disapointed with rtr, you are my last hope

[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.............

[jerby]

ja screeching warhounds, or screeching druids, screeching axemen..those are pretty sweet two