Initial Patch Thoughts

[SpencerH]

I believe the Romans troops in that battle were NOT "seasoned". Please see the link I provided in my previous post.

Maybe the author is incorrect[?], but he has referenced his writings.

Sooo, ahhhh, what execuse now for the lame battle speed CA has implemented?

RTW = LCD [Lowest Common Denominator]
LCD = Dumbed Down

You're talking to the wrong person:

1) I know nothing about the battle of Cannae. I merely commented on Lord of the isles post. He asserted that both were seasoned armies. If that were true then one would expect a longer battle than with two unseasoned armies.

2) As an ex soldier I'm quite aware of the value of professionalism/morale etc.

3) I've commented in many other threads about the inappropriate battle (overall), killing, and movement speeds.

[ToranagaSama]

Originally Posted by SpencerH
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.

Just didn't want anyone to use that strain of logic in order to justify vanilla's battle speed.

See the bold type. A bit confusing. My apologies.
Lord of the isles is indeed the one applying strained logic using assumptions of fact:

I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.

Regarding the outfitting of Hannibal's army:

...Due to the successes Hannibal had attained in earlier battles, his African soldiers were outfitted in Roman armor, used Roman scuta, and fought with Roman swords. As was their custom, the Gauls were "naked" ....

Further:

Hannibal divided his 40,000 infantry into four sections....In all, there were approximately 20,000 Gauls and around 4,000 Spanish infantry deployed by Hannibal into the center of his formation.....

Hmmm..... seems like 20,000 naked Gauls (along with a few Spaniards) held off the Roman frontal attack long enough for 5000 Africans using Armour and Swords taken off dead Romans to Flank and envelope, while the Carthiginian Heavy Cav hit the Romans from the rear, *AFTER fighting successively on each Flank.

Nothing about the Battle Speed Settings (catchall phrase) is realistic or based on realism.

I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.

Lowest Common Denominator.

[* EDIT]

[Sheep]

I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.

Lowest Common Denominator.

You can make your point without being NEARLY so condescending. Many others have already done so. You might think about learning from them.

[hellenes]

I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.

Lowest Common Denominator.

[* EDIT]

AMEN

Hellenes

[Alexandr III. Biges]

This might be a little cynical... but does anyone else get the impression that the wrong game version got sent to the CD factories in the first place? After this patch it rather feels like we've been playing a beta these past few months.

It's happened before...

I agree with you completely. You are not cynical, cynical is: It seems CA is burned out, they just do it for money, no longer enthusiasm which is in STW and MTW. These days, I believe they would cut MTW down, releasing half of high and entire late era as an expansion.

As to the patch, AI is unable to handle sea warfare, enemy is willing to load quite large army to single trireme, despite he must know of my fleets patroling the sea.

Btw, if you look at the details of RomeTW.exe, in comments is: "Undoutedly The Finest Strategy Game Ever". Cha, cha.

:(

[lgw]

Long time Grog here just don't like to post much. I'm not even touching this patch until EB, SPQR, or RTR are done. Really can't wait for EB. I've got MTW with, BKB Super in my box now.

Nice description about Cannae Toranqaga, you pretty much nailed it. I caught the H. channel the other night with the Hannibal episode detailing his battels. Cannae king of remids me of Zulu battle field tactics. Anyway in my humble opinion the killing speeds are set up to hide the weak battlefield AI. They put too much effort trying to make this girl look good. Ya just gotta make sure she keeps her mouth shut when you take her out.

For those who think creating a battle field AI with the current tech. available think again. Mad Minute games has produced a low tech $ 20 game with MTW style graphics that has A very competent and challenging AI. It's not perfect, but it's damn good.

Rome Total war will have fewer battles with more stategic signifigance. Who remebers that bull!

[Simetrical]

Crud, I didnt think about this.

It's okay, you didn't have to. I was wrong. descr_strat.txt was not affected by the patch. But it's good practice to always back up your entire data folder right after a fresh install/patch.

-Simetrical

[screwtype]

The swing rate is in the export_unit_desc file in the Data directory.

I can't find a file called export_unit_desc. I assume you mean the file called export_descr_unit?

Also, I couldn't find anything about a "swing rate" in there. I did find a variable called "stat_fire_delay" which might be what you are referring to, but from the description it sounds like something that only affects missile weapons, because it refers to volleys, ie "Extra delay over that imposed by animation, between volleys".

If this is the stat you are playing with, are you sure it also affects the kill rate for melee weapons?

[screwtype]

I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.

A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond. I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.

So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.

[Lord of the Isles]

Just didn't want anyone to use that strain of logic in order to justify vanilla's battle speed.

See the bold type. A bit confusing. My apologies.
Lord of the isles is indeed the one applying strained logic using assumptions of fact:

Well, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread ToranagaSama, but I'd better defend myself on this charge. What I wrote was:

I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.

I stand by that: both side at Cannae were composed of seasoned OR trained OR well-equiped troops. Hannibal's were seasoned, and sometimes also trained and/or well equipped. The Romans were well equiped (what Roman army wasn't), even if they may not have been seasoned or trained.

Since the phrase "seasoned, trained or well equiped" might have been read as "all were seasoned, and one or more of trained or well equiped", I added "either" before the phrase, to make it clear that I meant "one or more of ...". But I failed I guess.

[RJV]

I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.

Does this imply that you think that if the "Battle Speed Settings" were reduced to what we think is a more sensible level, the good points of the tactical AI would show through? This is the optimistic view.

To be honest, it seems to me that from what we've all seen and heard, (the AI not being what we would wish of it) isn't it more the case that the "BSS" actually mask the inadequacies of the tactical AI ? This is the pessimistic view.

The result is the same regardless of the reasoning.

Cheers,

Rob.

[ToranagaSama]

A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond. I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.

So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.

A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond.

You know, in a certain way, you're right. In that, if a player attempts to use any *real* and/or sophisticated flanking manuevers, especially any sort of disgusied movement(s) (hiding in the woods doesn't count), the player will lose. (The worst part is you won't even know WHY you lost, just that your line crumbled--Pathetic.)

But, here's how things get rather simplistic, if not down right easy. After losing in the above fashion a few times, it becomes rather clear that the key to winning, in RTW, is a rather straightforward strategy of bring *more* and *stronger* to the battle. Doing so, a player is rather assured of victory. This is the mentality behind EVERYTHING RTW.

Think about it and examine it, what does it sound like?

Sounds to me, directly, like Real-Time-Strategy, build faster, build more, build better---->then *Steam-roll* the AI. THIS is the Germ of ALL RTS games.

Total War games, STW and MTW, were about a GREAT deal more. Simplistically put, in previous incarnations, a player could NEVER be assured of victory, simply by bringing *more* and *better*. There were just TOO many variables involved in battle, AND on the Strat Map as well.

---

THIS, simplistically, is how CA/Activision has (dumb-down) made the game easier for the non-grognard:

Just about everyone is familiar with the basic method to RTS success, as I've described above. With this *new* TW model, anyone familiar with the RTS success model can load up RTW and apply that model and have relative success.

If one applies the RTS success model to STW, or, even more so, to MTW, they will LOSE--->allllll dayyyy. To The Creative Assembly's *great* credit (someone do me a favor and name the CA member directly responsible, cause I forget which one of them is), the A.I. is just tooo good for such simplistic (RTS) approaches. Particularly, the A.I. in combination with those GREAT Shogun Maps---where TERRAIN was king.

(For those unfamiliar with Shogun, its maps were MUCH harder to deal with in that the terrain is less flat, and the AI would make good use of it. If a player didn't master the use of Terrain, his success would be limited.)

---

From the outset of TW, CA/EA/Activision had a problem, the Grognards (and those with grognard tendacies (me)) had no problems adjusting to the *intracies* of TW, cause all those tabletop games, and computer emulations of the tabletop games, involved even GREATER intracacies. So adapting was a no-brainer. In fact, TW was like an orgasm for such folks because TW brought to life the things they desired (for the most part).

BUT, for the non-grognard RTS player, ignorant of the above intracacies, they'd try the Demo and/or buy the game and just not be able to grasp the game and/or adapt from the *known* RTS success model. In effect, the game was *too* hard!

Known RTS success models didn't work and TBS (Turn-Based-Strategy) success models were unknown to the average RTS Computer Gamer. BTW, Total War games are TBS games, not RTS games.

The simple solution, and the one CA choose, was to make the game more RTS -like, which would, consequently, make the game *easier* for the non-grognard.

It appears to have worked!

(If you can't bring the gamers to the gamer, then bring the game to the gamers.)

I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.

Have you played the earlier titles?

The game is MUCH more accessible---MUCH.

Shogun, believe it or not, is more accessible than Medieval. I remember the day I loaded up MTW. *Me* a seasoned veteran of Shogun, and all I could do was simply *stare* at the Campaign Map. The scope of the Map was OVERWHELMING! I had NO idea how to begin. I had to gradully *feel* my way into a Campaign. ALL of the Veterans felt the same way, we talked about it----Overwhelmed. Of course, given a bit of time, we all became comfortable as heck.

Now these are SEASONED players. A Newbie would stare at that map all day and get nowhere. Do a search go back look at the Archives, NUMEROUS newbies would come to forum and the first question would be:

"How do I Start".

Personally, someone chime in if I'm incorrect, but I don't recall ANY such Newbie threads in the Colliseum----NONE!

Veterans would take Newbies in, and teach them about Tactics. What flanking is, what troops were good for flanking, what troops were good for Holding, etc. I don't see much of this going on AT ALL. Certainly, not approaching anything that has gone on before. The reason I believe is apparrant----there's no need to teach what's not needed.

Newbies and Vets, alike, are on fairly equal footing, in terms of the Battles and Campaign Map; and, Newbies are grasping the methods of success pretty much on their own.

Easier.

So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.

I think I've made my argument.

The proof is in the Sales. RTW is a runaway success.
Shogun while critically acclaimed, and I believe a money-maker, did not receive the popular, nor financial success it deserved. Medieval, while more popular and financially sucessful than Shogun, still didn't achieve the sort of success that the good RTS and FPS games did.

I mean really, The Creative Assembly are the equal or better to Valve, Id, or Blizzard. Yet, they haven't been getting their due, neither financially, nor in acclaim---hence we have RTW.

The hope for the true Grognards and those with Grognard-tendancies (me), is that RTW is a *Ploy* by CA to wrest control of TW and their little company from the grubby hands of producer/distributors----and provide them with, Valve, Id, Blizzard, Sid Meier like industry CLOUT and FINANCES. Which they can then use to truly create the greatest game of all---Shogun on Steroids!!!
as well as the holy grail of Totalwardom---->a persistent world of Campaign Multiplay.

Hope springs eternal, for surely the creators of the SHOGUN masterpiece can't be happy with the compromise that RTW represents....



~ToranagaSama

[ToranagaSama]

Well, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread ToranagaSama, but I'd better defend myself on this charge. What I wrote was:



I stand by that: both side at Cannae were composed of seasoned OR trained OR well-equiped troops. Hannibal's were seasoned, and sometimes also trained and/or well equipped. The Romans were well equiped (what Roman army wasn't), even if they may not have been seasoned or trained.

Since the phrase "seasoned, trained or well equiped" might have been read as "all were seasoned, and one or more of trained or well equiped", I added "either" before the phrase, to make it clear that I meant "one or more of ...". But I failed I guess.

Yesterday, I think I must have been a bit too miffed at the Newb comments, cause the blood in my eyes made me blind!!!

TS bows humbly with apologies. I think I read that all wrong!!!!
Dude, SORRY.



Dont'cha just love the Org. Factual intelligent presentation will beat the name calling everytime.

[screwtype]

Some interesting comments Toranaga. Not sure if I agree with all of them though.

I suppose on Easy and Medium, the battles are probably a bit of a pushover, I don't know, because I've only ever played on VH, and I know how diabolically hard it is to manage, with ridiculous kill rates, infantry that run like gazelle, and armies that crumble from broken morale two seconds after contact. I suppose if on the easier levels this is happening to the *enemy* army rather than yours, then you could argue the game has been "dumbed down" for a mass audience. It's just that I can't imagine how anyone could regard a two-second battle in which you don't get time to do anything but point your troops at the enemy and charge, as any kind of *fun*.

(For those unfamiliar with Shogun, its maps were MUCH harder to deal with in that the terrain is less flat, and the AI would make good use of it. If a player didn't master the use of Terrain, his success would be limited.)

Yeah, this is one area where the game has definitely been dumbed down, where so many imponderables have been reduced in their effects. In STW and MTW, terrain, weather, morale, fatigue, all had very marked and noticeable effects on the outcome of a battle. Most of these effects apart from morale have been reduced to virtual insignificance in RTW, which is a real shame. (Mind you, I always thought that in the earlier games, fatigue had too *much* of an effect, but in RTW it barely even registers).

The thing I really can't understand about that is that they already included an "RTS" mode in which these variables are totally disabled. So why knobble them in real-mode as well? It's got me beat.

Have you played the earlier titles?

The game is MUCH more accessible---MUCH.

I don't know. When I first booted up STW and started playing, I was instantly hooked and couldn't put it down for weeks. Heck, I didn't even learn there was a pause button I could use for the first month or so, and somehow, I still managed to win more often than not. There was time to do stuff, to see what was happening and change strategies, time to learn about what worked and what didn't. In RTW it's just wham bam thankyou ma'am - all over in the blink of an eye. If I hadn't played the earlier titles, I can't help but think I would have thrown my mouse through the monitor in utter frustration within a few hours. In fact, even as a veteran of the previous games, I almost did!

The simple solution, and the one CA choose, was to make the game more RTS -like, which would, consequently, make the game *easier* for the non-grognard.

It appears to have worked!

The proof is in the Sales. RTW is a runaway success.

Is that proof that the game itself is a runaway success, or just the marketing campaign? RTW got enormous publicity in the period leading up to its release, and then excellent reviews in most of the gaming mags, which clearly ignored all the obvious problems. Activision did its work very well.

But do high sales really equal satisfied customers? Will those who bought RTW be prepared to buy the next release in the series? Time will tell. But within days of its release, dozens of copies of RTW were up for sale on eBay. And at my local EB games store, RTW went into the bargain basement bin BEFORE Christmas - as a half priced game. I don't think I've ever seen a major release slashed in price so quickly.

The hope for the true Grognards and those with Grognard-tendancies (me), is that RTW is a *Ploy* by CA to wrest control of TW and their little company from the grubby hands of producer/distributors----and provide them with, Valve, Id, Blizzard, Sid Meier like industry CLOUT and FINANCES. Which they can then use to truly create the greatest game of all---Shogun on Steroids!!!

Hope springs eternal, for surely the creators of the SHOGUN masterpiece can't be happy with the compromise that RTW represents...

Heh. Nice idea. But I think I should point out, the creators of the wonderful title that was Shogun are not with the company anymore. If you look at the credits of both games, you will see that not a single programmer who worked on Shogun worked on RTW. In fact virtually the whole original Shogun staff has apparently moved on, with the exception of a couple of head honchos.

Maybe that's one reason so many things about the game have changed...?

[Colovion]

That's too bad.

I guess CA isn't really what I thought it was, just a face on a company of people that once made great games that now are somewhere else.

Kinda like getting Bangled a la ne BMWs

[econ21]

This thread is becoming negative. Here's a small positive contribution. I've got further on my med/med Julii campaign - 220bc reached enough popularity to make a bid for power.

All the factions I have defeated - Gauls, Spanish, Britons and Dacians - have fielded bigger and better quality armies than pre-patch. As a result, there have been some epic decisive battles. And I have not even started on my formiddable Roman rivals - Scipii has N.Africa and Brutii have all Greece/Macedon and are finishing Thrace.

I really like delaying Marius - triarii are actually very good against barbarian noble cav - and also the date is not so long that you can't use legions. (By contrast, in MTWs patch the wait for longbows etc was a little long.)

I am still not bothered by the battle move or killing speed - from STW onwards, I've used pause so I guess it is not an issue for me. I actually appreciate it - I've fought 140+ battles, many minor. If things moved at STW or MTW speed, I suspect I might have burnt out.

The key test for me will be after this campaign. I also had a blast pre-patch as Julii and then my interest in RTW just fell off a cliff (too easy?); I hope this is not repeated. I may have missed this, but does anyone know what if anything the patch has done for the difficulty levels?

[HarunTaiwan]

I agree - the AI armies are much better and I get attacked by double stacks now.

Also, the drip feed or AI control of reinforcement is cool...I've used both!

If you sandwich an army with two full stacks you can use AI reinforcements and the enemy get's clobbered.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

I guess CA isn't really what I thought it was, just a face on a company of people that once made great games that now are somewhere else.

Actually, a lot of the people involved in Shogun and MTW are still with CA - just working on different projects. It's natural that after doing 5-6 years of the same kind of work people might need a little variety, and some have moved on for various reasons - although if you look closely at the Rome roster you'll note that most of the key design influences are still there (with a few additions). The world doesn't stand still while we make these games, you know

And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.

Beware those rose-tinted glasses...

[econ21]

All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.

And a big hurray for that! It started to get very depressing in the 1990s as we saw closure after closure of companies - notably SSI and Talonsoft - that made some very good computer wargames. TW is arguably better than what those good folk made and certainly light years ahead of other mass market strategy games.

[Byzantine Prince]

And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity.

Yeah but it doesn't matter how mainstream you make the game. The fans of the strategy part are gonna turn away if CA keeps simplfying the AI and dumbing down the game. Don't you see? TW has developed a fanbase that will buy the games no matter what, so anything more is just icing on the cake really. The game might have sold even more if it stuck to the formula more.

Please don't dumb down the game, please... I like it when a game is as mentally challenging and realistic as this.

[Bhruic]

And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.

Beware those rose-tinted glasses...

Don't you see the catch-22 of the situation? The more "mainstream" you make the game, the more you alienate the people that liked the previous incarnations (generalizing, of course). The people who loved STW and MTW aren't going to care if you make enough to put out another TW game if it continues to move in what they perceive as a bad direction.

The initial success of the TW series was that it wasn't mainstream.

Bh

[the Count of Flanders]

Don't you see the catch-22 of the situation? The more "mainstream" you make the game, the more you alienate the people that liked the previous incarnations (generalizing, of course). The people who loved STW and MTW aren't going to care if you make enough to put out another TW game if it continues to move in what they perceive as a bad direction.

The initial success of the TW series was that it wasn't mainstream.

It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.

[a_ver_est]

I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.

I agree, can we have a ARCADE, NORMAL and FULL REALISM modes in the expansion ??

uhm, does we need to start a threat "if there isn't a FULL REALISM option in the expansion I won't buy it" ???

[Bob the Insane]

FULL REALISM modes in the expansion

What you mean like big hairy barbarians coming round to your house to give you a good kicking just because you stiffed them with a dodgy out of date map in exchange for a bag of coins???

[Bhruic]

It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.

No, I agree, it doesn't have to be that way. I'm simply commenting on their actions todate. Their next version could introduce options that make both crowds happy.

Sadly, I doubt that'll be the case. I wouldn't be surprised to find the next TW coming out as a console game (with a PC "port", of course). What lure does a solid strategy game have vs the almighty buck?

Bh

[Lord of the Isles]

It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???

I'd be happy to see that.

There is another way for CA to keep us happy. The easier it is for modders to get into the workings of the game and change things, the more likely it is that they can produce something approaching the game we want. So a more mod-friendly game would be good too.

Speaking of which, I used to play the TWR mod but moved to the SPQR mod when it came out. The current release is incompatible with the 1.2 patch but testing of a compatible version is underway (see: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showforum=61 for 20+ pages of battle testing results). Looks very promising; I urge all grognards to try it when it gets released.

[ToranagaSama]

And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.

Beware those rose-tinted glasses...

Couldn't it have been both ways? What do you think of the following approach:

I've been thinking about this since WesW did the MedMod. The key I believe is in the Difficulty settings. Rather than taking the standard approach toward Difficulty levels by giving the A.I. gradually increasing *Advantages* over the Player, which a lot of people don't care for and feel is unfair. What not do something a little revolutionary by creating *True* Difficulty. For example:

All comments will be in relative comparision of STW/MTW, the MedMod and RTW (Meaning the relative differences between each).

Easy: RTW as it exists presently, with the fast Battle Speed Settings (catchall phrase "BSS"), RTS/Arcarde-like *candy* (green arrows, etc.).

This setting would serve its intended purpose to pull in and provide a satisfying game experience for the "mainstream" audience and causual gamers.

Medium: This setting would be the equal of STW/MTW in its *Vanilla* version.

At this setting somewhat (for want of a better term) Slower (and more challenging) BSS settings would be introduced, along with *Tactical* Theory. BSS would be just slow enough so Flanking could be achieved with a Unit of than Calvalry.

In addition, the full *Elemental Effects* ("EE") such as, Fatigue, Morale, Terrain, etc. (all that existed in STW) would be introduced; along with a good Tactical Tutorial.

Both BSS and EE might at a somewhat relative adjusted setting in comparison to STW/MTW, and would serve as a gradual stepping stone for the Mainstream/Casual gamer.

Hard: Full BSS and EE allowing for HIGH Tactical Manuevering, with equivalent Elements of STW:MI and MTW:VI, an example of that would be the :green generals" setting of VI. In general, additives would consist of *things* that would provide greater CHALLENGE, as opposed to tradditional Difficulty (if you get my drift).

Very Hard: Along with Full BSS and EE, Unit Stat adjustments, Map Adjustments, in effect, this Difficulty Level would be the equivalent of Wes' MedMod done by CA with input from the community.

In general, additives would consist of *things* that would provide ever greater CHALLENGE, as opposed to Difficulty (if you get my drift).

For example, the Zones of Influence that WesW *successfully* introduced in the MedMod, that the Total Realism guys are having difficulty introducing in their Mod, etcetera.

This level would NOT be for the average mainstream casual gamer, but for the HARDCORE fanatics. This level would be a THANK YOU from The Creative Assembly to the Fans who have been at the core of TW's success. Thank you very much!!!

Also, it would be nice to have a **Series** of Unofficial Patches addressing whatever needs to be addressed as things arise. We, the Community, could do the Alpha/Beta/Whatever Testing. That is Activision (or whomever) is out of the loop. This would be Direct---CA to its Hardcore Fanbase. Other Developers do this!!! I don't know about the rest of the TW Community, but don'tcha think the Org members can handle this....

Such Unofficial Patches shouldn't be touched by the Mainstream/Casual gamer, unless it has the "Tested by The Community" stamp of approval. The Patches could be supported by the Forum (with just a little input from CA to those out front in the Community doing the supporting).

In fact the Patches probably should not even be posted over at the .com, the Official site, but come thru the Org. maintaining the unofficialness of them.

I digress.

Anyway, I believe the Difficulty concepts outlined above can be the *bridge* between the Mainstream and the Hardcore whereby everyone will find satisfaction.

The point of it all is that Everyone could find a satisfactory Level of Play for their Preference and/or Skill level and the overall game would have the accessibility *necessary* to meet CA/Activision's financial aims.

Mods could be aimed at specific Difficulty/Levels of Play. Broadly growing the scope of the game. In fact, I would suggest that the term and concept of Difficulty Levels be scraped altogether, in favor of *conceptual* "Levels of Play". Obviously, this is just a semantic, but nevertheless effective in terms of how one might view the game. No one wants to admit they prefer the *Easy* Level. So new *conceptualizations* would be necessary to equivocate the Standard Levels outlined above.

Mr. Grasdyke or any other CA member, I know its difficult for you guys to comment on such things, but would it be possible for you to comment simply on the conceptual reality of the Outline. Does such an implementation make any sense at all? Is it at all in the realm of reality (not necessary for TW but for any game)?

So, what do you Org members think? I mean there's got to be some Medium for us all. Feel free to expand adjust my thoughts, as you can see they're listening....

~ToranagaSama

P.S., I didn't even get into how Game Economics and Empire Management could be introduced and adjusted to the varying "Levels of Play" I outlined. Please somebody fill in the blanks. Thanks.

---

BTW, hey Simon, is this 'postive' enough for ya.
[TS, strains and refrains from making any negative **Pauser** comments. ]

[Quietus]

And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places.

Je'Rome, awesome. Thanks for sharing an honest point-of-view. However, at least give us the choice such as kill-rate and unit speed sliders etc!

Right now, I'm wishing for better competition to force CA to make these changes. Imperial Glory for example aced RTW in sea battles and use structures in battles but they lag in number of troops, province numbers and the campaign map.

All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.

Beware those rose-tinted glasses...

You probably are already making the next game aside from the expansion pack (or two) that wasn't announced in previous threads.

[hrvojej]

It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.

Hear, hear.

[Malrubius]

Anybody notice you can now replace conquered temples by building your next level of temple? For example, a level one temple of Freyja can be replaced by a level two of Ceres? Prevents the hit to happiness when you demolish one type to start building your own.