New Shogun readme at the com

[sik1977]

that is from todays update,
does not seem like a failure to me

Yes but its mostly stuff of patches when you talk about improved Ai and stuff as new features in BI. Most of the valid requests and questions seem to be answered with a no. The same ol' repetition of generalised improvements, instead of taking some of the feedback and wishes of the community and including it in the exapnsion is not a great incentive to dish out the price of a new game for this expansion.

It does seem that the .org questions have not been answered yet, maybe in the next update, and hopefully something more positive.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm?

It's an expansion pack not a new game and yet BI has more new content in it than any expansion packs we have previously released and more than most *new games* released by our competitors. How does that add up to patch only material?

Perhaps familiarity with our delivery of quality and quantity is breeding contempt?

I should also point out that many questions asked where about the fixes and changes we have made to existing gameplay - the result? - lots of answers about that subject.

Just curious as to what you feel was missed out?

Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#

[Ianofsmeg16]

Q. Will we be able to save the replays for campaign battles again?
A. No. The underlying game code will not support this feature.

Ah well, you want something with CA you don't get it.....maybe we should all want bad AI, unrealistic skins and crap units...then they'll give us the opposite!!!
still gonna buy it though...play as the romano britons

[Jambo]

If the update today consists of the answers to the Org questions then I'm mightily disappointed! The Shogun apparently has only touched on a few of the aspects raised and many of the questions put forward haven't been answered or even referred to?! Let's hope there's another update which includes answers to some of the more in-depth questions to come... :/

[screwtype]

Just curious as to what you feel was missed out?

Well my questions weren't answered. I suggested that (a) a siege should not be broken just because the timer runs out, but only if the attacking army is routed off the map, and (b) that once you have taken the city square, enemy units should no longer route toward the square but should rout off the map. So, have these changes been implemented, or not?

Also, I suggested a strategic movement option, whereby land units could move say six provinces per turn provided they do not leave or enter a contested (ie enemy occupied) province at any time. Have you given us a strategic movement option yet, or have you condemned us to trudging our armies laboriously across the map turn after turn, as in the previous games?

[Duke John]

screwtype,
I think CA already did a good job with being able to set a path for multiple turns (although waypoints are sometimes much wanted). It might be unrealistic, but how many armies did really move from one end to another of Europe, and that multiple times?

[bodidley]

The Celts did it when they were launching their first raids into the Balkans. Hannibal covered huge land distances in his campaigns into Italy. The Visigoths over huge distances in Europe. Octavian and Gaius Jullius went all the way across the Mediterraenean in their campaigns in Egypt. It didn't happen alot but it happened. Personally I liked Autumn-Winter-Spring-Summer turn breakdown from Shogun. The campaign map has to be reorganized in many ways anyhow. Marching armies takes way too long for one, but also the auto-gen. maps are way too bland.

Perhaps familiarity with our delivery of quality and quantity is breeding contempt?

Come on, man, we're your customers not your competitors. Don't think that we can't get new and interesting features from companies other than CA, because if you have a "the customer is always wrong" paradigm you're in for big trouble unless you have a monopoly, which you most certainly do not. That said, customers can be like a nagging mother, they only mean the best for you

[Simetrical]

So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm?

Well, you see, many if not most of us hardcore forumites play with large total conversions like RTR, SPQR, etc. These already change the balancing and the content. So what we (unfortunately a rather tiny if vocal minority) want is really more ability to mod, so that our favorite mods can improve their gameplay and content, and/or improved hardcoded content, such as better AI or more formations.

Those such as we don't really care about CA's units and other content, because while I'm sure they're very nice, many of us prefer units created for different purposes (such as a different time period as in Chivalry: Total War, or a different world as in Middle Earth: Total War, or just made realistically, as in Rome: Total Realism or Europa Barbarorum). Furthermore, if our favored mods based on the period of the original game don't want to move to BI's new period, then the new units and such are also not useful.

Of course, you can't please everybody, and it's unreasonable to expect you to cater to the small percentage that plays only mods. But this is the reason that your new content is not considered interesting: a dozen different mods are constantly showcasing new content. The aspects of BI that we can already accomplish just mix in with the crowd. But the hardcoded stuff, now, that's different.

A suggestion: maybe in your forum PR you should start focusing more on the addition of new hardcoded mechanics or the un-hardcoding of mechanics. Many of the ones who view your online FAQs are hardcore mod-players, and they just aren't going to be interested in new skins and models and stats. Save the eye-candy for ads in magazines, and other places where they'll appeal to your broader player base.

-Simetrical

[HarunTaiwan]

New units are bells and whistles. It almost what modders do for FREE.

AI is what is hard and where the added value is at.

[screwtype]

Totally agree, Simmetrical and HarunTaiwan. The mods give us heaps of new units, campaigns etc for free, and they do a terrific job. So while a new campaign from CA is nice, it's not really what hardcore TW fans want. What we want from CA primarily are better game mechanics, especially, better AI.

[Meneldil]

I have a question that might have been asked in another readme, but I can't find any info about it :

Are the 10 or so new factions just edited ones from RTW, or real new factions that could be used with the previous ones in a provincial campaign ?

[sunsmountain]

So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm?

Oh dear intrepid sidekick, this all sounds very good, but what would really steal my heart is:

1. An opponent AI who use their skirmish/archer troops at full range, and do not retreat if they have them >covered/protected< with infantry. (too hard to program?)

2. An opponent AI committing their general last (always), or at least an option to mod the AI to do so. The only extra modding i think i need is in the battle map AI during campaign. (and whats up with these bonuses to both side +4/+7?)

3. An AI attacking with all of its units at once (except tactical reserve), and who doesnt re-arrange his troops when already within archer range of the enemy (this should be a no-no)...

[by far the hardest to program/pull off. What problems are you running into with these AI problems, conceptually? It would perhaps help to get answers from those who dont necessarily understand programming, but who can give their intuitive answer...?]

4. Almost all the bug fixes player1 suggests, especially balancing issues to give a more of a 'personality feel' to the governors & traits part of the game. You know, things like Coward gets Berserk and Warlord as anti-traits, since both berserkers and warlords are described as brave.

[this will be easier as it has already been done. I expect BI to at least have this, but if it doesnt have any of the ones i mentioned 1-3, i will probably not buy it.
I know how much work, literally hours and hours and hours, 100 units, 10 factions and 1 new map is, but frankly, so do the modders. You then mention 2 new unit formations, of which 1 i'm assuming is already the horde formation you mention].

Radically new in BI:
- 2 new unit formations (1 of which is hordes)
- night battles
- church/convert religion
- no senate
- ... ?

[sik1977]

So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm?

It's an expansion pack not a new game and yet BI has more new content in it than any expansion packs we have previously released and more than most *new games* released by our competitors. How does that add up to patch only material?

Perhaps familiarity with our delivery of quality and quantity is breeding contempt?

I should also point out that many questions asked where about the fixes and changes we have made to existing gameplay - the result? - lots of answers about that subject.

Just curious as to what you feel was missed out?

Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#

Hi Intrepid,

You may be right that we (the hardcore minority which visits these forums) expects too much, both from the original game and the upcoming expansion. Perhaps we want RTW to be everything to everybody (i.e., enough advanced options to cater for all players, no matter hardcore or casual), and that is perhaps unfair on our part.

Despite the above, being an old and dedicated fan of the series (as many other hardcore fans here), we can't help but turn to you and let you know as to what we percieve as shortcomings in RTW and what we 'expect' (sometimes reasonably, sometimes perhaps unreasoably) from any expansion to the original, as that expansion is naturally viewed by the Hardcore community as aimed at them and aimed at polishing the game in a way which will please the hardcore community (perhaps not the FPS or casual RTS crowd). Maybe we are being selfish.

As for 100 new units, skins, 2 new formations, night battles, swimming horses, hordes and a new campaign, it is great, but is something we are used to getting in Mods by now. Don't get me wrong, it goes to CA's credit and no one else which has made it possible for such mods to exist and spoil us like this that such things as 100 new units and a new campaign doesn't get you all that excited.

So what is it that we really want?? you can see many of such requests in the questions in the FAQ and as listed above and at many places by many of the loyal and hardcore fans. 100 new units are great, but what about things like 'Advanced options' for hardcore players, greater modability, lack of restrictions through hardcoding which the whole hardcore community is calling out for since BI was announced (or even earlier since RTW came out).

What about features which may benefit the whole game (original and BI) to make us get the value out of RTW as well (which I honeslty feel I haven't gotten enough playability out of; 2 campaigns and lots of bug testing). Is it too much to ask for
1. 'Stats Sheet' or something similar which can keep a track of total losses inflicted and incurred during the length of a given campaign, as well as other interesting statistics, such as the most successful General, Most kills by a Unit, Kill-to-loss ratios, etc. (afterall RTW is a serious strategy game, not a C&C clone).
2. Better Diplomacy, and one that works fully, and means something in the game, not just for show.
3. Campaign replays. You already had that in the previous games, so why being anti-progressive and insensitive to thousands of fans wanting this feature.
4. Better and open source AI.
5. Advanced options for all. More and more options can remedy lots and lots of issues.
6. Activating many of the half finished or deactivated features in RTW, such as the greek and egyptian walls, etc. (these are minor, but all this adds to the feeling that RTW is unfinished whenever you play).

The above may also be enjoyed by the casual players, or atleast if managed properly, not hinder the casual player's enjoyment of RTW and BI, and satisfy the hardcore community.

It is an expansion pack, you are absolutely right, and some of us are being very demanding, but we nevertheless can't shake the feeling that this expansion pack should give a feeling of completeness to an otherwise great idea and concept, lacking slightly in its implementation.

Best regards, and thanks for taking part in these forums. Means a lot to the hardcore community, as we are all fans of the series at the end of the day.

[Duke John]

The modders are still around because they are trying to do that themselves, but will there be anyone left to play their mods?

That is kinda refreshing, Yuuki What are you doing these days? Do you still have hope for R:TW?

[Puzz3D]

Yes I still have hope for RTW. Recent statements from CA such as: the movement speeds have been adjusted for better balance, phalanx performance vs cav has been improved, unit balance has been improved, diplomacy improvement, suicide generals have been looked at again and the load/savegame issue is being looked into are very promising. I hope they checkout the charge bonus to see if it's being incorporated correctly into the combat calculation and fix the Parthian shot, but their lack of understanding about the AI treating some infantry like it was cavalry, making it pull back and recharge, is disappointing, and there has been no mention about the AI maintaining the intergrety of its battleline. I see no valid excuse for all of player1's fixes to the traits and such not being incorporated. I know there are other issues as well about which CA hasn't commented.

Recently, I was able to play an RTW campaign as Carthage and go 240 turns without reloading before the game crashed. I used Mordred's mod which just makes some relatively minior changes to the unit stats such as: 0.9 movement speed, 0.75 lethality to non-spear units, slightly better javelins, slightly higher defend value, a few price adjustments and +4 morale to all units, and some changes to the starting conditions of each clan. I found multiplayer gamplay significantly better with these changes as did everyone else who tried it, and I also found the SP campaign to be better. First, because the AI is a slightly better opponent with these stat changes because it's cav flanking moves arrive in a timely fashion since units fight longer and that also allows the AI to make the most of its ability to choose advantageous matchups. You, in turn, also have more time to make countermoves to what the AI does, and the use of a tactical reserve comes into play which I find makes the battles more interesting. Second, without reloading, the whole development of the AI factions is more logical. During the entire campaign I never saw a single AI army wander off as though it had no purpose. I played with fog-of-war turned off andI could see the AI factions responding to threats or building up for an offensive, but it's a slow process and I can't help thinking that the re-evaluation on reload is quite debilitating to the AI factions. Even the naval strategies by the AI seemed fairly reasonable. Sieges have a long way to go to work well, and I personally never play them by always maintianing a siege until the AI sallies and immediately sallying if the AI sieges me.

I just point this out because I think the game would provide an outstanding, non-frustrating gaming experience for both casual and serious players if the gameplay issues which have been identified over the past year by the players are addressed. These are just issues of balancing, improvement to the battle engine and AI and fixing the features that don't work correctly. They are not drastic changes and no re-imaging of the game is necessary. I think the players have done a good job of providing important feedback to CA which should allow CA to realize the potential of this fine gaming system they have designed.

[bodidley]

You know, CA can't neccesarily cater to all gamers all of the time, but if the gamers they are catering to are more casual and graphics oriented rather than hardcore strategy gamers, then there is nothing to say that those gamers won't by Age of Empires III or some other game because it is also appealing to the casual gamer. The reason why developers should listen to the hardcore following is that the hardcore following represents a guarunteed sale; once you "water down" the game too much you lose your guarunteed sale, and competition in the casual market is far more cut-throat.

[Duke John]

An AI that does not work properly has nothing to do with a hardcore market. If you can't code AI then don't act like if you can develop strategy games in which a good AI is essential.

[screwtype]

I played with fog-of-war turned off andI could see the AI factions responding to threats or building up for an offensive, but it's a slow process

Yes, and I can't help but feel that if there was a strategic movement option this process would become much quicker, because the AI would be able to concentrate its forces so much faster. That should make for a more dynamic game experience and it should also help restore the likelihood of bigger, harder and more decisive battles which were a feature of the earlier games and which many people believe has been lost in RTW.