disapointed with rtr, you are my last hope

[Ninefingers]

Howdy...long-time lurker here.

I just thought I'd chime in and give my thoughts on the RTR vs EB matter. RTR 6.0's a good mod, but in my opinion sacrifices too much gameplay for abstracted realism. There are a variety of issues in the mod which I feel detract from enjoying a campaign for its own sake, and seem to be included almost solely to cater to the "realism or death!" crowd. Which is a bit disappointing.

That said there are some brilliant concepts in the game (AoR, for instance) and it's certainly proving rather entertaining for the time being, but I can't help feeling a little disappointed in the general feel of it. I do hope that the EB team understand the importance of balancing realism with gameplay in order to have a mod that is fun before accurate.

Though I have to say this, even though EB hasn't been released yet it already has a leg up on RTR by using the mundus magnus map. The one in RTR is so horribly cluttered in some places, and so desolate in others that the flow of the game is really disrupted at times.

Anyway, so far the previews have looked fantastic! Good luck to the team and thank you for taking the time to take on such an enormous project.

[jerby]

very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing. and with balancing it woudl mean: all factions are equally strong.
tthey do this because 'facions' werent equal! all factions will be playable, but some easier than other. the seleucids had an armor-quality-advantage. so they will get it.
still, a competent player can win the game with any faction...balancing by history.
This way, when teh compuetr simulates the other factions (when you are, say: Rome) the factiosn that were, historically, better. will 8/10 times be better.
instead of CA's eggies destroyign everything in their path..
But this is all faction-balancing. but unit balancing will be the same.

[Ninefingers]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

[jerby]

well. EB is not into "getting as much DL's as possibe" it's not part of 'the gaming industry' they're just a couple of lads who like history.
and history over balancing. means history o ver balancing. and not: all history and to hell with balancing. Units need stats, and stats aren't obtained by history..the only refernes they have for 'stats' are sources of weapon quality, armor quality and training skill...
and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit. and if they include soem stuff from Darth's (like the units continuely fighting, no pausing, wichhe claims to have accieved) it will still be a great mod..

history-balancing. the one doenst exclude the other...it's the gamers job to alternate history, or to relive it. EB just want to make sure the starting is accurate, and teh units are.
even with EB, RTW will still be RTW..even if a mod focused completly on 'perfect balancing' it will still be RTW...

and if you dont like it..there's always RTR..

[Tux]

and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit.

Pardon me, a bit if you call 5 new important skeleton, like 2 handed swordsman, 2 handed pike(foot and mounte) and so on a little enhanchement
this means you would prefer that a 6 meters long pike to be held with one hand(CA style baby) or 1.5 meter long sword to be held with one hand, or that an unit would stab with and axe, etc.

[jerby]

i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..

[Tux]

i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..

Ah yes i forgot those, i don't think i'm the only one just that others are to lazy and prefer modeling but since i don't skin i had to do this. Not only sweboz, dacians(falx) and britons(sword) i also know of,maybe other factions also but i don't know of others than mentioned.
If just saw an new animation, there are tens more to see.

[SaFe]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

I think the fun comes when you try to achieve something with a faction, historically that culture won't be able to do.
Makes more fun, as to have balanced unit stat.
One problem might be multi player battles.

[jerby]

nah, no problem..just balance the unit costs( in export_descr_unit, you there have 3 costs: capmaign recruit, campaign upkeep, custom battle cost) so the faction that has 'weaker' units, and was historically 'a bump in the road' would have lowered costs.

but again, i should nota that there's no real weak faction..it all comes down to the terrain, and the player..

so, except the 'weird maerketing strat' what do you fear that is going to happen?

[Krusader]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.

However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was snuffed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.

So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.

[jerby]

Pontus a superpower? oke, something new..

[Greek_fire19]

Yeah, you'll be playing some game as the Ptolemaics when suddenly the monsterous legions of the Thracian empire descend upon you...boy won't you be confused.

Hell, even the gauls might have a chance

[jerby]

Hell, even the gauls might have a chance

sarcasm alert

[Mongoose]

And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.

However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was ed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.

So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.

Good very nice to hear the EB will be abit less unbalanced then vanilla RTW.......

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

What most people fail to see is that vanilla RTW is not "game play > realism"
Instead, sadly, it is "lack of realism>balance" Have you noticed that the only powerful factions are "egypt", the romans and what ever faction you are playing as? why? the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.


EB will be both better balanced then vanilla RTW and much more realistic. history was far more balanced then RTW, more balance plus realism can only be a good thing, right? OK, you will lose some of the "fun" units like "flaming war dogs", but look at what will take their place*!




https://img72.imageshack.us/img72/65...screen18ia.jpg








besides, "flaming war dogs" Both unbalance the game and make it less realistic


*yes, the do take their place. The unitmodel limit is very low so war dogs had to be deleted.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.

Both unbalance the game and make it less realistic

No truer words have been spoken lately...

[BobTheTerrible]

besides, "flaming war dogs"...

Flaming War Dogs? I'm sorry but there's no need to exaggerate. It just peeves me off when the realism crowd starts going on about "fantasy" units. Fantasy units would be trolls and ogres. The units in vanilla RTW are not fantasy units, if anything, most of the units have been used in history, just not as regular units as the game seems to portray. I never saw any complaining back in the M:TW days about those arab units that could hide any place, name began with an H... can't remember the name.

Look, my point is, you guys exaggerate way too much. Even with the unit names, when you say CA might as well have called them "spear guys" etc. Well in M:TW there were units called "spearmen" or "swordsmen." (if memory serves right) Yet there were not complaints then about unit's names?

I'm looking forward to EB very much, as much as anyone in this forum. It's just very annoying to go through the threads and have people refer to CA with a particular distaste and then hyperbolizing the the units in vanilla. Why did you say flaming war dogs? There is no such unit in vanilla.

[jerby]

well...wiht fanatsy units: chosen swordsmen might be a good example...
and the ENTIRE egyptian army is a:fanatsy or b: used 1000 (jndeed:thousand)before the time period...

it's not all fantasy...but most of their unit descprictions are very vague , like: well trained men, raised from villages to hack away at teh enemy.
the Desert axemen, form vanilla. are complete fiction...
the archers used by rome before the marian reforms..fantasy
Urban cohorts: no military unit
armoured hoplites: very, very vague...
schreeching women?
druids?

[Mongoose]

Look, my point is, you guys exaggerate way too much. Even with the unit names, when you say CA might as well have called them "spear guys" etc. Well in M:TW there were units called "spearmen" or "swordsmen." (if memory serves right) Yet there were not complaints then about unit's names?

ROFL
This is the best part of your post.

And you don't?! i've heard people say "If RTW was what you wanted it to be, you would just watch stuff happen and not be able to interact at all"



The best fantasy units are flaming pigs and wardogs, so i combined them. It was just an example for the love of god.............

[Angadil]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

Jolly good EB is not involved in the gaming industry then...

Also, I think that probably EB's policy, or, perhaps bettr, "philosophy", is not "history before gameplay" or "history before balance". Rather, our motto could well be something like "History IS gameplay". Or "History IS balance".

History is chock full of trade-offs, constraints, limitations. All factions had weaknesses and strengths historically. How well they did depended on how astutely they exploited the latter and minimized the former. Our belief is that, if you're willing to go the extra mile, that system of checks and constraints can be brought into this game.

So, we are convinced that by bringing history in, we also bring "balance". Of course, this "balance" is not of the "Let's give the Sarmatians the onagers they never had so they won't be disadvantaged at sieges compared to the Romans" kind. Instead, we turn sieges into one of the challenges that the Sarmatian player will have to overcome. A, totally historical, hard time at city-taking is one of the elements that will balance out the equally historical advantages the Sarmatians do have (good, varied cavalry at prices they could afford very well, for example).

That is just one example of many, but I hope it will demonstrate how, if you look for it, history is a true mine of gameplay and "balance" at all levels of the game. Even within all the limitations of the RTW system. Also, I would hope that example will show that EB's search for historical accuracy encompasses many things besides the depiction of troop types. And the beneficial effects of it in the "fun" department (such a fuzzy and subjective concept, in any case).

[Teleklos Archelaou]

"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."

That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.

Though I'm sure we all appreciate you stating that our "policy" is the "most blatantly idiotic policy" (in your second post no less! ), the really great thing is that we are not *in* the gaming industry. We are basically making this mod for free, voluntarily, ourselves. You might find it interesting to know that a few mod members are quite adamant (not myself though) that we really should only make it for ourselves, but I'm sure lots of other people will enjoy it too when it is released.

[Ninefingers]

Well, my hat's off to you folks then. I've never before seen a mod that quite honestly doesn't even pretend to pander to the masses of casual gamers (who will arguably constitute its largest user base). If you really had a discussion about whether or not to even release the mod to the public...well, all I can say is you've got some seriously dedicated staff members and I wish you nothing but the best with this admittedly gargantuan project.

Apologies for the hasty conclusion about your policy, it just strikes me as...odd. As a veteran of strategy games, I've always found balance - be it between factions/sides or units or whatever - to be the penultimate criteria of a game's potential success. If it isn't properly balanced, it's going to be crap: that's more or less the ethos I've viewed strategy games with.

So I'm sure you can imagine why someone like myself would be relatively disappointed in what is an otherwise brilliant title like R:TW. It provides all the necessary tools to create the single greatest piece of strategy gaming in gaming history, and falls short because of some really, really elementary mistakes.

Hence I hound the mod community in search of the proverbial One. The mod that would finally deliver what the R:TW campaign and battle engines are capable of producing - a refined, intelligent and balanced strategy game. Perhaps I'll just have to wait a while longer - I'd just hoped that EB would be it, since the rest of it looks so gosh darn pretty!

Anyway. Good luck with the project, I'll look forward to trying it out upon release and posting an inordinate amount of balance suggestions on your forums.

[Mongoose]

I think you might want to check this mod:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355


Probably not as big or realistic as EB. But as it is an MP mod, it should be balanced fairly well........


At least we can agree on one thing; vanilla RTW is c**p

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I think you might want to check this mod:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355


Probably not as big or realistic as EB. But as it is an MP mod, it should be balanced fairly well........

And created by an EB member too of course!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Anyway. Good luck with the project, I'll look forward to trying it out upon release and posting an inordinate amount of balance suggestions on your forums.

You might be surprised when you finally get it though 9. If you get the open beta, you will certainly find things that still need balancing, and I'm sure that we would seriously love to hear back on suggestions and problem areas. You're right on the money I think with what I think would be the best course of action - just hang on till we get it out and give it a try. We could all be wrong of course, but we really do think that folks will enjoy it when they finally get it (though we all know that there is no way in the world it will please everyone--some just won't like certain aspects and some probably just won't like us no matter what we do).

[Simetrical]

As a veteran of strategy games, I've always found balance - be it between factions/sides or units or whatever - to be the penultimate criteria of a game's potential success.

Then what're the ultimate criteria?

-Simetrical

[Ninefingers]

Then what're the ultimate criteria?

-Simetrical

I'm ashamed to admit: graphics. I just can't stand all those games with "great gameplay!" that look like garbage. When home PCs have enough power to run small cities, games should utilize their potential to the fullest.

Which, sadly, is why I haven't been able to so much as reinstall M:TW since playing R:TW, despite its infinitely superior balance.

Edit: And I just realized I'd completely borked my usage of the word "penultimate". I'd been under the impression it meant "next to first", when it actually means "next to last". English is however my fourth language so I hope I'm forgiven for this linguistic transgression.