STRATEGY GAMES: SIMULATION or BASEBUILDING DUMBING DOWN?

[hellenes]

Calling something a Dune 2 clone is a compliment, not an insult. Dune 2 is a great game, as have been all 3 Dune RTS games.

Fast clicking is a legitimate skill that should be respected. Granted, if a game is based entirely on that, then it would not be a good game. However, in any good RTS game in which fast clicking is rewarded, it's a lot more complicated than just fast clicking. One has to choose what to click first and what exactly to do with that unit (ie: use a special ability, retreat, attack a specific enemy unit, move into a better tactical position, charge in as a suicide meatshield etc. etc.). The ability to decide these things quickly, and for multiple different units in the matter of a few seconds certainly requires much tactical thought.

The ability to execute these commands fast via fast clicks demonstrates a unison between mind and body. In a real life battle, if you don't swing your sword/shoot your gun/throw your grenade fast, then your enemy is going to kill you precisely because he did do his part faster than you. Therefore fast clicking is also a realistic reflection of real-life combat.

First
If STRATEGY games desntegrade to the point of FPS reflex demands I cant really see any tactical thought needed.
Second
Build order memorising, shortcut memorising, I dont see you mentioning these things...Why? They are a VITAL tool in the road to victory in a basebuilding "RTS"...
Third
In a REAL battle you COMMAND NOT fight...that simple, are the "RTS" game adveture like LOTR ROTK? SW KOTOR? Are they FPS? If they are then I admit speed is a needed skill...
And COMAND SPEED wasnt that vital it was the OFFICER corpse training and structure and careful pre battle planning that ensured victory...

Well...

1. Horrendously overpowered cavalry. Could charge straight through pike formations while taking them frontally. Besides that, incorrect proportional distribution of cav power (equites equal to hetairoi due to charge bonus mistake).

Well speaking of bugs IIRC the charge bonus has been fixed in 1.5, and to speak about PC games without patches is not that serious...
Also the jump animation has been removed in 1.5 so pikes slaughter the cavalry...

2. Completely inaccurate pike units. No two-handed grip, and little in the way of realistic pike combat (i.e. concentration on staying rather than killing power).

The developers stated the time restrictions and some clipping technical barrier to develop such grip, decision which although I personally dislike but objectively is PURELY visual...Pike formations from their nature act defensively but if you reffer to why the pikemen are walking instead of charging in BI the schlitrom is a running and charging phalanx...

3. Completely inaccurate hoplites. Not only anachronistic but simply inaccurately depicted.

Again technical reasons for not having the overhand grip, which was in a serious decline in the era IIRC... Historical innacuracies were done to sell the game as cool looking to the casual ignorant masses, its a buisness I dont blame them despite the fact that I hate their decision.

4. Sieging was also horrendously inaccurate. I mean, torsion catapults with the capability to break walls? What? Rams were the breakers of walls back in the day; catapults and the like were for sweeping the battlements of defenders.

Historical innacuracies were done to sell the game as cool looking to the casual ignorant masses, its a buisness I dont blame them despite the fact that I hate their decision.

5. Little in the way of terrain. Where were my uphill struggles in the streaming rain with nothing but a couple of chivalric sergeants and hobilars to fight with? Instead I got 'militia hoplites' (bare-chested; go figure) to fight with on perpetually flat territory, even passing supposed mountains.

There are cliffs and hills in hilly areas, I still cant see where you people find flat maps in central Anatolia... Although the 'militia hoplites' have nothing to do with terrain they have a fairly accurate helmet, and as for the bare chested IIRC the Hellenes fought some times even naked.

6. Elephtans were realistic how? In reality they were scaring, not killing, machines. In RTW's little dream, they tramped through everything, also killing it. No, I don't care that perhaps the percentage of wounded were higher in a battle, because it still doesn't mean jack [snip], I'll have lost to nothing anyways, a few healed suckers won't help anything.

Historical innacuracies were done to sell the game as cool looking to the casual ignorant masses, its a buisness I dont blame them despite the fact that I hate their decision. However the elephants can be easily toned down and are a GREAT platform for modding capabilities in Fantasy mods and for them being there is better than not being there at all.

7. Chariots were realistic; how? Anachronistic as so many things in the game; that is more than obvious. Horribly over-effective as well.

I was speaking about the Briton realistic chariots and they can be easily toned down and are a GREAT platform for modding capabilities and for them being there is better than not being there at all. Also in BI we can have JAVELINS on chariots...

8. These animations of yours, how were these realistic? Oh, yeah, it was swell to see some men flying around in a cav charge, but when a horse dies, does his rider become infantry? When a rider dies, do you see riderless horses? Is the chariot destruction animation a real-time rendering which is always different, or always the same? That's right. Nothing but graphical scripts. Old news.

Testudo was realistic enough... If you fell of your horse in mindst of hostile infantry or even worst cavalry will you survive? Also riderless horses and infantry have huge gameplay implications and engine/system strain I can live without it... Are the 5000 chariots getting destroyed old news?

9. The monstrosity called 'Egypt'. I don't think I have to elaborate on that one.

Historical innacuracies were done to sell the game as cool looking to the casual ignorant masses, its a buisness I dont blame them despite the fact that I hate their decision.

10. The screw-over that was the tactical system. Cavalry in a role they never possessed, elephants idem dito, chariots once again idem dito, all infantry running at impossible speeds -- same goes for cav -- and I can go on for a while like this.

Historical innacuracies were done to sell the game as cool looking to the casual ignorant masses, its a buisness I dont blame them despite the fact that I hate their decision.

Suffice to say, RTW was not realistic in any way. It claimed to be, but it wasn't. Sorry, but I don't really get thrilled by a 'realistic tactical experience of the Ancient Age' which is neither realistic, nor tactical.

And this is just the tactical side of things; the strategic map was a great premise, like the tactical part, but was hampered by the same dumb inaccuracies as well as an AI directly imported from MTW, which could not cope with the new environment.

As you can read in my previous post Im speaking about the engine...Why are you still here? Why are you concerned about RTW? Because its UNIQUE...
I said it and Ill say it again:
RTW SHOULDNT be compared to reality on its own, its not running the realism marathon alone there are many others FAR BEHIND...
CA knows that, they know that there is NO game with 40000 polygonal soldiers, no game combining tactical and strategic gameplay...
Thats why we are still here with the weak AI, half @rsed Multiplayer and all the fantasy trend...
Age of Empires? Is that even at 0,0000000001% realistic? Empire Earth? LOTR BFME? Civ IV? Imperial Glory?
NOPE...

Hellenes