Something missing from the game

[derF]

I couldnt quite put my finger on it at the begginning. RTW has a way of doing this because the game magazines rate it at 95%. Clearly it isnt worth 95% as many of you seem to tell me.

So heres whats going on. When you first play the game, its great. You cant fault it, its the best thing since sliced bread. However, when youve played it for a while and youre getting used to it, it seems to me as if its very hard to stop finding flaws. So heres my latest dissappointment.

Theres no real physics in the game. By that i mean, mainly weather. I mean, i cannot stress how important the weather is in these battles in real life. Suppose an army had a bunch of archers, and suppose they were attacking into a moderate wind, they would be renedered utterly useless because they wind takes off all of the speed and range and power.

In the game however, the weather is always the same. There is no change in wind, the heat in the deserts not a problem because it simply doesnt effect armoured troops enough (in MTW it was rather severely realistic). And lots of other stuff like charging and runing uphill or downhill is all watered down.

As i said, its mainly a bummer with missile units. After all, i remember people here saying that archers are too effective. I agree.

[Slaists]

i find it a bit disturbing that they had these effects worked out to a significant degree already in MTW. For some (probably marketing related) reason, they have been "tuned down" or eliminated in RTW...

similarly, the friendly fire is much worse in RTW than MTW... c'me on, i do not find it realistic roman legionaries losing 50% of their units to friendly pila fire...

[mfberg]

I believe it was to increase mass appeal. They should have put it in as a player option.

mfberg

[Slaists]

I know, it was for mass appeal... This makes me even more frustrated...

[dedmoroz]

Why they have arcade battles option then????
The manual clearly states that in arcade battles many realism settings are turned off so why for the love of god they should remove those settings from regular battles?
Hope it is possible to mod some of those settings to be more realistic...

[derF]

I think this game isnt worth anything above 85%. The more i play it, the moe things i find wrong with it.

Anyhoo, i agree totally with what you guys are saying.

[Bartman]

i find it a bit disturbing that they had these effects worked out to a significant degree already in MTW. For some (probably marketing related) reason, they have been "tuned down" or eliminated in RTW...

similarly, the friendly fire is much worse in RTW than MTW... c'me on, i do not find it realistic roman legionaries losing 50% of their units to friendly pila fire...

I seriously doubt that these effects were intentionally "turned down."

Every Total War game from the time of STW, up until MTW:VI was an evolution of a single program. CA have stated many times that RTW is a rewrite. So, while MTW:VI had four releases, and several years to work out all these effects, they have had much less time to get them working in RTW.

Any rewrite of complex software tends to cause an initial drop in quality as many of the old bugs which were fixed in the original pop up in the new version. But, if given enough time and effort, the rewrite will usually end up being much higher quality in the long run. I just hope "the long run" ends up meaning "after this next patch."

[jjnip]

I think sure there are some things missing. I would suggest most are minor. I classify this as rather minor. It is still better than 90% of the games out there. Considering it is better than 90% of the games out there, that kind of tells you something about pc gaming. But of the 3-4 industry leaders, this game does stand at the top of a genre and more is expected.

It is expected to show others "how it is done" it is suppost to set the bar high, hence the high expectations. It does several things well, not the least of which is guarantee 50+ hours of gaming entertainment with vanilla and assorted mods.

However though it is not a singular effort it is a continuation, and consequently some of its charm is left in STW and MTW, meaning you have probably been playing this RTS, two army battlefield with 4-8 unit armies for awhile.

I fortunately never played MTW, and missed some things, but I dont know what except what I have read, so the Total War series is essentially fresh to me, warts and all. I did play STW but that was several years ago.

What is true however is you can play this game 2-3 weeks, even a month before you start to see holes and then its time to try a few mods and then you have your money worth.

I dont know not everyone is so demanding, especially when so much other games are complete and utter crap.

As far as the weather thats kind of a hard call. I would not like every 3rd battle with heavy rain and every 4th battle with heavy wind. That might be kind of stupid. I mean dont historically armies pretty much wait for decent weather to fight? Sure rain might happen unexpectantly and wind might be extra strong but the continuation of this line of thought is practically endless... ok so wind and rain now what
1) terrain
2) stamina of troops, already factored in but maybe more so
3) food
4) water
5) tiredness, marching before battle, opposed to being attacked
6) sun in your eyes

at some point you just play the game as is, at some point you think of ways maybe it could be better. But to analyze the game and suggest its not worthy of playing is like giving up because of logic.

Where is the logic in killing someone, you just do it. If you think about it to much where would we be? YOur maybe thinking to much about the game. Or maybe another way to put it is instead of thinking of something that is missing, think of it as something which could be added.

But to just think because you came up with something, of which many people can do, makes it correct, is a fallacy. You might have a good idea. Between gaming and history I favor the fun side of gaming. History and realist people are interesting though.

[Dooz]

It all comes down to this; It's human nature never to be satisfied and always wanting more and better, hence moving forward and evolving. This is applied to anything and everything, even to the most unimportant of things like this or any other game. You get your hands on RTW, and it's the greatest thing you've ever seen. Few days or weeks into it, you want better. And so you shall get because so do the developers (if not this company, then others out there). Thus, we've come from PacMan to RTW. Because eating dots and fruit weren't enough for the ungrateful masses of the 80's (note the sarcasm. PacMan fans don't come a-knockin ).

But for your own sake, don't get too worked up over minor details here and there. It is after all, a game, and can not be perfect to everyone's standards. Of course big issues such as bugs and glitches and all that are inexcusable (I will have their heads for this), but details here and there that don't really affect the gameplay too much can and should be overlooked for the overall enjoyment of the game and yourself.

[derF]

i want all of those things JJNIP!

If CA arent listening, then its up to us to mod the damn thing.

[Butcher]

Are you all forgetting the 'Clear' weather report in MTW and then 5 mins later you are in a heavy downpour? Do we want a return to the 'it rains in every battle' type weather?

[Ed TW]

Yeh, it sucks. I was so let down by this game. I very much loved the two previous titles. I really hated the 3D map, and the clumsy movement of the armies. I am probably the only one who thinks this, but the 2D paper maps had a great feel to them, antiquated and strategic, sort of like a chess game. It was clean and it was easy to move. After I acquired some land and a sizable army in Rome TW it became too muddy, and was more of a chore than fun to track stuff. Trying to keep the population happy was ridiculous also. Also it certainly didn't have the music or the atmosphere of shogun and Medieval.
I was so disappointed- Too much like Civ 3. You guys are certainly right with targeting the masses. If anyone agrees with anything I've said, please say so - I can go to my grave with a smile then.

[Red Harvest]

Are you all forgetting the 'Clear' weather report in MTW and then 5 mins later you are in a heavy downpour? Do we want a return to the 'it rains in every battle' type weather?

This annoyance is still in there! Let me illustrate.: They have a detailed strategic map with climates. Weather still cycles through, it only seems to depend on what climate tile you are on. Some areas have no precipitation/windstorms.

1. In the south half of the map there is almost NO weather for some reason. If you do get onto the right tiles you can get sandstorms. If you "wait" for it to be clear, some dust starts to kick up in about 3 to 5 minutes. It will get worse, reach a max, then cycle back down. All of this in the short battle time.

2. Ditto for rainy climates. In most of Gaul and Briton it rains in every battle. Starts clear, then starts cycling through the weather. It is exactly the same as MTW, you can even detect the same micropause as new weather loads.

The main difference between weather in RTW and MTW? It is so muted in RTW as to be nearly inconsequential. Fog doesn't even impact archery ability! I played a lot in light rain before I ever realized it was supposed to be rain. Heavy rain looks like light rain and it effects archery only moderately. The weather effects in MTW and STW were much better both in appearance and in combat.

According to CA the poor weather rendering is part of the engine that they could not duplicate from STW/MTW. I doubt there is any modding we could do to make it different. And we don't have any access to combat factors related weather at the moment. I would love to modify the missile stats for light rain, heavy rain, heavy snow, fog, heavy fog, and sandstorms. But like fire arrows, war cry and many other things we don't have access to some hardcoded effects.

[Drewman]

It seems like a large group of posters want a more complex game that caters to the hard core TW fanatic from the two previous settings.

However, that is counter to basic business practices. If you market a game only to those who bought your last game, your sales will either stay flat or decline. In order to grow, you have to attract casual gamers and first time customers who won't put up with a 20 hour learning curve.

[AntiochusIII]

Hmm..... I doubt it would be 20 hours learning, Drewman.

In fact, it would be 100 hours or so... Wait! Don't misunderstand me. This IS cool indeed. You can go into Shogun, look at the map, try kicking(or clicking) around a bit and know everything you need to bring peace(or more blood?) to Japan. Those flanking and slaughtering people in the battle and the campaign alike is just human nature. Nobody needs to learn it. Ha ha ha!

However, after you played for one campaign, you notice may be you shouldn't just ride your Takeda horsemen over the map and rather add a few more monks and archers into your armies. You begin to use tactics NATURALLY. You will not be pressured by the "need" to learn the functions to play like some pathetically complex games. Also, you begin to realize what kind of buildings benefit and such. After several campaigns, you still feel the need to test new knowledges....and kill your foes.

This is what was once in Shogun and Medieval, and also have, to some extent, in Rome. It's just that hardcore players wants to have the same old magnificent experiences of "Oh the ****!! I should've known this long before, now... let me see how the Turks will fare this time." and "The rain is coming! The Mongols are doomed!" or "My soldiers follow my orders exactly, fight bravely, dying reasonably, and are *not being slaughtered by my own men*" feelings.

That won't take the attractive simplicity (for everyone) out of the game. I just want to get the old simple-and-complex(in depth) Total War back. In fact, more and more people who were once simply satisfied with the click and kill of Warcraft and Age of Empires would become new hardcores. I am one of them, as the start...