For all veterans of STW and MTW if you wander here by

[bodidley]

Does anyone following this thread know about what progress is being make on a Sengoku Jidai mod of RTW? I think that will not have the same serious balance problems of RTW, and it will be like a classic reborn. If anyone's heard anything, I would be grateful to know

[buujin]

Two things regarding Sengoku Jidai,

firstly, go look in the " hosted mods " forum, not here.

Secondly, i would be very surprised the mod is balanced because rome wont allow it. The charge bonus value is bugged, and is instead determined by armour rating and attack value. This means all sorts of problems for stats balancing. I dont think any rome mod can be anywhere near as good as the old games untill this fixed

[Puzz3D]

Secondly, i would be very surprised the mod is balanced because rome wont allow it. The charge bonus value is bugged, and is instead determined by armour rating and attack value. This means all sorts of problems for stats balancing. I dont think any rome mod can be anywhere near as good as the old games untill this fixed

I can attest that having control over the charge bonus is very important to balancing. This isn't the only issue preventing the game from achieving anywhere near it's potential. When CA won't acknowledge that these things are broken or that the gameplay needs improvement, what chance is there they will be fixed? All they say is "make a list and maybe we'll look into these things". This PR trick has been played by CA too many times on this community. This is why so many players have left.

[Dagonet]

Most children grow up, some don't. I will assume y'all know the Lord of the Flies... the RTW lobby is more a symbol of hope than Goldings grotesque imaginings :) Largely devoid of self-styled vets leading the show, there is little bloodshed, no (perhaps unfortunately) live piggy-roastings. There are people who prefer to spend their time filling the lobby with inane chatter to playing, but as often as not, it's exactly the same chatter as filled the mtw lobby.

For some, a free set of nostalgia-blinkers lead people to remember previous lobbies as being far more polite and reasonable than the RTW lobbies.
For some, they fail to appreciate that with a higher number of players, comes a higher chance to meet a rude ass.

I remember logging in to MTW and having several pages of ignore list scroll by before "Evenin' All"
Fair enough.. in RTW it would prolly take a few thousand lines to parse all the ignores :) And thinking of it, more chance than not I conquered territory in several ingore lists, hah.

With RTW.. there are problems with balance, problems with bugs, problems with mp lobby. Though I'd say the "veteran" community is dishonest where it comes to claim balance or yobs as the primary reasons for their not playing.
RTW is different to shogun and mtw, where there games were once turned into scissor paper sword, CA made a game that couldn't be simplified to quite that extent, and the players of old have rebelled. RTW has the capability to be dynamic to a degree that mtw and stw just plainly didn't.

People claim that attack/armour shouldn't influence the strength of a charge. I ask them, what exactly do you think a charge is? I admit to not having examined stats or physics to any great length, and am simply responding to the assertion.

It would appear plainly and simply that the players who bear the greatest grudge, simply don't like RTW, and this of course, is up to them. But to expect CA to bespoke the game for a handful of players who want stw with prettier pictures is bordering on ridiculous.

Having said all this, I hold nothing against the CoH, it has merits aplenty.

Though I would add it is up to individuals to show those they play with and against the respect most humans are due. A CoH will hopefully give those individuals something visible to fall back on when trying to influence those less inclined to tolerance and respect.

[King Edward]

Nice post Dag, I think you explained some of the points i was hinting at in a much more articulate way than i managed too.

Good to see you at the .org!

[Puzz3D]

It would appear plainly and simply that the players who bear the greatest grudge, simply don't like RTW, and this of course, is up to them. But to expect CA to bespoke the game for a handful of players who want stw with prettier pictures is bordering on ridiculous.

CA claims that RTW is rock, paper, scissors. You and I seem to agree that it isn't. I sent them the replay of cataphracts beating silver shield pikemen frontally. Maybe CA should stop making erroneous claims.

Despite CA's PR department hinting that things might change, CA isn't going to change the gameplay. RTW will remain a highly flawed game. CA said that they sacrificed historical accuracy and realism in the interest of better gameplay. Well, they didn't get better gameplay either. The counter to army A is army A. 90% of the unit types are superfluous. That isn't better gameplay.

People who couldn't stand offensive behavior in the foyer left Total War MP a long time ago. The vets who left after RTW was released left for gameplay reasons. Almost the entire v1.2 beta team who worked for 3 months testing no longer plays the game as well.

[Olorin I]

Puzz and Dagonet:

You may be surpirsed to learn that you are both saying almost precisely the same thing. The fact of the matter is that RTW is different from STW and MTW. CA thinks it is better. Others think it is not. The point is that whether something is "better" or not is subjective. It is different and it is different by design.

I am sure, Puzz, that your assessment of why the STW/MTW vets and 1.2 beta testing team left is correct. But that does not contradict what I said above and, in fact, supports it. Dagonet theorized that many vets wanted a visually enhanced STW with some added capabilities. They did not get that - RTW is vastly different. Those differences beget different gameplay issues and require different compromises than those that had to be made in the creation of either STW or MTW.

Many vets are used to the compromises made in STW/MTW and consider them to be necessary game design "features". RTW is a very different game from either of its predecessors in the TW series. The compromises necessary for proper gameplay are equally different. It seems to me and, if you listen, to both of you, that some people can embrace these compromises, and to others these compromises are "flaws".

I like Gala apples best. Others prefer the delicious variety. Both, however, are excellent apples, although their tastes are very different, at least to an apple lover such as myself. The differences between that apples and my preference for one over another does not render the qualities of the apple I do not prefer "flawed". It also does not make someone who prefers the Delicious variety (Red or Gold) lesser than me - their preferences are simply different.

Olorin I

[buujin]

This pisses me off...

As Yuuki said the anger is partially from what CA says and then doesnt do:

I am not a MTW/VI vet, but i have played and modded both games.

Why would CA put a inactive value in the stats???. The charge bonus is NOT broken on purpose , its a falt, an error, a FLAW. One which they have seemingly attempted to work around because they did not
give the needed time to fix it correctly.

Realisticly even!, armour would have no great effect on the impact of a charge, cirtainly no more than the type of weapon used or the warrior wielding it !! and so it makes no sence to tie these two factors together.

I could make a huge list of how this FLAW effects modding capabilities for the worse, but it would be very off topic.

It infuriates me that you think CA would do these things by choice! If they did that would be evil !

It is a clear case of NOT enough testing, and NOT enough priority given to the battle engine over the dainty 3D graphics. This is why RTW does not appeal to the majority of people who played its predeccessors.

[Orda Khan]

Yes the Mp'ers are completely outnumbered though have always been very vociferous.
Is all this fuss about RTW really all that new? I seem to remember some very heated exchanges about gameplay of MTW, to the point that some members lost the plot and got themselves banned. I said my bit concerning MTW and it is pointless repeating things. One mans meat is another mans poison and nothing that has been stated thus has convinced me that MTW was such a perfect experience, for me it was anything but.

I have played RTW online and it really depends on who you play IMO. There again, I found the same with MTW.

And Dagonet is spot on when he says that rudeness etc is not a new phenomenon, it has always existed

.......Orda

[M.Cornelius Marcellus]

Yuuki,

The 20% is my estimate of the amount of thinking I have to do relative to the previous game engine. I can perceive that it's considerably less thinking. You actually do better in RTW with a more simplistic approach because there isn't enough time to use more complex tactical plans.

I cannot perceive substantial changing in my quantity of thinking playing MTW or RTW. Maybe it is only a matter of subjective perseption.
Rather than less thinking i should say quick thinking.

Another principle of tactics is ability to take quick and correct decision in few time.

I cannot remember those so much complex tactical plans in mtw, not so different from plans in RTW anyway. IMO.

the interface, which BTW isn't even as good as the previous games,

IMO RTW interface is simpler and so better than MTW. At least you can use drag and drop better. After playing a lot of games in RTW I cannot perceive after 1.2 patch many flaws on interface. I do not wish the old alt-ctrl interface.

it only takes about 10 games vs good opposition to grasp the full tactical possibilities. For example, what could be done with the phalanx was clear after 5 games, and it didn't change after 25 games.

I cannot perceive less tactical possibilities in RTW than MTW. For example phalanx could be very effective if well employed both against infantry and cavarly. You cannot say that for spears in MTW/VI.

I'm not really interested in a game in which if you take Praetorian cav I have to take Praetorian cav. What good are a multitude of unit types if you have to select from a smalll subset of those units. MTW/VI has this problem as well. That's exactly what Orda is objecting to except he puts the blame on the player and I put it on the game.

I agree with you. I am not interested in a 7 pretorian cav vs 7 pretorian cav: spammers spoils the enjoy of the game. I choose a balanced army too beat the 7 pretorian army. Or I put rules on games to stop spamming or limit it. I repeat: 7k 12 units minimum is a simple and good rule to prevent it.
I agree with Orda the main problem is the lack of good players (good both in fair play and tactic). The few times i found those players in RTW matches I always had a good time..
Anyway I agree that RTW could be far better and has many flaws.
I did play some games on SPQR months ago and I enjoyed them a lot. Yet it was not possible to catch a considerable number of veterans on that mod that was very very near to MTW, IMO.

Even now BI is being promoted as having 83 new units types. So what! That in itself doesn't make the game better. You'll spend a little time learning the new units and then you'll be back to a unit A vs unit A and unit B vs unit B, etc. type of gameplay.

I agree with you. The expansion will be good only if:
with more balance and better RTS first
with more mod features
with more historical battles
with more historical periods
with more factions and units why not
...

That's the problem right there. Initiative alone should not win the game. I can have the initiative in chess, but it doesn't mean I've won the game. Where is the balance in RTW between attack and defense

Maybe I should have said initiative gains the game if all other factors are equal.
Anyway defence still have terrain advantage. And even in real warfare if i am not wrong, is the only advantage it has, cause attack, if initiative can be kept, can choose where, when, and with what forces to attack.
In MTW on steppes, if i remember well, attack could choose where to attack and was in advantage as well, even if it got a little disadvantage in starting shootout. In RTW is exactly the same.

Marcus

[Puzz3D]

Maybe I should have said initiative gains the game if all other factors are equal.

This is where we disagree. Why shouldn't I be able to successfully defend against an attack if all other factors are equal and I play as well as the attacker plays? I can't in RTW because I have the delay and fast combat resolution to contend with which act in favor of the player who moves first. RTW has obviously been intentionally designed to favor first strike in a big way. When you add in the fast movement which adversely affects the ability to coordinate 20 units, that does it for me. RTW is the most unfun gaming experience I've ever had.

BTW, I can send you the multiplayer replay of 4 cataphracts beating 4 silver shield pikemen frontally using large unit size. I don't consider the phalanx to be working properly.

[Lord Adherbal]

BTW, I can send you the multiplayer replay of 4 cataphracts beating 4 silver shield pikemen frontally using large unit size. I don't consider the phalanx to be working properly.

that's mainly because of the jump ability of horses. They just jump over the spearwall into the phalanx formation, disrupting it and cutting them to pieces. That jumping also makes cav spamming so powerfull.

luckily the jump animation can be modded out.

[Dagonet]

I, personally, think there is as much scope for the application of skill and as much chance of playing a rewarding, fun, competitive game in rtw as mtw or stw. Ofc, there are a few things that would dramatically improve the game.. but asking CA to.. implement them, as has been so often pointed out.. is largely pointless.

Even perhaps I'd dare go as far as to say there is more scope, but scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself. And I'll admit I pick boring armies here and now :)




"Every player believes himself better than his equal."

Je love that :D

[Puzz3D]

That's mainly because of the jump ability of horses. They just jump over the spearwall into the phalanx formation, disrupting it and cutting them to pieces. That jumping also makes cav spamming so powerfull.

Right, along with a weak anti-cav bonus to begin with, and this has nothing to do with competitive vs friendly games. It's a problem in the game engine, and it affects all players just as the broken charge bonus, delay in response, fast combat resolution and excessive running speeds affect all players in all battles.

Even perhaps I'd dare go as far as to say there is more scope, but scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself. And I'll admit I pick boring armies here and now.

I don't for a minute believe you'd pick a weak army if playing in a tournament. If it was a team event, you'd actually be letting your team down by doing that.

The exploits in the game that boils down to nothing more than cheating IMO. Honestly, can we ever expect perfection with games like this?

The purchasing system is part of the game. Figuring out what works best in the purchasing system isn't cheating. It's not the player's fault that Creative Assembly doesn't know how to balance their own game system. It's not the player's fault that his cav jumps over the spears in a phalanx. The game engine is doing that not the player.

We can't expect perfection, but better balance means more people enjoying the game. I don't lump STW, MTW and RTW into the same category because I enjoyed STW and MTW, but not RTW, and the reason is poorer game balance. The players don't even come into this assessment. You see the same problems in single player along with some other issues. If the game were balanced well enough, there wouldn't be any imbalance to exploit and you could take a wide variety of armies into battle with equal winning chances.

83 new units and 10 new factions coming with Barbarian Invasion, sounds very nice.

It doesn't sound nice to me given that they are not going to be balanced very well.

[1dread1lahll]

Some-one let this STW/MTW old timer know if it is still laughable easy is employ programming cheats in RTW, if so all the other poor quality control is mute.

[Puzz3D]

Marcus,

The 20% is my estimate of the amount of thinking I have to do relative to the previous game engine. I can perceive that it's considerably less thinking. You actually do better in RTW with a more simplistic approach because there isn't enough time to use more complex tactical plans.

The 10 game learning curve doesn't include learning the interface. If you know the interface, which BTW isn't even as good as the previous games, then you can concentrate on the tactics, and it only takes about 10 games vs good opposition to grasp the full tactical possibilities. For example, what could be done with the phalanx was clear after 5 games, and it didn't change after 25 games. I'm not including esoteric fantasy units in that estimate, or the the fantasy artillery. I'm only including learning the use of the standard infantry/cavalry/ranged units.

I'm not really interested in a game in which if you take Praetorian cav I have to take Praetorian cav. What good are a multitude of unit types if you have to select from a smalll subset of those units. MTW/VI has this problem as well. That's exactly what Orda is objecting to except he puts the blame on the player and I put it on the game. Even now BI is being promoted as having 83 new units types. So what! That in itself doesn't make the game better. You'll spend a little time learning the new units and then you'll be back to a unit A vs unit A and unit B vs unit B, etc. type of gameplay.


"In RTW still: 2. initiative gains the game"

That's the problem right there. Initiative alone should not win the game. I can have the initiative in chess, but it doesn't mean I've won the game. Where is the balance in RTW between attack and defense other than the corner of the map? I guess my expectations are too high for RTW, and I had to switch to a games like Silent Hunter III where those expectations are met.

[Lord Adherbal]

Some-one let this STW/MTW old timer know if it is still laughable easy is employ programming cheats in RTW, if so all the other poor quality control is mute.

you can see the amount of money your opponents spent on their army during the army-buying phase. So if they exceed the set amount they you know they're cheating. Whether the game will detect this by itself and call it an "out of sync" error I don't know.

[buujin]

Dissapointment in RTW as a game is only part of it. Another is the community we have almost completey lost. Finally, and most importantly... at the moment we cant even mod the game to how we like it. So much potential is going to waste there.

Its strange, i wasnt around when MTW/VI was released... but its hard to imagine anyone complaining so strongly about the gameplay... after all its virtually the same as Shogun exept its got more units and more features!.

What were the issues people had with mtw when it was released ?

[Orda Khan]

Its strange, i wasnt around when MTW/VI was released... but its hard to imagine anyone complaining so strongly about the gameplay... after all its virtually the same as Shogun exept its got more units and more features!.

What were the issues people had with mtw when it was released ?

Just about every aspect of the game from what I can remember and I really do not care to remember in all honesty. The exchanges were far more heated than any I have seen about RTW and it's the main reason why Total Wars .Net was created and the vast majority of MP'ers migrated there

......Orda