Total Realism gone unrealistic...rant

**Boudicca** · 11-30-2004, 10:11

I think I will continue to use it, until I find a better one...or Activision releases an AI - Fix. With the current AI, Rome ist not worth much more, than being an economic simulation. (allright, I am exxagerating, but this is a thing I really hope for)

**Stuie** · 11-30-2004, 17:56

I am working on a mod to remove the new buildings. Not only is it a little over-the-top management-wise, but the AI apparently isn't building any ports now. I have the files ready but I am at work... so I will have to test them tonight.

**Bacchon** · 11-30-2004, 22:04

tommh has a good point. The question at task here, I think, is not one of realism, per say, but of abstraction and where that abstraction is focused and what style of gameplay is desired. Abstraction vs. realism is probably a bigger issue in strategy/wargames than in any other type. Games like StarCraft and Warhammer 40,000 are both realistic in that they utilize real-world physics (namely what a high-velocity explosive shell will do to the human body) as well as realistic interaction with terrain, tactics, and in WH40k, soldier morale. However, all these things are heavily abstracted so that the focus of the game is on beating the living tar out of your opponent, which is why people play them and love them. WH40k, being a tabletop wargame, has no economic model at all, needless to say, and StarCraft's is also heavily abstracted.

On the other end of the spectrum, of course are games like Imperialism and Settlers, where the economic/industrial model is given in superb depth of realism and detail, to, as eadingas, the point of needing a guy to plant the trees that another guy cuts down for someone else to plane and so on and so forth. And then there's Imperialism, where you need forests to cut down to plane to turn into paper to educate a man who can, with the aid of a military academy, ranches, mines, a steel mill, railways, etc, become a cavalryman. While the focus and realism of these strategy games is heavily upon the economic/industrial, the actual combat of these games is where the abstraction comes in. Settlers, you have absolutely no micro-management control over your soldiers and the combat is purposefully comical. Imperialism, it is highly Heroes of Might & Magic style, with the wargames-style hex map and "This one guy represents a regiment" play. Of course, the complete lack of tactics this engenders perfectly represents the *ahem* idiotic manner of warfare of the European Age of Imperialism that the game is set in.

Somewhere in between, though heavily focused on the side of combat-realism/economic-abstracted, is Rome. Y'know, Rome Total War, not Rome Total Build Crap. The strategic engine, everything from religion to diplomacy, is entirely built to facilitate the combat end of things.

I think what is being attempted with this latest version of RTR, and by others, too, like the mod I saw (who's author's name unfortunately slips my mind at the moment) that has incorporated research "buildings", is trying to find a balance between the two ends and brings us to a point where the abstraction on both ends has been minimized, so that we have much deeper control over our realms, which has always been a treasured facet of "empire-building" games, which is a category RTW is much closer to than RTS games (unless you just play MP and custom battles).

And it's not that hard to remove the new buildings from the techtree if you would rather not have them, but like all the other multitude of improvements that RTR brings. ; )

Cheers,

Bacchon

**richarnd** · 11-30-2004, 23:30

Originally Posted by Bacchon

And it's not that hard to remove the new buildings from the techtree if you would rather not have them, but like all the other multitude of improvements that RTR brings. ; )

In fact, I've just done exactly that, though for different reasons than the above poster. I don't think they're necessarily bad additions, though I do think they're unnecessary. I'm not going to get into the realism/abstraction argument.

Instead, I'm more concerned about whether the AI can handle them. In my limited RTR 4.1 experience, the AI does not seem to build enough ports. I could be wrong, the AI may be building them later than I would expect because of increased build times, or there may be other factors at work. I can't be sure. But I don't want to risk it - the AI in this game has enough problems already that I don't want to make it's job any harder.

**Orda Khan** · 11-30-2004, 23:47

Fact still remains, it is ten times better than vanilla total waste....yes

.....Orda

**Spino** · 12-01-2004, 00:34

Originally Posted by richarnd

In fact, I've just done exactly that, though for different reasons than the above poster. I don't think they're necessarily bad additions, though I do think they're unnecessary. I'm not going to get into the realism/abstraction argument.

Instead, I'm more concerned about whether the AI can handle them. In my limited RTR 4.1 experience, the AI does not seem to build enough ports. I could be wrong, the AI may be building them later than I would expect because of increased build times, or there may be other factors at work. I can't be sure. But I don't want to risk it - the AI in this game has enough problems already that I don't want to make it's job any harder.

I must echo this sentiment. There are some truly excellent ideas and features in RTR but I feel that some were implemented much too quickly and without sufficient testing. My biggest concern for any mod is its impact on the AI and whether it improves or harms its chances of mounting a successful campaign against me.

**Bacchon** · 12-01-2004, 00:55

Originally Posted by Spino

I must echo this sentiment. There are some truly excellent ideas and features in RTR but I feel that some were implemented much too quickly and without sufficient testing. My biggest concern for any mod is its impact on the AI and whether it improves or harms its chances of mounting a successful campaign against me.

I'll agree with that concern, for certain. I didn't have enough time to try out RTR before having to reinstall everything (apparently "Format this drive" means format entire physical drive, not just partition), so I don't know for sure, but as the Carthagians on VH/VH I was walking all over Italy and Spain within a couple decades of the start. Seemed like the AI didn't know what to do with itself.

**Turbo** · 12-02-2004, 14:57

Originally Posted by Spino

I must echo this sentiment. There are some truly excellent ideas and features in RTR but I feel that some were implemented much too quickly and without sufficient testing. My biggest concern for any mod is its impact on the AI and whether it improves or harms its chances of mounting a successful campaign against me.

These are my feelings too. I look for improved gameplay from the AI. The game I played I thought the ZOR was an interesting idea but it causes the AI to build more town militia and peasants than before. I also thought the new building requirements were interesting but the AI doesn't know how to deal with them. These ideas really should have been tested more before incorporating them.

**Paul Peru** · 12-02-2004, 15:33

I've never tried it, but have followed threads about it here and at TWcenter.
It seems like they have been very eager to throw new stuff in, and there has been too many issues for me to want to play it.
At least they get a large amount of beta testers to test a lot of different concepts on.

Tweaks to help the AI perform at it's full potential (and beyond!) is something that a good TW mod should emphasize on. This takes time and careful testing.

The road to hell is paved with things that seemed like a good idea at the time.

**asilv** · 12-05-2004, 19:05

Turbo: SPQR Mod link does not work because there is newer version available.

http://www.russiananimation.com/mods/lt/SPQRv6.zip

See more details here