-
Hey Ptah,
Any Pharaoh or CotN connection?
-
-
Hey Ptah,
Any Pharaoh or CotN connection?
-
Ja mata Tosa Inu-sama, Hore Tore, Adrian II, Sigurd, Fragony
Mouzafphaerre is known elsewhere as Urwendil/Urwendur/Kibilturg...
.
Nope, sorry to disappoint. No affiliations.
In real life one did not have a birds-eye view of the battlefield with mouse-pointers giving out 'winning' or 'losing' info neither. As fast the pace of the battle within the game is, it is correspondingly easy to make tactical judgements from the info which is instantly obtained. Not to mention issuing orders are done with a mere movement of a hand and a finger, in the game. These opposite factors effectively cancel each other out and thus have no real relevancy when in discussing a validity of how an abstract depiction of a battle is done within a game.Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.
Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.
The complaints about the kill rate and its effect on gameplay I fully agree with. But essentially this has nothing to do with the movement speed of the troops. Thus, when the kill rate was dropped to a manageable level so a commander would have enough time to analyze the results of his action that was OK. Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.
While I have not adjusted movement speeds myself, I can't say that the reasoning for doing so is bad. Part of the reasoning for doing so is spot on. The player is forced to micromanage (as the AI is doing--only the orders given often are nonsensical). You can't give generic orders and have groups respond independently. So arguments about viewing the whole field are moot. Friendly fire really shows the level of micromanagement required and how much speed effects it. Slowing down movement speed is one way to get some control. It is better than using pause all the time.Originally Posted by Ptah
Scale is a major factor. Units could not turn so rapidly in real life. That is another reason it took so long to deploy. The speed with which units zip about, particularly cavalry is crazy. Schooling fish has been an apt description. Since the human is stuck micromanaging 20 units independently (since there is no option for the AI to do so) and the distance scale of the lines is and order of magnitude less than actual because of unit size (resulting in faster resolution speed) the movement speed doesn't fit well with the game engine. I'm not at all certain how much it should be detuned. MTW's speed seemed about right as a compromise, so I can understand why folks have wanted to go back to that.
Actually, hoplite battles were single line affairs--moving Maginot lines. The "open field" comment does not fit the dynamics of that. The reason for the single line was that they were more "closed" positions (borrowing chess terminology.) When gaps opened, resulting in open field dynamics, bad things happened to the hoplites. This was the strength of the duplex acies and maniple system used by the Samnites against the Romans, and later adopted and modified by Rome into the triplex acies.
Most of the desire to adjust movement speed probably has to do with what happens when you try to engage the enemy line in a straight forward fight. You order your units to charge the unit across from them--simple enough. Then watch in dismay as your line criss crosses if the AI pivots its units at all. So you have to pause and alter orders. In reality this would be a general "advance and engage" order rather than being unit vs. unit every time. But RTW doesn't give you these kind of options, so "lead computing" results in a completely ridiculous mess as your units try to plot intercepts. The AI units do the same and utter chaos results. Adjusting movement speed is again a way to try to fix some fundamental flaws in the battle/command and control engine.
I am not saying that adjusting movement speed is the best way to confront RTW's shortcomings, but I can see why it is being done and agree with elements of it.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
It basically comes down to how much of 'management' we players can take as 'fun', and how much we take as 'burden'. Given an objective analysis, the amount of 'management' needed in RTW does not exceed MTW with any kind of significance. The unit roster size per army has seen an increase from 16 units total to 20, but if we recall what the players have been wanting so much in the MTW days(more unit spaces, larger armies, more variety of action..etc.) an increase of just four more units space per army cannot be anything serious.
The overall requirements for managing remains the same, but the workload has increased a bit due to the fast pace of battle. However, if management was so troubling enough to ruin gameplay itself(in that one cannot manage his army to win) people would not be asking for a better AI(not just about the suicidal generals..) behavior on battlefield, or make a habit of playing on VH/VH settings. Most people already view the AI as 'easy opponents'.
It is only when they are pit against a superior AI army of some sort, that they come down to the forums and start a complaint on how the game is too fast paced for one to adapt. Empirically, it can be seen that most of the posts on this very issue (where people complain how some enemy movement is too fast for them to cope with) are assuming conditions where the enemy forces are superior to their own, and a certain need for advanced tactical maneuvering on the battle field arises.
The question is this: if people have no problems in dealing with AI armies of roughly simular prowess to their own, but they do have problems with dealing with superior enemies because they cannot force faster judgement and response in controlling the units.... how much of it can be faulted to the troublesome micro-management, and how much of it is faulted to individual incompetency?
...
One thing I have learned about gamers is usually, they have a tendency of vastly overestimating their personal skill in that game. Every judgement they make about the game is based on their own personal account, and basically bears no objective quality at all. Since they themselves cannot be 'poor in skill', they tend to assume that it is the system and the game that is wrong.
Ofcourse, this attitude is more often than not immediately subdued, when they enter multiplayer games and see what kind of things other people can do. Such experience is not all that unfamiliar to me, since I also play a lot of MP games of all sorts. It becomes pretty clear that some people, obviously really can do things which others have previously stated was impossible. In the MP games it never ceases to amaze me how good some people can manage their soldiers with precision, like some chess piece on a board.
Ofcourse, not everybody can do that. Not everybody can become a super-jock in a certain game. However, there is no denying that the people who can do that, are truly skilled.
So, it comes down to this.
If the precision skills required to accurately manage an army, is to be considered a burden rather than fun, and if we remove that burden from the game by slowing the pace so everybody regardless of personal skill, experience, practice, is given enough time to think through everything before making their move, then why bother creating a real-time tactical simulation at all? Why not just make it a turn-based tactical sim with 3D graphics?
Slowing the game down is basically removing the all of the positive traits (think fast, make bold judgements, immediately carry out what needs to be done, and do it effectively by commanding each units to utmost precision)that would make a good 'virtual general' out of the game.
These very traits are what makes the difference between a 'good general' and a 'bad general' in multiplayer games. Needless to say, the problems of 'micromanagement' is non-existant in the MP games since the conditions are equal for each of the adversaries.
Ofcourse, we are talking about the single player campaign modes. However, the MP experience gives us a profound view on what exactly is possible, and impossible in the game. It is obviously very possible, to manage an army exactly the way one wants. These people who can do that, went through the time and trouble of trying to perfect what needs to be perfected.
For instance, when somebody having trouble with the phalanxes as stated in the initial post, sees the Echelon formation and its tactical maneuvering, he will soon find out that it's actually very hard to control the Roman infantry in that manner. A slip of concentration or slow judgement(not to mention a slow hand) will ruin the maneuvering and get the hastati and principes isolated and routed. But ofcourse, it is very possible. I've given it enough practice to beat 20-unit full army of Armoured Hoplites with just Roman infantry and no cavalry at all.
In short, in the above case the tactical maneuvering as suggested is effective only when you have the basic skills to accurately control the army precisely in the formation required.
So, is taking the time to aquire that much skill supposed to be a 'burden', or 'fun'? If it is considered a burden, and my troops are consequentially slowed down to the rate that they'd be practically travelling at 2m/sec on a full charge speed(so other people who obviously don't seem to want to adjust to the learning curve can take leisurely time in thinking through stuff), how the heck is anyone supposed to be doing anything 'tactical' with it?
A funny story? Actually this is precisely the kind of 'tactics' some people want from the game. The very drive to victory Alexander achieved that day, was that he found a gap and made the first move on what to do with it. Charged full speed into the gap with his companions before Darius could react, and routed the entire central command. You don't wait and see what the enemy is gonna do. The moment a general sees enemy cavalry movement is when he should react, not after watching where they go and how they move. By the time a cavalry has reached a flank it is already to late, and that's how it should be."You see a small gap forming in the enemy lines. Driving a cavalry charge into that gap will have a devastating effect. You muster the horsemen and charge.. except these guys are travelling so slow, that by the time the cavalry approaches the enemy lines the gap is already closed. The enemy general noticed the cavalry move, took enough time to think over it, and then decided to move some more spears to close the gap.
And thus, under the slow movement modifiers, Alexander and his companions are rounded up and destroyed. Darius 3rd wins the battle of Gaugamella."
The comparison between MTW and RTW can be readily stated as a comparison between 'stagnant' and 'dynamic'. The changes of RTW has brought speed and aggressiveness onto the battlefield that was yet unseen in the TW series. STW and MTW alike, was a battle of formations. One stagnant defensive line pitted against the other. In the above mentioned situation, in STW and MTW you could wait and see all you like, what the enemy was doing, and then decide on the final moment whether to send spears to stop the cavalry or not. It doesn't work that way in RTW. It doesn't work that way in real life either.
The real deal is this:
1) People didn't like the way that their 'fail-proof' formations were crumbling, when they found out the guy who takes the first initiative will hit the flanks or rear with lightning speed. In MTW or STW, there was no such thing as an unexpected hit from unexpected direction, since everything was so slow that nothing was unexpectable.
2) The 'tactics' these people were used to, were about making solid lines of defensive formations, and passively waiting for the enemy to make a move so one could counter it. In RTW, things don't work out that way.
3) In short, their grasp of 'tactics' are limited to something akin to WW2 generals thinking about WW1 style trench-hold warfare, when the Germans were already blitzing everywhere. Basically they are thinking the same things as Greek commanders and their phalangites were thinking, when they were crushed by the Roman legion system which specifically emphasizes speed and maneuverability.
4) Since they don't like this change, they revert the game to the old status, where 'tactics' once again meant passiveness. Obviously it never came into their minds the tactical geniuses of military history were always the ones who made the first move, relentlessly repositioning and managing their units to maximum efficiency, instead of make a 'standard army formation' and keep their units that way.
Ofcourse, some of the complaints and requests do make sense. There should have been made a difference between 'breath' and 'overall endurance'. As it is, infantry could move at full speed over huge distances as long as they are not fatigued. However, fatigue itself acts differently in a real battle. It was possible for the soldiers to charge full speed upto some 400m upon account, but they would be out of breath when done so. The momentary burden of fatigue, as opposed to overall fatigue, should have been modelled in the game, so the overall fatigue level slowly rises over time, but momentary fatigue quickly fills up and just as much quickly relieved.
The various bugs and issues concerning the game which increases the burden of immediate action upon requirements, is also a reasonable pointer.
However, none of these reasons are powerful enough to justify a slowing down in the movement of troops to such penalizing degree. Under such conditions not even Alexander, Hannibal, or Scipio would have achieved uch great success in their campaigns. These generals make it a habit of moving quickly and precisely, and passive defenders were usually the people who fought them and lost.
Basically the whole deal's a sham. The decrease in movement speeds were requested out of personal gratification, not out of reason.
wow, you sure do know how to make an argument...
i couldn't agree more though, it makes perfectly sence. if they want slow paced tactics, where they can think about jugments before acting, go to some turn based strategi game.
Ptah,
If movement speed is reduced, it's reduced for both players, and proportionally for both cav and inf so the relative speed stays the same. If cav was 2x the speed of inf before, it will still be 2x the speed after. If the cavalry unit is 2x the distance from a gap than is an inf unit that might block that gap, the cav unit will beat the inf unit to the gap if it moves first. The player who moves first can be further away by the distance his unit can travel during the time it takes his opponent to react to his move. As movement speed is increased, that distance increases. The question is from how far away should these unblockable offense moves be possible? In STW and MTW, you have about 5 seconds to react to a cav charge on your skirmishers with cav of your own which is a consequence of the speed of the cav, the range of the shooters and how far behind them the protecting units have to stay so as to avoid taking losses.
From a gameplay perspective, unit speed can't be divorced from ranged unit effectiveness, melee fighting speed or fatigue rate. Simply slowing down movement speed would make ranged units more effective, reduce flanking tactics and deter running. In addition to that, the movement speed in RTW is determined by the speed of the animations which are not easily changed. So, I think the movement speeds were probably one of the first parameters frozen, and the gameplay then built up around them. However, it's unfortunate that they somehow decided upon unrealistically fast movement speeds. It looks silly for the scale of the game, and, although it's tolerable in single player, the combined 25% increase in unit slots and 50% increase in running speed means significantly less ability to coordinate your units in multiplayer. You're right on target when you say there is less management in RTW. Gone are the days when superior coordination of units was how you won these games, and it's replaced by first strike type of tactics.
Now I'm going to try to make those damn phalanx units work in multiplayer after the v1.2 patch is released, but if RTW turns out to be just a cav/archer thing, then I won't be playing RTW multiplayer. I'm sure a lot of players will love it like that, but I don't see a big reduction in the defensive aspect of the game as an improvement. Alexander's charge up the middle worked at Guagamela because first he drew the potential blocking unit to the flank and tied it up there. What I hear you saying is that you want to be able to make a charge like that without diverting the defensive unit, and succeed simply because the opponent can't react to your move. I always attacked in STW and MTW, and I was able to exploit gaps and unprotected flanks, and they were exploited on me if I had them. The reason MTW became a slow moving game was due to the fatigue being optimized for the smallest size maps, but battles were almost always on larger maps.
_________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.
Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2
And that is simply malarkey. You might not agree with their reasoning (or mine), but calling it a sham and saying it is for personal gratification appears as a shallow, completely subjective analysis. You are impugning their character because you disagree with their reasoning?Originally Posted by Ptah
![]()
...and again, I'm not changing movement speeds at the moment, just noting the impact they have on the game as it is. I see merit to some of your points about battles but they don't jive with the engine we have to work with. Your impression of other players seems so harsh (and far from the mark) as to make me wonder who peed in your wheaties.![]()
If a game doesn't grant some personal gratification, then it isn't fun...![]()
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
-
No problem, no disappointment at all. I figured that you might have taken your name for an Egyptian themed game first, that's all.
-
Ja mata Tosa Inu-sama, Hore Tore, Adrian II, Sigurd, Fragony
Mouzafphaerre is known elsewhere as Urwendil/Urwendur/Kibilturg...
.
Bookmarks