My final thoughts on RTW

[ToranagaSama]

The units rout too quickly - large Gaulish forces below vh can be routed with a good general and some cavalry and even on vh it sometimes possible. But I cannot agree with complaints over the time actual combat. A number of historians following John Keegan - I think - contend that combat in an ancient battle would never have taken more than 15 minutes at a time. They would fight and break, skirmish and taunt, and resume battle. An actual ancient battle, slow and piecemeal as it was, would not be too much fun. If CA were to adjust the game to certain player's conceptions of realism in terms of combats, it would be like the situation with phalanxes. Everything from that directional creep to the right as soldiers took advantage of his neighbour's shield moving towards the enemy, to the Thracian helmets and the length of Macedonian spears, have given rise to complaint. Yet CA were either correct or making a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Please, this point has been argued extensively after the release of the demo. No need to rehash it, as any historical reference is totally missing the point! This a Game, and we're talking about GAMEPLAY in that reference. As I said, this is not a historical simulation its a game.

Presuming your historical reference to be correct, so what. It makes for a lousy gameplay.

Beyond that, even presuming your historical reference to be correct, this doesn't mean that the "time [of] actual combat within the game is truly relative and representitive. I contend it is not.

Futhermore, your contention:

hey would fight and break, skirmish and taunt, and resume battle. An actual ancient battle, slow and piecemeal as it was, would not be too much fun.

is a bit oxymoronic, as it prefaces that the "actual time [of] combat" as it is, presently, within the game is, in fact, fun. Many, particularly, veterans, do not find it to be so.

Consquently, the foundational premise of your argument, that is historical accuracy vs. "fun, supports the call for MTW based "actual time [of] combat".

Question, is your satisfaction based upon, historical accuracy or fun?

One basic thing that spoilt STW and MTW is that units would look rather blockly. Given that for some here, the poorer the graphics the better the game, that is no problem.

Sure it wasn't the quality (or lack thereof) of your video card and/or system that is more the reason for the "blockly" look, than the actual Sprites? They didn't seem so to me, but, perhaps our conception of "blockly" is different.

The atmosphere in STW came its spare, elegant design than from anything else.

You need to expand upon your meaning as it is not at all clear. What regarding STW do you deem as being "spare" and "elegant", and how does MTW and/or RTW differ?

Whatever you attribute STW's "atmosphere" to, the reality remains, its more immersive.

Why is there such a difference between hard battles and very hard battles? Unless troops are heavily outnumbers or have a very poor general, I win, nearly always on hard. Yet very hard is massively harder. Hastati with some upgrades and training lose to Gaulish forces with none and lesser numbers.

I haven't played Vanilla on VH, but I play the Total Realism/Total Combat mod on VH/VH. I started Shogun on Hard and quickly went to VH, played 90% of my time on VH. Similarly with MTW, cept I started at VH, dropped to Hard, after learning that MTW isn't STW, then quickly went to VH, played 90% on VH. I also, played the MedMod on VH.

Don't know how much you know about the workings of the TW games, but I can venture an experiened and educated guess as to why there is such a difference. First the *actual* underpinning difference between H and VH, probably isn't much different than the previous games. That is on VH, the AI gets all sorts of *Boosts* to, morale, fatigue, etc. VH is not *fair* to the human Player. There is a significant segment of the TW community that refused to play at this Difficulty for this reason alone. (BTW, if you want to really test yourself in MTW, try :nuttermode:) I'm sure the same soft of unfair advantage has been given to VH in RTW.

So, what's the issue? Actual difference vs. Effective difference. As I stated the "Actual" difference is probably no different than previously, BUT, as a result *all* the cumulative Gameplay changes within RTW, the "Effective" difference is MAGNIFIED.

What does this mean? Well, in MTW at VH, a Player could challenge himself to raise his skill level to match the unfair advantages of VH Difficulty. The mechanics and Gameplay settings facilitated this.

Unfortunately, the vastly different Gameplay settings and mechanics DO NOT facilite this. The Battle Speed of RTW negates Player Skill. The Battles simply move TOO FAST for a Player to be able to compensate, **TACTICALLY**, for the unfair advantages that is VH Difficulty in RTW.

The battles move so fast, its almost impossible to utilize extensive manueverings as an effective tactic. Frankly, the battle is so fast a Player can't make any *true* Flanking manuevers---AT ALL!! (Possibly using Cav, but not foot troops.) Certainly, NOT, in the manner that one was capable of within both, STW and MTW.

This is a ***Fundamental*** difference, and I strongly suggest that CA has not balanced the game accordingly, as its clear that the intended design of the game was meant to be FAST, forestaking full tactical manuevering.

You asked "why", well that's why.

---

Going back to a historical reference, it is the only thing I can think of to justify (other than marketing purposes) for the speed of battle. It may be an attempt to simulate the reality of change in warfare that the Romans represent. Undisciplined non-Roman troops vs Disciplined Roman troops. Imagine Undisciplined troops, used to 15 minute battles, as you suggest. I suppose what they may have been used to was fighting for a few minute, in which time the enemy would break and run; or, both sides would break and rest, while tauting one another, then resume fighting for another 15 minutes or so.

It must have been quite a shock for troops used to such type of warfare to encounter Disciplined Roman Troops, who would neither break nor run. Using tactics to maximize their stay in battle and killing effectiveness, full body shield, short stabbing sword, and fighting cohesion.

In the face of such an onslaught, undisciplined troops, not only must have broken after 15 minutes, but ran like hell, at least what was left of them! No wonder the Romans took over the "known world".

Could this be what the game speed is supposed to simulate? If so, then somebody forget match the proper unit stats and settings for the Romans, cause the rout like undisciplined troops!

The battles speeches are rubbish....

Maybe, maybe not, in my view of things, this is one of the least things to be concerned about. Though, since you brought the subject up, WHY has CA forced this upon us. I suppose it's an attempt at Immersion, but, frankly:

WHERE IS THE OFF BUTTON??!!

I would very much like to turn OFF *all* the 'Cut Scenes', my time is being wasted. Those Cut Scenes, even if you hit Esc, probably waste a good, cumulative, 15 minutes, or more, of the time I have to spend playing the game. Why are they forcing this intrusion upon my time? Why do I not have control?

[TheDuck]

ToroganaSama, I understand you don't like the game.. but you are making a generalization that may not be true...

'particularly veterans'...

I count myself as a veteran. I've played MTW a LOT (I like both Vanilla and MedMod both..), and STW before it.. I love RTW. FYI I will have all three games on my harddrive for a long time to come. They are all fantastic. Just as they are all different. Similar, yes. But with very fundamental differences each one of them.

I understand your dislike and encourage you to continue to speak your mind, but it is patently unfair of you to suggest that veterans are more likely to dislike this game, you just don't have the datum to prove such an assertion.

Also a question: what cut scenes are you complaining about? I just ESC out of all the talking and such and find it wastes no time.. Am I missing something here? I listened to one battle speech in my first game and figured 'damn, thats a waste of time', so now I just hit ESC. If I've played 500 battles I've wasted about 250 seconds worth of time, over the course of hours of play. It ain't a lot in comparison to game time. So I must be missing something..

And just a note for all as a level set..

I'm 46 years old.. I'm into Ancient/Modern History and Ancient/Modern Military History. I'm an avid player of computer based strategy games (STW, MTW, RTW, Combat Mission Series, Starcraft, Command and Conq. Series, AOE2, Laser Squad Nemesis all have seen plenty of attention on my system), and board based strategy before that (Panzer Leader/Panzer Blitz/Chess/so much more..). To me a game must be fun above all else, otherwise why bother? I like historical accuracy, but if they made it exactly like history, boy would some things be dull (so I fundamentally agree with ToronagaSama on this point).

I personally would have been just has happy with a game with less graphical improvements and more AI improvements (just as many have alluded to..), but I do not think that makes RTW less of a game.. only a different one (which I still find extremely fun). That said, if ya ain't having fun, I truly feel sorry you wasted your money.. If that is the case than going back to MTW is the right thing to do.

And finally.. because I'm into historical accuracy...

ToronangaSama said:
It must have been quite a shock for troops used to such type of warfare to encounter Disciplined Roman Troops, who would neither break nor run. Using tactics to maximize their stay in battle and killing effectiveness, full body shield, short stabbing sword, and fighting cohesion.

Read Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, the Roman troops were known to route also. It was less likely, agreed, but not 'none' as you suggest.