Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 115

Thread: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

  1. #31

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by khelvan
    Need I find more, or is this, too, taken out of context and twisted around by yours truly?
    No, your point is well made with those quotes. However it's a question of degree. To you, mayhaps 95% accuracy or more in the game is the goal. Personally I find that interesting, and I'll be sure to download the EB mod when it's completed. To CA, maybe 65% accuracy was the goal. They make some compromises for gameplay, and to please the majority of their customers, but try to work the history in a good bit as well. For the most part the game is a decent approximant. And at the very least it applies itself to historical elements more than is traditional for games placed on the mass market. I'm sure the more thorough research being done by your team will be vastly enjoyed. But I'm also sure that CA did indeed put a good bit of research into the game. Maybe not for all factions, but based on the product, they worked at it. Could they have worked harder? Yes, but I find the game enjoyable, and a whole heap of people share that opinion.
    Drink water.

  2. #32
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbarossa82
    We don't have a single source to suggest that the ancient Britons could swim either, or that the residents of Carthage were not immune to the common cold. That doesn't make either of those things an unreasonable inference to draw from known facts (i.e. that they were human). If a "known fact" is that carroballistae existed, I can't really see how it's an unreasonable inference that they at least experimented with firing on the move.

    If you could find a source saying that, it still wouldn't prove it was true, only support it. And the absence of a source doesn't disprove it, it just makes it less certain.

    I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.
    Actually, there are sources that suggest the ancient Britons could swim and the archaeological remains of ancient Carthaginians prove they were not immune to the common cold. On the other hand, it is not a logical inference from the descriptions of carroballistae to assume they were a mobile, tank-like unit that continuously fires while moving. Moreover, there is no evidence that Germans 'chose' groups of axemen and regularly deployed them tactically as an independent unit. Now, as to the axemen, CA has admitted this is fantasy and that the game is simply better with it. I have no problems with that. But for the carroballistae and the woad and their characterizations of barbarian warfare, they are asserting the same fantasies as fact. Sorry, but that is not an historically tenable position.

    Your point about not treating the sources as gospel is well taken. But you must also realize that departing from the sources altogether is equally, if not more anachronistic. The other poster's point about having an America divided into the Union and Confederacy during WWII is an apt comparison. There are many things we don't know about ancient warfare. But that does not give us license to invent freely, and claim our inventions as logical inferences.

    Again, let me stress, I have no problems with fantasy itself; my objection is when teams like CA claim their fantasies as fact. That's why I originally made the post. They seemed to be defending things that were not logical inferences and perpetuating stereotypes already long discredited by historians. That deserves to be pointed out and refuted.
    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 08-20-2005 at 19:01.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  3. #33
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by dgb
    Ah hold up here - this argument is oft used but it's based upon bad logic. I through my purchase have paid CA to program the engine. I don't like the engine so I complain. CA has delivered to me a product which at best barely falls within tolerances so I complain. If you pay someone to do something and they do a sloppy job do you complain, simply because you couldn't do better?

    Ah no again, nobody is ridiculing them for not getting it right the first time. People ridicule them for not accepting the errors in the engine (how long/how much effort did it take before the save/load was accepted as a bug?), and for not correcting proven issues with the engine.

    No I haven't - on the otherhand I've never designed a house from the ground up. I pay people to do that, like I pay CA to design a game from the ground up. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that none of the doors open in said house.
    The bugs you point out are NOT as simple to correct as replacing the doors. These bugs is like someone buying an old house in California that won't withstand earthquakes and being angry that it isn't earthquake proof. Well poot. The only way to fix that is to rebuild the house yes? Alot of the big problems would take too much time to fix because it would require parts of the engine to be rebuilt. Plus, it's a comercial project with deadlines. If you've ever worked on comercial projects, you know that you can rarely deliver everything or go back and fix things. This is because the cost to benefit of functionality ratio is going to be too big. It's simply not practical to rip out half the engine and rebuild it if it doesn't seriously hamper the fuctionality of the final product.

    If it was a few guys doing this in their spare time like the Click and Create game community or Free Game Community or the RTW modding community then you could probably get 80% of everything fixed. Even then, there would still be limits to fixing a old game and just making a game from scratch.

    Basically, alot of the problems aren't worth fixing in this generation of the TW engine and is better left for TW4. If you find the game unplayable, then goto your local gameshop and trade it in for Empire Earth 3 and wait for TW4.

    I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.
    Hey, I'm just saying to keep an open mind. Hell, look at black holes, no one thought they existed because there was no evidence, that's not to say that they were wrong in believing so. As long as there is reasonable doubt in something, there's room for positive speculation. Do you think in 2000 years if someone dug up information about the use for C4 plastic explosive, that it'll detail Marines in the Pacific Theatre in WWII using it to heat coffee? Probably not. What I'm saying is that you should keep an open mind. Just because someone says something, it doesn't the only truth.

    Seriously, why doesn't someone just freaking build one and experiment with it?

    What I'm saying about a potential use of a wagon with a repeating ballista is as a supressive fire unit. Yes, it's main purpose would be a fire and move weapon(which you could mod easily if it uses the HA logic), but to say it was used in every single instance as a sit and shoot weapon is silly. What if people or cav were chasing you over flat terran. Would you not have the guy on the ballista shooting at them since you have no time to stop? What if you were skirmishing?

    That's where I'm coming from, I'm not saying that BI super sniping donkey wagons are right, but I'm saying it's stupid to think that just because it was meant to sit and shoot doesn't mean it wasn't capable of moving and shooting. A moving shooting penalty really needs to be a coded for horses and chariots.

    On a side note from what I've seen of Replica Roman repeating ballista, their range didn't look too spectacular. They were more like crossbows than the lesser cousins of the heavy siege ballista that's seen in Gladiator. The bolts were only about 6 inches long, though this could have varied depending on model.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 08-20-2005 at 19:27.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  4. #34
    EB insanity coordinator Senior Member khelvan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    8,449

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by SMZ
    They make some compromises for gameplay, and to please the majority of their customers, but try to work the history in a good bit as well.
    You see, this is a misconception. NO compromise need be made between gameplay and history. Why do people think that making something historically accurate means poor gameplay? It doesn't have to! Making the start positions, factions, and units of the main campaign more accurate can mean (and does, for EB) making them incredibly diverse, flexible, and add even more gameplay elements than not.

    I can go into more details if you wish, but the idea that one has to sacrifice gameplay for history, or vice versa, or that making things historically accurate means setting them to some scripted timeline, is myth. EB sets the table, historically speaking, and allows the player to write history. The conditions and capabilities are there to start the Punic wars, for instance, but we don't script it to happen. It is likely to happen based on the position and options of Roman and Carthaginian troops, but we don't force it.

    Anyway - this is not a zero sum game, with gameplay on one side and historical accuracy on the other. They go hand in hand, and for many people are synergistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SMZ
    Could they have worked harder? Yes, but I find the game enjoyable, and a whole heap of people share that opinion.
    I find the game enjoyable as well. Otherwise I wouldn't bother to mod it to, in my opinion, make it better. It is a testament to how much we like RTW, or at least how much potential we see in it, that we would work for almost a year now improving it.

    However, that doesn't mean there aren't things I, and others, would like to see CA have improved from the get-go. Plus, as we see above I don't think the 65% number you give is accurate. The ancient Egyptians are outside of it, but their portrayal of the Celts, for instance, is accurate according to Cpt. Fishpants above. Which is not the case even if all the sources examined are Greek and Roman. I think they just had bad information, and I was hoping for a better portrayal...
    Cogita tute


  5. #35

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    You see, this is a misconception. NO compromise need be made between gameplay and history. Why do people think that making something historically accurate means poor gameplay? It doesn't have to! Making the start positions, factions, and units of the main campaign more accurate can mean (and does, for EB) making them incredibly diverse, flexible, and add even more gameplay elements than not.
    There´s one difference, though. You´re a modding group who can take all the time you want to and you don´t (need to) sell it, neither to a publisher nor to the final customers. You don´t have to pay wages to your people, raise funds, finance the tools (what´s a copy of 3ds max? About 5000$ ? And that´s just one of the tools you´ll need). You don´t need to worry about it flopping due to lack of interest. You don´t have a publisher who´s making quite an effort of promotion and expects it to pay off... Do I need to go on?

  6. #36

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    ^ exactly... there is a compromise involved. If they spend more time and energy and money on research, that postpones the release date, possibly detracts from work on other sections of the game and cuts into their profit margin. You guys have spent about a year as you say on just that. If CA delays their release for a year and pays wages for that year... that's a HUGE compromise.

    And yeah, I don't even know if the game is 65% correct. I am hardly a professor of history, but parts of the game show that research was done. For instance the wonder descriptions. I've heard of those buildings before of course, but I don't know the details on them of hand, things like that take research... and so many more aspects... Even if it's only 30% correct, in baseball that's a career.
    Drink water.

  7. #37
    Bug Hunter Senior Member player1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    1,405

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by mongoose
    What games are you comparing it to? "Age of craft"???
    No, I'm not laughing.
    BUG-FIXER, an unofficial patch for both Rome: Total War and its expansion pack

  8. #38
    EB insanity coordinator Senior Member khelvan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    8,449

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by SMZ
    ^ exactly... there is a compromise involved. If they spend more time and energy and money on research, that postpones the release date, possibly detracts from work on other sections of the game and cuts into their profit margin. You guys have spent about a year as you say on just that. If CA delays their release for a year and pays wages for that year... that's a HUGE compromise.

    And yeah, I don't even know if the game is 65% correct. I am hardly a professor of history, but parts of the game show that research was done. For instance the wonder descriptions. I've heard of those buildings before of course, but I don't know the details on them of hand, things like that take research... and so many more aspects... Even if it's only 30% correct, in baseball that's a career.
    I meant, I don't feel that the number was what CA was shooting for, not that the research was worse than that.

    In any respect, the argument might hold true IF CA hadn't had a research department OFFER them their time and historical research for FREE. That is how Europa Barbarorum started. A group of history lovers who wanted to help CA create a more historical representation of the period. Without expecting a single cent EB did the research FOR CA. CA rejected it.

    So don't tell me that it is all about money, or that somehow CA -had- to take the route they chose. How we're so different. If we had our way, CA would have used everything we're doing now in their game's release.
    Last edited by khelvan; 08-20-2005 at 22:08.
    Cogita tute


  9. #39
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    I'd have rejected your insulting proposal too if I had been CA. Everything you've said reeks of your own assumption that CA skimped on the reasearch into the era (for whatever reason from sheer cavalier-ness to economic fesability). A good deal of the EB people have this attitude as well. The fact that CA gave Parthia nothing but shitty infantry and the Greeks no heavy cavalry shows they are commited to a degree of historical accuracy.
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  10. #40
    Lurker Member Mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,422

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    IIRC, the greks did use some sort of heavy cavalry. They were just very rare and not very well trained.


    Please correct me if im wrong.

  11. #41
    EB insanity coordinator Senior Member khelvan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    8,449

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by lars573
    I'd have rejected your insulting proposal too if I had been CA. Everything you've said reeks of your own assumption that CA skimped on the reasearch into the era (for whatever reason from sheer cavalier-ness to economic fesability). A good deal of the EB people have this attitude as well. The fact that CA gave Parthia nothing but shitty infantry and the Greeks no heavy cavalry shows they are commited to a degree of historical accuracy.
    Ahh, sarcasm is a beautiful thing.
    Cogita tute


  12. #42
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by mongoose
    IIRC, the greks did use some sort of heavy cavalry. They were just very rare and not very well trained.


    Please correct me if im wrong.
    I'm sure at some point, the Central and Southern Greek did. They only really stand out with Macedon though. It's not they didn't try.

    In any respect, the argument might hold true IF CA hadn't had a research department OFFER them their time and historical research for FREE. That is how Europa Barbarorum started. A group of history lovers who wanted to help CA create a more historical representation of the period. Without expecting a single cent EB did the research FOR CA. CA rejected it.
    I'm sure there were no other good reasons to reject it. I mean, come on, there could have been no legal repurcussions with Activision or Intellectual Property Rights... or releasing a whole new game... or concerns with their target audience... or the fact that it could be released as a mod instead...

    Sarcasm is really a beautiful thing...
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 08-21-2005 at 01:09.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  13. #43
    Member Member sunsmountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    414

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    @Hurin_Rules
    As a professor of history, I have to deal with the consequences in my classrooms.
    Poor soul, but i bet the interest of your students in ancient Roman history has tripled due to Rome: Total War. It is then up to you to correct them where necessary, but as i recall:

    - The Romans DID destroy Carthage
    - The Romans DID use Legions
    - The Romans DID build Aqueducts

    And i'm not really sure the game is trying to teach them much more than that. A good teacher knows how to pose questions and deal with answers in a way to arrive at a shared truth, instead of conjecture. The primary ingredient for this is motivation, which is hard to instill in kids these days. Would you not rather thank CA for doing half the work for you?

    Actually, there are sources that suggest the ancient Britons could swim and the archaeological remains of ancient Carthaginians prove they were not immune to the common cold. On the other hand, it is not a logical inference from the descriptions of carroballistae to assume they were a mobile, tank-like unit that continuously fires while moving. Moreover, there is no evidence that Germans 'chose' groups of axemen and regularly deployed them tactically as an independent unit. Now, as to the axemen, CA has admitted this is fantasy and that the game is simply better with it. I have no problems with that. But for the carroballistae and the woad and their characterizations of barbarian warfare, they are asserting the same fantasies as fact. Sorry, but that is not an historically tenable position.
    Sounds like a good history lesson. One that the RTW fans in your class would love to follow, and actually be interested - for a change - in the subject you teach, namely history.

    Now from what I read in CA's comments, they are not stating these things as fact. Because of my general knowledge, I know 120 men of Head Slingers are fantasy (you can actually prove this using logistics/chemistry reasoning), and considering the source (see your previous post), this affects the credibility of ALL their OTHER work (by deduction).

    This contradicts your statement about assertation on the part of CA. How can CA state horse artillery as fact when they are then also stating Head Slingers as fact? Or do we need a list to separate trustworthy statements from untrustworthy statements? From the same company/source??

    Perhaps you are unaccustomed to having your historical source (the interpreter at CA) alive instead of dead, and this may cause confusion in your scientific mind. Rest assured, though, that CA does not intend to disrupt your classroom. I would be worried more about commercials, and their effect on creating fact out of fiction.

    NEXT!

    @Puzz3D

    I'm beginning to like you more and more Puzz3D, as well as your opinion. To respond to this barrage of complaints that made me laugh:

    Exploding rocks, flying horses, 5 second incineration by fire arrows,
    Cool. Lets have more of this!

    phalanx that can't stop cavalry,
    Well, i guess light cavalry should be slaughtered, but armored? One thing is sure though, the horses refusing to charge has never happened to me. One can mod this by the way, CA are fixing this, and the issue is undecided after many many discussions.

    men being thrown 100 feet or more through the air,
    Yippie! These Elephants are trained @ the Olympics! Fun.

    unrealistically fast movement, wrong weapon use by hoplites, chariots faster than cavalry,
    Well, the movements were motion captured, so there you go. Hoplites switch to swords when they have to. That's how the engine was designed.

    lack of downhill bonus, overly effective artillery, cavalry dominated battles,
    I see you longing for the tweaked and tested Shogun and Medieval maps, why are you still playing RomeTW? As for the cavalry, i agree their charge is powerful, and can be repeated, unlike before. Which spear troops defeat Legionary Cavalry might i ask? (1.)

    non-existant weather effects, only two speeds for infantry, only two speeds for cavalry,
    See before, and i don't remember any game with 3 speeds for any character (except racing games). Although I like rain, forests and hills to have an effect on battles, they've all been toned down, unfortunately. I wish i could mod this somewhere... (2.)

    ranged units where either all men shoot or none shoot, unit stacking without combat penalty,
    Actually, only part of the archers shoot.. only those that can. Unit stacking seems to be a problem, you get a lot more attacks/casualties per round, seemingly offsetting the negative morale bonus due to being outflanked/surrounded.
    This is a little too easy to say without research though. In a recent BI battle with the Huns against the Romans, i charged all my light cavalry in one big stacking ball into this Roman unit, and it held them at bay. Certainly the killrate was not disproportionate to my advantage, which it should according to you.


    factions from outside the time frame,
    who cares?
    suicide generals,
    yep. (3.)

    excessive delay to movement orders,
    Unconfirmed. If you're giving movement orders to a unit that has any ability turned on, expect delays.

    pikes ineffective on an upslope,
    And so they should. This is design again.

    ranged units that always charge into melee in cities,
    Do they have a choice with the possible pathfinding and skirmish AI? I'm glad they charge at all. Better that than having to chase them all around town so they can get a couple of more shots in, they will die anyway and it's frustrating to lose to the time limit this way. Or having them stand still and get slaughtered by, gasp, archers.

    machine gun firing rates for city towers,
    Only for level 3 walls and above, and even then you're assaulting a fortified position so expect losses due to something (the AI wont force them).

    all men in a unit incur fighting fatigue even if only a few are actually fighting,
    Oh come on! You can't take the weighed average of the morale of the men in a unit unless you have dual core processors! Hey, an idea..

    routers run toward the enemy on bridges,
    Have you ever been routed? These men are oblivous... that's how it was designed...

    running infantry through a phalanx unit is more effective and attacking it.
    Never tried this, but say i believe you. (1.)

    So besides Terrain/Weather, Suicide Generals, and the sometimes overpowering effects of the ingame physics in charges, i don't agree with you.

    sunsmountain
    Last edited by sunsmountain; 08-21-2005 at 01:41.
    in montem soli non loquitur

    (\_/) (>.<) That's what happens with bunnies
    (x.X)(_)(_) who want to achieve world domination!

    becoming is for people who do not will to be

  14. #44

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Well, the movements were motion captured, so there you go. Hoplites switch to swords when they have to. That's how the engine was designed.
    I think what Puzz3D was getting at was the fact Greek hoplites are essentially Macedonian phalanx-lite, which is unrealistic. Now I not trying to defend minute historical accuracy, but hoplites were not as vulnerable as the Macedonian phalanx to flanking (thus the hoplite like armed troops retained by Philip, Alexander and various other states like the Achaeans, deployed on the flank of the main sarissa phalanx).

    Motion capture, maybe. Motion capture of a person hauling a full kit of armor, shield and weapons in the Mediterranean midday sun across a battle field, not. If one think is clear from the source material, it is that heavy infantry could not pursue effectively over more than a short distance, and if routed and fleeing only fled successfully by ditching its shield and armor. The movement rates in RTW are simply unrealistic.

    I not asking that the CA create some perfect recreation of war in 3rd century BC, but why bother setting the game in the Roman period if your unwilling to model the actual tactical problems faced by a general of the era.

    Well, i guess light cavalry should be slaughtered, but armored?
    The fact is Heavy infantry ruled the field in the game period. Period. Even the best and most heavy armored cavalry only beat infantry in exceptional circumstances (with a frontal charge). The problem in RTW is that even light cavalry charges into and through better than average spear infantry.
    Last edited by conon394; 08-21-2005 at 02:37.
    'One day when I fly with my hands -
    up down the sky,
    like a bird'

  15. #45
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Missile units in RTW well have all men firing even though most of the men are out of range as long as the first ranks can shoot. Just try and deploy a unit in column formation and watch the magic.

    I dont know if its different in RTW but fatigue in MTW is actually calculated for each soldier and the average is what you see in game, tired, exhausted etc.

    Motion capture is nice but doesnt mean a whole unit acts like one soldier does. Keeping order was important as well as not getting fatigued too quickly. But even if we dont care about historical accuracy the fact is still that compared to STW/MTW running speed was increased with like 60% and with 4 more units is gives a lot less control for the player.

    I dont see why a pikemen cant lift up his pike a bit to make up for the slope, design or just animations not thought through to handle all situations?


    CBR

  16. #46
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    RTW's move rate are unrealistic but most people would get bored to death. I have to agree that a speed compromise is needed for TW games for normal people or it just takes too long.

    Routing heavy infantry is an interesting case though. As much as I'd love to see droppable equipment, it is a gameplay compromise so rallied troops can still fight. A droppable equipment system would be an interesting feature. Shields getting bashed, swords getting lost, soldiers without weapons trying to find one or going Rocky IV on their target.

    Charging cavalry as was pointed out in a few places have a few problems that are engine related. Two things: They almost never lose their charge bonus AND armor adds to impact damage.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  17. #47
    Member Member Productivity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ulsan, South Korea
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
    The bugs you point out are NOT as simple to correct as replacing the doors. These bugs is like someone buying an old house in California that won't withstand earthquakes and being angry that it isn't earthquake proof. Well poot. The only way to fix that is to rebuild the house yes? Alot of the big problems would take too much time to fix because it would require parts of the engine to be rebuilt. Plus, it's a comercial project with deadlines. If you've ever worked on comercial projects, you know that you can rarely deliver everything or go back and fix things. This is because the cost to benefit of functionality ratio is going to be too big. It's simply not practical to rip out half the engine and rebuild it if it doesn't seriously hamper the fuctionality of the final product.
    I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.

    You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
    't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.

    God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
    If it was a few guys doing this in their spare time like the Click and Create game community or Free Game Community or the RTW modding community then you could probably get 80% of everything fixed. Even then, there would still be limits to fixing a old game and just making a game from scratch.
    How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
    Basically, alot of the problems aren't worth fixing in this generation of the TW engine and is better left for TW4. If you find the game unplayable, then goto your local gameshop and trade it in for Empire Earth 3 and wait for TW4.
    Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.

    For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.

  18. #48

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by dgb
    I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.

    You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
    't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.

    God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.



    How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?



    Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.

    For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.
    Well I have to say their "new approach" is working well for them.
    RTW sold over million copy over world and every major review magazines/sites gave it a gold award.
    "Lose of trust" of several hundred gamer isn't going to do anything.

  19. #49
    Member Member Productivity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ulsan, South Korea
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by KSEG
    Well I have to say their "new approach" is working well for them.
    RTW sold over million copy over world and every major review magazines/sites gave it a gold award.
    "Lose of trust" of several hundred gamer isn't going to do anything.
    I've posted on this before, this doesn't surprise me.

    CA had a niche in the highly tactical war game area. They're moving out of that, trying to reach into the traditional RTS area. As they do this, they move away from their core, reliable base, and into a far more volatile market of the standard RTS market. There they are going up against the big RTS guns - AOEIII etc. where they won't survive. They've got one round of sales, because it's something new, but it wont hold. They've moved out of what they are good at in pursuit of a quick dollar, but it won't hold.

    This is similar to what happened to the Tribes series. In Tribes (1) there was a game which appealed to very few - but to those it did they loved it. It was too complex, too difficult for the average gamer, but those who did play were extremely loyal to it.

    In Tribes 2 they created a game was dumbed down too appeal to the mass market (hey jetpacks! cool). They moved out of their niche, and tried to get into the standard FPS niche. And yes, it did sell well, but later, when the average gamers moved on, the core following was still there, but extremely dissapointed. The trust of the core had been lost, and they weren't goign to swallow another attempt like that any more.

    Consequently, Tribes Vengeance was an attempt to move even further into the mass market, at which point it got beaten around the head by the big players.

    This will probably happen with TW, think about it, those million sales haven't actually bought a lot, the new gamers who thought it looked cool to play haven't been held (I can name at least four of my friends who bought the game, but have given it away because it is too complex) - they liked the demo, because it's set up for you to win, but when you start having to look after your own flanks etc. then it all just gets too hard. In dumbing it down to attract the people above (who have allready abandoned it) they've alienated the core who are going to be hard to regain.

    Now they are in the position where they can't easily go back to their old market, because the trust just isn't there, and if they try to attract the average gamers again, they are going to have to dumb it down to standard RTS level, at which point they are goin to go up against Age of Empire III etc. If they think they can win that battle, well good luck to them, but they are not going to.

    So yes, they may look ok now, but come back in three years and see how they feel, being stuck out in the wilderness with the EA Games etc. to contend with - they chose to leave the safe house of the niche they were in, they won't be welcomed back in unless they prove themselves again.

  20. #50

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by dgb
    I've posted on this before, this doesn't surprise me.

    CA had a niche in the highly tactical war game area. They're moving out of that, trying to reach into the traditional RTS area. As they do this, they move away from their core, reliable base, and into a far more volatile market of the standard RTS market. There they are going up against the big RTS guns - AOEIII etc. where they won't survive. They've got one round of sales, because it's something new, but it wont hold. They've moved out of what they are good at in pursuit of a quick dollar, but it won't hold.

    This is similar to what happened to the Tribes series. In Tribes (1) there was a game which appealed to very few - but to those it did they loved it. It was too complex, too difficult for the average gamer, but those who did play were extremely loyal to it.

    In Tribes 2 they created a game was dumbed down too appeal to the mass market (hey jetpacks! cool). They moved out of their niche, and tried to get into the standard FPS niche. And yes, it did sell well, but later, when the average gamers moved on, the core following was still there, but extremely dissapointed. The trust of the core had been lost, and they weren't goign to swallow another attempt like that any more.

    Consequently, Tribes Vengeance was an attempt to move even further into the mass market, at which point it got beaten around the head by the big players.

    This will probably happen with TW, think about it, those million sales haven't actually bought a lot, the new gamers who thought it looked cool to play haven't been held (I can name at least four of my friends who bought the game, but have given it away because it is too complex) - they liked the demo, because it's set up for you to win, but when you start having to look after your own flanks etc. then it all just gets too hard. In dumbing it down to attract the people above (who have allready abandoned it) they've alienated the core who are going to be hard to regain.

    Now they are in the position where they can't easily go back to their old market, because the trust just isn't there, and if they try to attract the average gamers again, they are going to have to dumb it down to standard RTS level, at which point they are goin to go up against Age of Empire III etc. If they think they can win that battle, well good luck to them, but they are not going to.

    So yes, they may look ok now, but come back in three years and see how they feel, being stuck out in the wilderness with the EA Games etc. to contend with - they chose to leave the safe house of the niche they were in, they won't be welcomed back in unless they prove themselves again.
    I have to say that is a wishful? thinking.
    First, Tribes and RTW is a totally diffarent game, so it's not a fair comparison.
    Second, by the tone of your voice, it sounds like you are hoping CA is going to fail. Is this true?
    Third, You say old "Royal" supporter has left, but you forgot the fact that new TW fans was also created by RTW, and whether really all the old fans has left is questionable.
    I for one been playing since the time of STW yet I love RTW, and I know some people who says the same.
    Fourth, You claim new TW games won't survive against games like AOEIII but why are you so sure?
    CA doesn't make games to "win" other games, they make it for profit.
    As long as they make a profit, they will survive.

  21. #51
    Member Member Productivity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ulsan, South Korea
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    1. Yes Tribes is a different type of game - so what? The player dynamics were the same.


    2. No I don't hope CA will fail - well not particularly, I am ambivalent about them - I wouldn't particularly care either way at the moment.


    3. I addressed this earlier - the new fans are fickle. Out of the ~20 regular gamers I know well, I and one other played TW games - a reasonable proportion of the others liked RTW but in the end gave up because it was not the standard sort of game. It's like why there are/were more people playing CS than Raven Shield, more people playing Battlefield 1942 than Ghost Recon. Games which try to be more realistic than the mainstream will allways have to be content with being in the shadows. Those who move out of the shadows inevitably fail as the 'fun' realism features wear off, and the tiring realism features begin to annoy.


    4. I'm so sure because I've been playing games/watching the game industry for 15 years and I've seen many (probably hundreds now) try to do it and fail. If you want more detailed reasons, they can be summarised with one. Money. Actually they may do it - Sega owns them now, so they should have financial weight behind them - but if they do, it will hardly be the Total War series as you know it.


    5. (yes I know there isn't a five, but treat it as your last paragraph) - Yes all they have to do to 'win' is make a profit. To make a profit you have to have high sales. Clones of original games rarely have the sales of the originals.


    You say trust isn't important? I say it is if you are a small developer trying to work with a small market. If they are looking at a large market, well trust isn't so important. But there are big dogs out there who view that as their own market, and if you start trying to eat into it, they'll respond.

  22. #52

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by dgb
    1. Yes Tribes is a different type of game - so what? The player dynamics were the same.


    2. No I don't hope CA will fail - well not particularly, I am ambivalent about them - I wouldn't particularly care either way at the moment.


    3. I addressed this earlier - the new fans are fickle. Out of the ~20 regular gamers I know well, I and one other played TW games - a reasonable proportion of the others liked RTW but in the end gave up because it was not the standard sort of game. It's like why there are/were more people playing CS than Raven Shield, more people playing Battlefield 1942 than Ghost Recon. Games which try to be more realistic than the mainstream will allways have to be content with being in the shadows. Those who move out of the shadows inevitably fail as the 'fun' realism features wear off, and the tiring realism features begin to annoy.


    4. I'm so sure because I've been playing games/watching the game industry for 15 years and I've seen many (probably hundreds now) try to do it and fail. If you want more detailed reasons, they can be summarised with one. Money. Actually they may do it - Sega owns them now, so they should have financial weight behind them - but if they do, it will hardly be the Total War series as you know it.


    5. (yes I know there isn't a five, but treat it as your last paragraph) - Yes all they have to do to 'win' is make a profit. To make a profit you have to have high sales. Clones of original games rarely have the sales of the originals.


    You say trust isn't important? I say it is if you are a small developer trying to work with a small market. If they are looking at a large market, well trust isn't so important. But there are big dogs out there who view that as their own market, and if you start trying to eat into it, they'll respond.
    You'll have to wait a bit for me to answer all of your replies, but let me says this now.
    Your claim of previous TW titles being "small market" is ridiculous.
    Both STW and MTW was a huge succes, STW sold more then million copy IIRC and MTW was top selling game in UK and in US#4 for the first 2 weeks.
    And how can you call that a "small market"?

  23. #53
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by dgb
    I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.

    You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
    't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.

    God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.



    How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?



    Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.

    For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't complain. I'm saying that you shouldn't make unrealistic demands from CA. They aren't making games tailored specifically to you or the people in this forum. Yes, it pisses me off that the game is rather unpolished in some aspects, but do yu really expect them to go back 8 months and redo a whole segment of engine? If you were part of the company dev team would you rather spend time and money on 8 months of redoing a whole segment of engine and force fitting it into the code and graphical engine interface of an old game or would you rather spend 8 months improve that aspect of engine after ripping off all the now cumbersome RTW baggage for the next generation TW? It's just not feasable economically, unlike someone making a mod in their spare time. Hell, just wait for TW4 and mod it to RTW2.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 08-21-2005 at 16:30.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  24. #54
    Member Member Flavius Clemens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    20 miles south of Eboracum
    Posts
    193

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciaran
    Or would anyone like to give up the nice camera sweeping over the battlefield, watching the action close up in favour of a stationary (or almost stationary) first-person view down a hill, having to speak commands (in Latin, or ancient Greek - if realism, then all the way, after all) to a messenger who might or not reach the designated unit that may obey or not... I hope you get my point.
    Personally I'm all for orders taking time to reach the unit concerned and be put into practice - that's an element of realism that adds to the challenge. Though it is dependent on the AI in command of the individual units being able to act reasonably in responding to circumstances - for instance if an infantry unit has orders to march on an enemy and attack it to have the sense to stop and face an ambushing cavalry unit appearing from cover.

    And there of course is the rub - I don't doubt that good AI strategy / tactical programming is damn difficult and to produce a game at all CA are limited by what can reasonably be acheived within a given timescale and cost. There is a difference between a product failing to meet all the requirements that would be desireable in an ideal world and one that has bugs in the functions it does try to provide (I had a very frustrating CTD last night after a critical battle that I'll now have to refight from scratch) or a design that includes things that aren't just not 100% historically verified, but lack any serious credibility.

    If it's too hard to code a barbarian unit with varying arms fair enough, make them all swordsmen, falxmen or whatever, but I don't feel comfortable with a one off unit like flaming pigs becoming a standard, or elite units becoming ten a penny once you've teched up to the right level. In that sense I want realism. So for mobile ballistas I want at least some chance that they were reasonably regularly used on the move before it becomes a game feature.

    I definitely agree with the idea of building one and seeing what it's like in practice. I saw a documentary about Trajan's Column and the Dacian campaigns a few years ago, and in this they got someone to make Roman saddles based on the technology they had available at the time. They were surprised at how well they coped as a platform for melee against infantry, and made them take some of the illustrations on the column more literally than they had been inclined to. (Not an excuse for all powerful cavalry charges of course!) Try the same with the artillery - lets judge what was feasible. Not that I'm suggesting CA themselves get out the saws and planes, there are limits to how much programmers should get involved with hardware
    Non me rogare, loquare non lingua latinus

  25. #55
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by sunsmountain
    @Hurin_Rules

    Poor soul, but i bet the interest of your students in ancient Roman history has tripled due to Rome: Total War. It is then up to you to correct them where necessary, but as i recall:

    - The Romans DID destroy Carthage
    - The Romans DID use Legions
    - The Romans DID build Aqueducts

    And i'm not really sure the game is trying to teach them much more than that. A good teacher knows how to pose questions and deal with answers in a way to arrive at a shared truth, instead of conjecture. The primary ingredient for this is motivation, which is hard to instill in kids these days. Would you not rather thank CA for doing half the work for you?
    I thank CA for more than that. I thank them for making a very fun game. But that doesn't mean I can accept them asserting things that are not true.


    Sounds like a good history lesson. One that the RTW fans in your class would love to follow, and actually be interested - for a change - in the subject you teach, namely history.

    Now from what I read in CA's comments, they are not stating these things as fact. Because of my general knowledge, I know 120 men of Head Slingers are fantasy (you can actually prove this using logistics/chemistry reasoning), and considering the source (see your previous post), this affects the credibility of ALL their OTHER work (by deduction).

    This contradicts your statement about assertation on the part of CA. How can CA state horse artillery as fact when they are then also stating Head Slingers as fact? Or do we need a list to separate trustworthy statements from untrustworthy statements? From the same company/source??

    Perhaps you are unaccustomed to having your historical source (the interpreter at CA) alive instead of dead, and this may cause confusion in your scientific mind. Rest assured, though, that CA does not intend to disrupt your classroom. I would be worried more about commercials, and their effect on creating fact out of fiction.
    What I can't understand is why they are willing to admit that 'chosen axemen' and head hurlers are fantasy, but are not willing to do the same for the other fantastic elements.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  26. #56

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Unconfirmed. If you're giving movement orders to a unit that has any ability turned on, expect delays.
    I have not witnessed a delay in response to commands either.....unless that unit is, as Sunsmountain suggests, performing some ability or actually engaged. What I cannot understand is that so much is being made of this, when in MTW, I can remember many times having to double click on the ground to disengage my unit.

    I dont see why a pikemen cant lift up his pike a bit to make up for the slope, design or just animations not thought through to handle all situations?
    We have established by now that the game is not historically accurate so perhaps this feature is part of the gameplay issue, as in pikes less effective uphill.

    suicide generals
    So it was with MTW, the AI general was no different in that game.

    The fact is Heavy infantry ruled the field in the game period.
    Are we talking BI here? I thought we were, in which case cavalry were a far stronger influence than it had previously been

    ........Orda

  27. #57

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Orda

    Well the thread has been discussing both (BI and RTW). My comments were directed at the performance of cavalry in RTW.




    RTW's move rate are unrealistic but most people would get bored to death. I have to agree that a speed compromise is needed for TW games for normal people or it just takes too long.

    Routing heavy infantry is an interesting case though. As much as I'd love to see droppable equipment, it is a gameplay compromise so rallied troops can still fight. A droppable equipment system would be an interesting feature. Shields getting bashed, swords getting lost, soldiers without weapons trying to find one or going Rocky IV on their target.

    Charging cavalry as was pointed out in a few places have a few problems that are engine related. Two things: They almost never lose their charge bonus AND armor adds to impact damage.
    But it seems like CA could have make a better comprise decision. Say allowing battles to start with armies very nearly on top of one another, or a large battle filed with room to maneuver armies and eventually close for tactical gamers. The apparently impatient broad market gamer could choose to start on top of the enemy. No need for Olympic Sprinter hoplites. On fleeing infantry, I did not mean to suggest I was disappointed CA did not implement armor flinging (cool if they could); but just that in general if I saved a fresh unit of cavalry I would like a battlefield big enough combined with tired infantry running at realistic speeds such that I could actually run down routers.
    Last edited by conon394; 08-21-2005 at 19:33.
    'One day when I fly with my hands -
    up down the sky,
    like a bird'

  28. #58
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    I personally like the uber sprinting because it allows you to use the whole map instead of just the center. If you have slow units, then there would be no point for big maps.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  29. #59
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
    Carroballistae didn't fire on the move? Maybe, maybe not. The basic design certainly wouldn't have made it easy or accurate, but you can bet they tried to use the weapon that way from time to time (sheer terror is the mother of many desperate tactics).
    Take note of the first part... CF doesn't say that it is historically accurate at all, he says it is possible. And possible it certainly is.
    Now if something that was possible and can add a bit of flavour is left out, I would as a publisher be rather dumbfounded. It doesn't make sense at all.

    And about it being impossible to fire on the move. Well, all it would need was a proper pivot (I can certainly understand that that is where the trouble begins). Then the 'gunner' could stabilize the ballista with his knees, and yes, knees are absolutely superb shockabsorbers.
    Remember the Crusader tank? You know the fast British tank in the desert, that got shot up in huge numbers? Well it was intended to shoot on the move, and had the entire gunmount being controlled by a standing gunner. A trained gunner could easily shoot on the move, using his knees to stabilize the gun. Two things conspired against that, bad training and the tiresome process of standing up shooting the gun. So in general it was a failure, butthe principle was there (and it was useable if you cared to do it properly), and the gun was vastly heavier than light ballista ever got to be.

    So I can easily imagine some people gettingthe idea to shoot a ballista like that. Would they have done it a lot? Doubt it. Would it have been done at some point? Think so.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  30. #60
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Kraxis
    Take note of the first part... CF doesn't say that it is historically accurate at all, he says it is possible. And possible it certainly is.
    Saying something is possible is a far cry from depicting a unit that regularly uses a weapons system in that fashion in combat. I'm sure it was possible for ancient cavalry archers to ride their horses backwards so they could fire arrows from them. But there is no evidence they did. (The Parthians turned in their saddles, they didn't ride their horses backwards, and they certainly didn't do it regularly.)


    So I can easily imagine some people gettingthe idea to shoot a ballista like that. Would they have done it a lot? Doubt it. Would it have been done at some point? Think so.
    Did they do it regularly like they do in the game? Definitely not.
    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 08-22-2005 at 03:16.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO