Bad news from CA about Battles

[Little Legioner]

The Shogun@

"Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).

A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "

I'm very grateful for your their attention. As a loyal fan since The Shogun TW, i've waited for an explanation a official one and they did it.

Sorry to say but it was a my nightmare which become a true... I can understand they can't change whole the battle mechanics but they can change something. I mean especially battlefield sizes and kill rates. Kill rates is easy part. Modders can handle it.

Just an idea, they can put a option for battlefield sizes on options for custom and campaign. Big or huge. I'm sure of that they can't redesign the battlefields again.

"Q. Do you plan on having an option of making the battlefields bigger for campaign battles? The option is already available for large custom and historical battles. Quite apart from that, the bits surrounding the current battlefield edge are rendered anyway, so why not let us use them?

A. No. The borders are there to allow for reinforcements massing before entry and for escaping troops to flee without simply vanishing off the edge of the terrain; they are 'being used' already. Incidentally, there were always borders around battlefields. It's just that they weren't shown with a borderline in Medieval: Total War or Shogun: Total War. "

Yes, there should be a border on maps for routing as a sensible fact. In fact, i'm not against to "red line" but i want some space when i play on huge or big unit size for proper maneuvering...

I dont like RTW battle philisophy. Because it is so fast, fields are narrow i cannot get a "tactical" taste from game. Many times battles are wasting time chase of routing units. Because they flee easily nearly half of them!

On huge settings you cannot make a tactical maneuver, armies also so close to each other. Totaly boring if you want to seek "decisive" battles. But older series were not the same.

And i say honestly they can fix that position without "re-imagining". This very possible because RTW is their project and they now what is possible to fix?

I'm old school TW gamer and a hater clickfest style RTS games. CA made a false decision they made the TW legend "easier" for unpatient clickfesters but we putted aside in fact TW spirit putted aside.

I'm very upset at the moment from the CA's final decision.

[katank]

Quite true. The kill rates are ludicrous and I spend 80% of my time on the battle map hunting routers.

They really oughta fix infantry run speed too.

[IceTorque]

TW games are all about the 3D battles. (for me anyways)

But a typical battle in RTW goes something like this.
Setup, click start, enemy right in front, 30 seconds later it's all over.

The main attraction to the TW games has been ruined.
I like to play the 3d battle map manouver for position, lay an ambush etc.

Seems as though C.A. have followed so many other developers by breaking
the features that made their games great in the first place.

Why the hell do they do that ?

[metatron]

I'm very upset at the moment from the CA's final decision.

Welcome to the club. Here's your hat.

[Puzz3D]

The Shogun said, "The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "


I would say that BI's 80 new units is a "re-imaging" of RTW. What's needed is a "re-balancing" which apparently isn't going to be done.

[Mongoose]

*EDIT*

[Little Legioner]

The main attraction to the TW games has been ruined.
I like to play the 3d battle map manouver for position, lay an ambush etc.

Seems as though C.A. have followed so many other developers by breaking
the features that made their games great in the first place.

Quite true... Ironic part is CA knows what is false and rejects it what they did at their older games! They are hiding behind reasons such as "re-imagining" "this is a new game". They have a company they have an experienced team which has been concentrated only developing games. They have a unique community. As an example just look to the Europa Barbarorum project. but they say no!

We know that "this is a new". It is "New" thats true but something could be changed.

Many of the fans created "mtw-rtw" comparison threads. I saw plenty of them in TWcenter, TWorg also COM. Why? Just think about it. Why we need it to compare with MTW? What were the disturbing things motivates us?

They can change many things which will become the RTW better and closer to the classic TW point. I swear if they want they can. They can claim the success again which is created before.

I wrote to COM. forums "i will not buy the expansion if you..." and i showed them reasons as a responsibility.

(Logged as Julius Augustus)

"Will you buy the expansion?"
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...art=81&stop=91

An answer came from a moderator...

BatanguenoM@
"Please stick to the original topic/question, guys. Any more deviations will require us to do janitorial work on the thread.
Thanks. "

What was false on my message?

[Mongoose]

It was false because you were saying bad things about the game.

[IceTorque]

They dismiss our "input" as a minority number of TW players.
But we are only a minority in terms of being vocal about our dissapointment
with the game.
I put to C.A. that the vast majority of new and old players would enjoy
the game more and would be more inclined to buy future TW games if.

They listened to their fans and not just produce what they think we want.
just look at this new game.
http://www.mindlinkstudio.com/engine.htm

I know it's still in development but after reading about some of it's features
which have been requested in TW games for years.
e.g. Advance order, fake rout, huge battlemaps.

Why do C.A. refuse to listen to it's fans ?