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.