implement this. All in all its really a personal complaint like ones favorite color, its rather, your talking about changing the game which is fine, but everyone has 10+ ideas on how to make the game better but that’s what mods are for, surely

E. Naval combat is unsatisfying, especially on high campaign/moderate battle difficulties. That forcing a battle is trivially easy doesn't help.

Category III: Is he arguing/talking about/for things that would make the game more fun or tedius?

A. Charging a unit of cavalry through even sparse forest should be a BAD idea.
B. Dense forest should be impassable to cavalry, at least as a formed body.
C. What should happen is that the unit values stay the same and a better general lets you command them better - faster response to commands, more willing to run or even move when tired and not directly threatened, etc.
D. The cost of building roads should increase in the larger provinces and in harder terrainD
E. The population needed for each level and the effect of that population should scale with the unit sizes in the game.
F. Towers on siege maps should be better placed to defend the gate. I've lost count of the number of towns I've simply walked up to the gate with a ram without ever coming under fire.

Category IV: This is probably true, in essence I agree, mostly. But its not necessarily a ball buster.

A. There is no mechanism to allow interception or evasion of an enemy army during it's turn.
B. What should happen is that the unit values stay the same and a better general lets you command them better - faster response to commands, more willing to run or even move when tired and not directly threatened, etc.
C. The AI should respect borders more. Indeed at all. (enemy leaders/generals should form up more, definitely but I look for a mod or patch to fix it, I say)
D. Where do bodyguard cavalry come from and go to when their leader comes of age or is killed? These men just appear and evaporate (kinda but it’s a game design issue)
E. When an attacker first comes up to seige the defender should have the option of fighting outside the city. Often I'd much rather do this than sortie through that tiny gate.

Category V: I don’t really agree with this at all.

A. Unique and elite units aren't - once available they get built in quantity and everything else that does the same job becomes obsolete. It's not like money is an issue. (I say, my experience has been like the above poster regarding Praetorians, etc.)
B. Specialisation of cities is not just a good idea, it's almost essential, but it feels wrong to me. I think there is too much detail in cities and it's all arbitrary
C. No-one who lives on a farm ever volunteers for the army, only city dwellers can be recruited.
E. Having to move leaders out of towns every so often to check for desirable mercs is annoying (another personal reflection I have never even considered, and I doubt its not really worth mentioning, I dont know, I say)

Category VI: This falls under the wait for the PATCH, might be fixed in future is “easy to exploit the AI” department. Or wait for the mod department.

A. Bribing is far too powerful. Bribing an army should get it to at most go away, and that only if the enemy general keeps his word.
B. Bribing a city should not be possible at all.
C. The difficulty is off. Regardless of difficulty level, the only hard period is at the start with limited resources - once I get properly established,


So what do I have at the end of the day?
Category I has 5 personal opinions which are subjective, and only really meaningful to the original poster, and so kind of meaningless to some people.

Category II with 5 complaints about the game design, not much we can do about that. Maybe someone will create a different game, or maybe modders can help. These are also worthless unless a modder can implement some of the changes, however one would have to agree with the modder and want the mod.

Category III is 6 things that will make the game more tedious. Do you want RTW or RTW civilization or RTW micromanagement? Again, modders are the answer.

Category IV I agree with mostly, its obvious the weakest part of the game, is AI skills in sieges, managing large armies, and conquest, and “smart” tactics and unit combinations. [I suppose we can always dream, but I agree, hopefully some patches can fix this or modders can, I have hope! And to me, this category IV is really the meat of the game and where most of the strategy and tactics is, and where RTW starts to fall off mid game and end game and as the armies start to get larger. Tweaking is needed.

Category V: is another group of personal opinions that I either disagree with or do care about at all.

Category VI is the patch, the mod, its hope. I don’t think you can really beat the game by just doing a few campaigns and learning a few exploits, I am not saying you are doing that. I just think that one has to look at the game in a broader sense of potential changes and challenges and I think you have a few good ideas.

Of the total I counted, 28 or so ideas you have I agree with about 5, the others are too fanciful, “another game” even beyond modders capabilities, and unnecessary nick picks, that can be solved with a little self-limitation. It’s the end game that needs the most work but you still have to face the realization of the limitations of the game engine AI.

A chess pro can still have fun against a amateur, if he imposes a little restraint, etc. I think you agree with that statement and I think your next step is to make a list of 3-4 things you would like implemented into the game, and then looking to create a modification and then getting user feedback.

[Warlock]

I won't write a detailed justification for each of my views; what I've said is my opinion only and shouldn't be taken as more than that. I certainly don't want to make the game tedious - quite the reverse, especially in the end game.

I realise that many of the things I would have liked are impossible using the current design. Had I been the head designer, they wouldn't have been impossible :)

I will say this, because I probably didn't say it clearly enough in my earlier posts.

I like the game.
I like it a lot.

That said...

It's so close to being much more than it is.
And I see how close it is to that better game every time I play.

[Red Harvest]

jjnip,

Warlock offered his perspective, not a bug list. I think you completely misread his posts.

Some of what you list as "personal opinion" would qualify as fact to the majority of us (proven on the campaign field.) For instance: the battlefield AI is noticeably weaker than other AI in the series. (There are a few specific things it does better, not many, and it seems worse at most things--friendly fire being a glaring example.) The game is certainly visually impressive.

He is very right about terrain having little impact on the outcome of battles (other than some elevation effects.) This is a large aspect of the overall strategic gamer disatisfaction with battles. Units all seem like vanilla with respect to terrain. Might as well all be grassland with hills.

Another thing sorely lacking is weather effects both on the strategic map and in battle. Fleets aren't sunk in storms (I've never seen it in a campaign.) Cities don't suffer from torrential rains/mudslides, droughts/fires, or pestilence. On the battlefield, rain and snow are muted affairs compared to STW, MTW (miss those thunderstorms.) You get rain in RTW but you often don't even notice it... MTW was a bit overboard with the frequency, but that only mattered because the rain actually had some noticeable effect.

[jjnip]

Red Harvest,

I know Warlock offered a post, it looks like a description of many things, some of which could be put in categories and perhaps even a big list, and regardless it’s still just a post.

Bugs and Personal Feelings
Some of the things he describes are bugs and some are his personal feelings. I have seen so many posts where people say, “Hey I don’t like this or that, or I think it would be better if.” As a reader you kind of have to categorize or try to feel where the original poster is coming from, because I often do not even know or understand where they get some of their ideas. After all, they are personal ideas, personal feelings, that come from their personal gaming and life experiences all of which I do not share but like others recognize pieces for sure.

I am a gamer also, so I also consider it a hobby, I also am a military history enthusiast and have thoughts and opinions like the original poster.

Regardless, I do feel I get the guy’s original post, I understood, agreed with, 5 of 28 thoughts, ideas he had that I could make out. I am only human and like anyone I can only attempt to try to understand what he is talking about, I cant read his mind. I think some of the things he said were personal, some unrealistic, and some good it is not a knock on him, its honest response to a post.

As far as misreading his post I don’t see how you can misread it, I don’t see how I misread it. With all fairness I don’t even know what you are talking about. LOL

How can you misread my categories in my POST? Those A,B,C,D,E are his not mine, I just put a label or category header to try to show how it looked to me.

Either you agree with me or don’t, its really subjective stuff anyway.

You Red Harvest say, he, “offered his perspective not a bug list.”
In my opinion he did both. And for you to try to interpret what “he” did and what “I” did makes my head hurt, because that makes it seem like your omnipotent, or something.
And I don’t think you mean it that way at all.

Personal Opinion or Fact
Your next statement I think really sums up and is the truth about your post and Red Harvest, that is, “Some of what you list as "personal opinion" would qualify as fact to the majority of us (proven on the campaign field.)”

I think you have a point there.

In the original category, I wrote:

Category I: His personal opinion

A. Very impressive visually.
B. Not convinced about the bright faction colouring that all the units have
C. The AI is moronic. (he goes on to admit its easy exploited)
D. Combat values assigned to many troop types seem excessive compared to their historical performance
E. A general's ratings have too much of an effect on unit performance
F. Military campaigns are too fast and easy.

I say, personal opinion, everyone has one, all differ, and they are subjective.

My inclusion of what I think is personal opinion is subjective and not everyone will agree, I might even change it given some time. However, “The AI is moronic,” statement I believe goes overboard, is too much, is unfair. The exploits of the AI, the tendencies of the AI to do certain idiotic behavior is becoming if not all ready pretty well founded.
Most are set to be fixed, hopefully in the next patch, and modders are trying to think of ways to mod out these bad behaviors.

I am just saying try to stay positive.

As far as your comments Red Harvest in your post:
A. For instance: the battlefield AI is noticeably weaker than other AI in the series. (There are a few specific things it does better, not many, and it seems worse at most things--friendly fire being a glaring example.)
B. The game is certainly visually impressive.

C. He is very right about terrain having little impact on the outcome of battles (other than some elevation effects.)
D. This is a large aspect of the overall strategic gamer disatisfaction with battles.
E. Units all seem like vanilla with respect to terrain. Might as well all be grassland with hills.

F. Another thing sorely lacking is weather effects both on the strategic map and in battle. Fleets aren't sunk in storms (I've never seen it in a campaign.)
G. Cities don't suffer from torrential rains/mudslides, droughts/fires, or pestilence.
H. On the battlefield, rain and snow are muted affairs compared to STW, MTW (miss those thunderstorms.)
I. You get rain in RTW but you often don't even notice it... MTW was a bit overboard with the frequency, but that only mattered because the rain actually had some noticeable effect.

I say:
The battlefield AI might not as good as MTW, true, the game is different, you as a player might also be better, having played MTW the past year or so. I didn’t play MTW, didn’t spend past year or so playing MTW I don’t know if it is easier or not, but I would assume I would be a pretty good player.

Pat on the back
To many people bash the AI but I don’t think they are giving themselves enough respect. If you spent past 2 years playing STW, and MTW then yes you are probably a pretty damn good player, give yourself a pat on the back. Yes the game is different it will probably need some tweaking, yes people will find exploits, ways to exploit the AI, yes after 2 + year of playing this graphics/game engine you might be called a “master”. Does that mean, the game is now stupid, or stupid AI?

Regarding, (C) through (I), I think you got some points, tweaks are needed, however most people probably wouldn’t even notice what your talking about. I see your point, but I don’t really care if its raining, or not, and if it is, my arrows wont light, or perhaps not go as far.

Red Harvests Weather-Battle Enhancer Mod
Come on those are tweaks, everyone has tweaks, create a mod, work on a mod to flesh that out. Call it, Red Harvests Weather-Battle Enhancer, but to say the game is weaker without it is not really true. Might be better with it, who knows I got to play the mod, wouldn’t I?

I love you
Come on Red Harvest I love you but,
F. Another thing sorely lacking is weather effects both on the strategic map and in battle. Fleets aren't sunk in storms (I've never seen it in a campaign.)
G. Cities don't suffer from torrential rains/mudslides, droughts/fires, or pestilence

I say what game is this, I wont RTW, army vs army on the battlefield, not city sim!, but I am not bashing you I just think your post like Warlocks is personal and not exactly FACT. Yes we might not get mudslides in RTW but I don’t wont them, the fact we don’t have them does not make it a less of a game to me.

[Warlock]

Junip,
My intent here was to give my honest opinion of where the game works (which I probably didn't spend enough time on) and where I think it falls short of it's potential - excluding things that I'd seen said elsewhere (hence no mention of friendly fire for instance). If that sparks discussion of ways in which the game could be improved, great - it's the squeaking wheel that gets the grease.

I am probably misreading your posts as well because for the second time I've had to bite back a defensive reaction before writing something civil; your wording came across as an attack rather than critism. I'm sure that this was not your intent, I know that I am not fully understanding you - for instance your details give broad agreement to most of my points but your summary is just 5/28.

I should probably clarify that by "exploiting the AI's failings" I don't mean things like "lead an enemy unit in front of a seige tower so it gets shot to pieces" - though I once did that by accident, it's clearly an exploit and I don't deliberately try for it (and once got a unit killed trying to get such an AI unit to chase it). I mean things like it's tendency to get badly split up and end up attacking piecemeal and the way it either ignores or overreacts to a flanking move.

Expanding on a couple of points that you disagreed with where I think you may have misunderstood me:

V-A: Elite units: Thanks to city specialisation, you'll probably only have a few cities that you use for most of your military production - they will concentrate construction on unit buildings, smiths and a martial temple, while other cities concentrate on income producing buildings. The cities that are being used to produce units should all continuously build the best units that they can, so even though only a few cities can produce the good stuff it will still make up the majority of your armies. I'll grant that it's useful to include a production building in your income cities in case of emergency and to provide garrisons, but the lesser units dont see as much action.

V-B: City Specialisation: Mostly personal taste - I think the emperor should look at a city and think things like "It's rich and loyal, wish I could replace it's governor with someone competent but I daren't offend his brother who commands the armies on the frontier" rather than "I won't be recruiting from here, it's got the wrong temple".

V-C: Rural recruits: Just feels odd, though changing it would requiring changing the economic model. Bribing rebels can help, though.

V-E: Merc hiring: Just an interface issue. Say you're playing Carthage and want to get those slingers from the Balearic isles. Instead of *select governor* *walk out of city* *right click* *hire mercs* *walk back into city* *restore tax setting* I'd like to be able to just hire them straight from the city screen.

For your category III items, could you explain why you think each would make the game more tedious? III-C removing instant command & control I agree that it might, for the casual gamer at least - but the others?

Are there any other of my points that you would like me to expand on?

[Gregoshi]

jjnip, one comment on battle weather: weather on the battlefield may not seem like a big deal, but in Shogun Total War it was. The weather heightened the immersion factor of battles. STW had light to very heavy rain/snow, which often varied as the battles progressed and affected visibility as well as army performance (bows/muskets/fatigue). It also had light to very heavy fog. Visibility was a big factor in the outcome of a battle. There was nothing quite like the feeling of advancing almost blindly in a heavy fog/rain/snow and hoping you were not presenting a flank to the enemy. The unknown and unseen added tremendously to the tension and excitement of the battle. It is these types of weather effects that the old STW players have sorely missed in MTW and RTW. I'll also add that the thunder and lightning effect during a thunder storm was spectacular, especially if you had your speakers cranked up and the lights turned down!

Warlock, you have a good list of things that would have made RTW a better game and you obviously have given the matter a lot of thought. I tend to look at the Total War games as a series of steps. Each game/expansion has moved the mechanics of the game forward from the previous one (though there are some obvious "questionable" improvements with RTW). One needs only look at the changes from STW to WE to MTW to VI to RTW in various areas of the game to see this: navies, diplomacy, trade/income, agents, reinforcements, combat units, campaign/battle maps, game features/functions. No doubt, once the dust settles on RTW and CA starts work on the next TW game, we will see tweaks or wholesale changes to improve game play or realism (no snickering from the history fans!) to quite a few of the RTW features. Is RTW the perfect game? By today's standard it is closest (in my book), but not perfect. However, I look at how it improved many things from MTW/VI and I'm very happy. Some improvements, while better than before, still need more work (naval combat comes to mind), but they are the building blocks for future improvements. Maybe not all the items you listed will be changed to your (or anyone else's) satisfaction, but I imagine some of them will in the next game or two of the TW series. Discussions such as this can help CA determine the direction of the next game. In fact, some of the suggestions for MTW/VI made here at the Org have found their way into RTW. The TW games are getting "there" - one step at a time.

[jjnip]

I am going to respond but I have to draw this short I just popped on the boards because I just finished a long campaign and I am trying to decide who I want to do next. Once I begin it I will not be visiting the boards till I finish the campaign, with time being so limited and I have a tendency to get “time trapped” at the forums.

I think Macedonia might be my next faction in conjunction with the new movie [Alexander the Great] and History Channel show Nov. 7. going to get some Macedonian skins from twcenter downloads too I think.

Anyway. –

Lets not make to much of this, back away and maybe just be quite for awhile, it seems I and you maybe make too much out of nothing. You had thoughts, posts, ideas, about the game. I responded. It is criticism, if you like, it’s a critique of your opinions, thoughts, ideas, that is what I did.

All I said was, “Of the total I counted, 28 or so ideas you have I agree with about 5, the others are too fanciful, “another game” even beyond modders capabilities, and unnecessary nick picks, that can be solved with a little self-limitation. It’s the end game that needs the most work but you still have to face the realization of the limitations of the game engine AI.”

Five are too fanciful, “meaning requiring a different game, big patch, possible add on, big change to code” probably not going to happen even though I might agree with it. Others are just things you want changed with the game not necessarily do I think they would make the game better.

It is some quirks in battle map mode that need to be fixed, suicide generals, enemy response to arrows, and flanking that need to be given priority.

It is the response of the enemy AI in sieges with creating and utilizing breaches in walls which needs to be tweaked. Immediate things, which will noticeable, effect and are obvious to everyone. Exploits like running around the walls of a fort getting the enemy to chase you, multiple sallying forth in a turn these need to be dealt with. Bribing needs to be dealt with. The AI producing too many navy vessels need to be dealt with. The AI not keeping family members in big stacks and relentlessly attacking has to be dealt with. The enemy not putting smaller armies into one big stack and getting off its ass and attacking and using all its movement points has to be dealt with.

People should do one of three things I think:
1) Discuss strategy, legitimate strategy, not one horse cav running around the fort stuff during a siege.
2) If you find a way to exploit the AI then describe it, define it, mark and list its tendencies so modders and others can either avoid it or mod it out.
3) Work with modders to create mods which implement things you would like to see on top of the base. The base is RTW as the creators create it. Everything else comes is a variation of the base.
4) Give the AI a “stand up fight”- don’t be a punk and run around the battlefield with 300 cavalry against 1500 hoplites. Ok maybe once, but it shouldn’t be a long-term battle practice. (yes the AI can be exploited)

I like some of your ideas, I made a category called: Category IV: This is probably true, in essence I agree, mostly.

I don’t have to agree with everything you said and I don’t. This is a good game with a lot of potential, its up to the gamers to work to create the challenge and work to maintain the challenge especially for those veterans of STW, MTW.

So if you have an idea, mod it I might play it.

From a board gamer’s perspective, I think yes it makes sense you would say those things you are saying.

Not that any of your ideas are bad I got ideas too, give me enough time I could come up with 100.

Look at the titles of my categories to the thoughts of yours I collected I think they say it all.
Category I: His personal opinion
Category II: This is really a design game issue complaint of his, or does he want a completely different game? Are they realistic complaints, comments?
Category III: Is he arguing/talking about/for things that would make the game more fun or tedius?
Category IV: This is probably true, in essence I agree, mostly. But its not necessarily a ball buster.
Category V: I don’t really agree with this at all.
Category VI: This falls under the wait for the PATCH, might be fixed in future is “easy to exploit the AI” department. Or wait for the mod department.

I don’t think your ideas are dumb, for example:

V-E: Merc hiring: Just an interface issue. Say you're playing Carthage and want to get those slingers from the Balearic isles. Instead of *select governor* *walk out of city* *right click* *hire mercs* *walk back into city* *restore tax setting* I'd like to be able to just hire them straight from the city screen.

[I say why not, sounds good to me.]

I originally put this in the category, “I don’t really agree with this at all.”

I honestly don’t think its that big of a deal. I probably never would of thought of it till you mentioned it [regarding V-E]. Now that I do think of it I guess you perhaps have been in sieges and wish you could of purchased mercenaries to help your defense. When in a siege you cant get mercenaries. It might seem dumb. I sure somebody could mod it. I don’t have a problem either way. I suppose it’s to reflect mercenaries are out in the field and that you have to go out and “talk to them”.

It was a game design issue. At some point you have to say, “Hey that’s the way it is, lets make the most of it, perhaps think of a strategy to deal with it.” Instead of naturally thinking hey this is wrong, sometimes like in life, in a game its not so bad to suffer some things you just don’t like because it makes the whole better.

And as you play the long campaign as I am sure you noticed as you move around you get different mercenaries available, and sometimes depending on how many you hire, none are available. Again I don’t really have a opinion, to me, although I don’t really agree that it is an issue that’s why I put it in that category. Make a mod for this called, Warlocks-Hirable Mercenary Mod.

In regard to last thing you asked:

Category III: Is he arguing/talking about/for things that would make the game more fun or tedius?

A. Charging a unit of cavalry through even sparse forest should be a BAD idea.

[I say, It supposedly already is in the game code, it could be worse I suppose, perhaps a modder will make it so] I personally don’t spend that much time in the woods and I beat Germania, Dacia, Briton, Gauls, and there was some wood battles, heck some of the battles in Germania were nothing but in the woods, big honking trees obscuring your view, we all were in the woods, to make it impassable would of made my horse and cav stuck in a sea of trees.]

B. Dense forest should be impassable to cavalry, at least as a formed body.

[I say, Sounds good, but not really practical or necessary for realism, I have had many talks about realism with Vietcong players for example and other 1st person shooter fanatics and realism is cool but this is a game, fun factor is high on my list].

C. What should happen is that the unit values stay the same and a better general lets you command them better - faster response to commands, more willing to run or even move when tired and not directly threatened, etc.

[I say, Sounds like a cool idea but it requires extensive coding changes I am sure. Units are going to react slower or faster based on a generals rating. I dig it. Its just that RTW spent several years coming up with the way it is, and sometimes you have to just get down and beat the game on its own terms. Give the AI a stand up fight, beat the game, spin the wheel. Work on a mod, post in forums, and listen to people disagree about your General idea. I like Generals the way they are. I don’t like the idea of my Hastati with 3-4+ exp running slow, acting dumb, because my General has 1-2 stars.]

[I say, Figure out the way the game works, figure it out, beat it, and move on. Make a mod. But this is a serious alteration to game play.]

D. The cost of building roads should increase in the larger provinces and in harder terrainD

[I say, how much micromanaging do you want?]

E. The population needed for each level and the effect of that population should scale with the unit sizes in the game.
F. Towers on siege maps should be better placed to defend the gate. I've lost count of the number of towns I've simply walked up to the gate with a ram without ever coming under fire.

You Warlock asked me:
“For your category III items, could you explain why you think each would make the game more tedious? III-C removing instant command & control I agree that it might, for the casual gamer at least - but the others?”

[I say, I said tedious because you are starting to describe different terrain effects for each type unit.]

For example:
Horse goes fastest on sunny/dry grassland
Next fastest sunny/dry desert
Next fastest sunny/dry lightly wooded grassland
Next rainy /dry grassland
Next rainy/dry desert
Next rainy/dry lightly wooded grassland
Etc.,,,,,

Woods are classified as:
Heavily wooded
Moderately wooded
Lightly wooded
Sparsely wooded

Horse cannot go in Heavily wooded at all
Horse speed cut in half in mod wood [effective speed is 50% of max]
1/3rd in light [66% of max]
1/4th in sparse [75% of max]

Horse up hills goes max 2/3rds or 66% of max.

Its tedious to describe, is it going to make a for a more realistic and fun experience, thats the question.

The game engine does these things to some extent. Some have been simplified. Some of this stuff could be added in patches or mods if that’s what you want. I dig it, I just don’t see it as a glaring omission- it’s a tweak, its small piece of the game to me. But please somebody make that mod, The Battle-Terrain Enhancer Mod.

The game is only capable of some things. Some things are obviously broken let’s start there and be practical as gamers and history enthusiast, be positive, and be realistic.

You made a post, you said things should be this way or might be better in your opinion if they were another way. I disagree.

I like some of your ideas, others require mods, and others are too complex to institute so they fall into the category, of impossible. Some of your ideas bring thoughts and ideas from board gaming which from my experience can be quite a lot about micro management and number crunching.

It is not as much as to say I disagree with your ideas as much as it is true I would have to play the mod. For you ideas are just that, potential mods. But this game is potentially so modifiable in some ways, its OK to have ideas and opinions but it would be silly to think they are definitive or undeniably correct.

Why, because the game is so open, to a degree and modifiable. Everyone has opinions about how strong the barbarian tribes were, every type of subject, and any subject to make a suggestion is to think about a mod.

I didn’t really mean anything by my post, I just like to stir things up and respond sometimes in a definite manner as I can.

I am a gamer, and besides being other things, and if its not fun, I might not like it. And heck I played those old Talon Soft Games, East Front, West Front, turn based hexes you just except it, either you don’t like it or you play another game. You don’t go oh the moral modifier is to low, you just change your strategy to win for example.

Finally another reason my post might too you may of seemed so “overkill” perhaps is that it is in response to the so many negative posts I see, here and at other forums.

You see, I post as an advocate, supporter, optimist, realist, and enthusiastic fan of the game.

So I try to hammer a little perspective into the mainstream RTW community for it is overburdened with long time STW-MTW players who are too good to know how good they are and newbies who don’t understand something in 5 minutes get upset and the slackers who like to exploit, and believe if you can do it, it must be legal group.

These (3) groups are shouting out us newer members who played STW, maybe MTW and want to talk about a game they are getting some fun out of.

So if somebody comes along and they sound like they got a lot of complaints I try to say hey, make a mod, list the things you have seen, describe them, be positive and I am honest with them.

I liked your post though otherwise I probably wouldn’t have responded to it. Did I like it because it was good or bad, well that does not really matter.

I learned you have a lot of ideas. I think some of what you said is not realistic for this game, might could be implemented. I tried to suggest mods. I just wanted people who might be new to the game, to know not everyone sees as many problems or has as many complaints, and that is there hope, and opportunity in mods to change.

So be constructive. 5 out of 29 is not that bad, its probably more like 10. What you want you probably wouldn’t agree with half my hundred I could come up with. Give me 6 months I will come back and have a list of 100 ideas for mods. Of course you will have to play the mod to really know if my idea was bunk as I would yours.

And although you maybe had good intentions, and your post was veiled in the I have 25+ years experience board gaming so I must be know what I am talking about header it still to me came across as I described.

Your post could be more constructive to me. Formulate your ideas into categories with mods, or mini mods, which could alter and change the way the game plays. These mini mods together would make a new vision of Warlocks RTW. But to post openly-blantantly this is what is wrong, this right, this should be this way, is ripe picking for me. So I picked you.

As far as I am concerened the matter is closed, you are describing definite ideas about mods. Taking it to another level and only the mod, or time and user feedback let you know if your mod was wanted, if that means it was good idea then I guess you will know that too.

[LestaT]

Wow.. so many were said..

Anyway does anyone here disagree that RTW is one hell of a great game ?

[Warlock]

A week ago I'd have agreed that it's a great game. Now I'll only go so far as good. The key point is the difficulty - battles are too easy and the strategic game isn't enough to hold my attention by itself. If a patch significantly improves the AI I'll put my rating back to great.

[Tyrac]

Personally I rate games against each other rater then "great" or "poor" etc.

Nothing can compete with RTW for my valuable play time.

[CrusaderMan]

I agree with everything you say.

It feels like CA have added very little over time to make this a really interesting game. (Maybe it is their lack of time or lack of competition). Maybe you should take your comments to the mod forum, find what can be added.

[DisruptorX]

Personally I rate games against each other rater then "great" or "poor" etc.

Nothing can compete with RTW for my valuable play time.

Actually, comparisson is exactly why Rome fails. It is so inferior to medieval in every category except atmosphere and graphics that it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I haven't played Rome since the third week after it came out, the game was simply too much of a dissapointment, which infuriates me. I went out and bought MTW because I saw early previews of Rome. I had been waiting for this game for a long time.

At least the soundtrack is good.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Gregoshi - agree wholeheartedly with the weather point - STW battles were fabulous just because of this - who can forget attacking monks in the mountains in full fog, trying desperately to find them, only for them to find YOU and rout half your army before you get a chance to react? Or skirting around the back of your enemy in a heavy snowstorm, and charging in your Yari cavalry into their backs as you storm the front - and what about those awesome thunder storms?

Only negative effect was the silly dust in MI, which if you kept it on made battles impossible as you couldn't find your troops !

[jjnip]

I was just reading recently in a thread, about a mod, Trivium is working on, and one of the I guess guys testing some changes in the mod was complaining that there was too much fog and rain.

I got the impression he was saying there was too much, so that should be interesting, considering before there was not really much in vanilla as far as I could tell.

Apparently according to .Spartan I think he is saying they have implemented some sort of weather modification.
The mod, is getting its finishing touches, and should be released in next couple hours.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In some respects of the campaign map, I think Lords of the Realm II (not three) is better. Yes, I know the game is over 6 years old, but RTW could learn a few things from it.
(It should be noted that LOTRII had a campaign map where you could walk all over it using movement points)

First, you had to feed your people. All the food had to be grown yourself, and came in two varieties: wheat and cows. There were squares representing these farms on the campaign map, that an army could walk up to and destroy, thus cutting down the food supply (Also, if your army was in enemy territory, they would get food from that province, robbing your opponent of food.)
You could also deem which farm square raised wheat, or cows, or went fallow.

You could also adjust the rations the people got, which would either raise or lower happiness (and affect immigration and emmigration) , and use less or more food. You could also ship grain and cows to other provinces if they were running low.

Other goods you could buy/produce were iron and stone, which were also in little mines in your province that could be razed.

Your population would grow, but in a much more realistic manner. Also, when your pop got to be high, little villages would spring up in your province, which could also be razed by your enemies (thus killing some of your pop).

When raising armies, you had to have enough weapons and equipment to supply the type of troops you wanted to buy (you could buy weapons from merchants or make them yourself.) Weapons you could make included swords, pikes, bows, x-bows, maces, etc.

You could build multiple levels of castles, which mainly gained more tax money for you and provided better defenses. Also, if your castle was damaged in a siege, then that damaged stayed there until workers were assigned to repair it.

Also, the AI seemed to be a heck of a lot better from what I remember. (No tiny armies, pointless charges, sieging stupidity, etc.) Of course, that's not saying much. ~(

It also seems that LOTRII had a lot more interactive campaign map. Too bad RTW didn't pick up any of those lessons.


Crazed Rabbit