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

[Lord Winter]

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.

Torrisen spring catapults were used as early as alexander the great. That does not mean they are accurte thou. The Torrisen spring catupaults were basicly stone throwers and ballistas.

As for what Hellenes is saying, The total war games are not exactly realistic. But the bottom line is you are not going to get an completely realistic game because the vast amount of gamers don't give a s*** about realism and just care about action and cool graphics. We are the minority

[Navaros]

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...

The tactical thought needed comes in the things I've mentioned in previous posts in this thread. It's not just "click fast and win" but rather it is "apply fast clicks wisely with strategic thought and win".

In regards to your shortcut complaint: I'm sure all the TW players have all the fastest ways to access and move their units memorised, so your "shortcuts" argument doesn't really make a lot of sense.

As previously mentioned I do agree that with most RTS basebuilding games, BO memorising is vital. That is an unfortunate thing that needs to be dealt with properly. It's one mar on that game type, yet one mar is not enough to dismiss the genre altogether.

I also don't mention it all that much because most my RTS experience comes from Westwood games; Westwood which implemented a brilliant anti-rushing rule wherein any player could quit within 3 minutes and not be penalized because the game did not actually exist as a "game" if that happened. This allowed for BO flexibility and tactical variety and made it so that memorizing the status quo BO and rushing with it did not allow for undeserved "victory". It's a shame that all Blizzard RTS games are BO-memorising rushfests, as is Dawn of War. Yet Westwood games were not like that thanks to that rule they had to circumvent this problem; so the genre can't uniformly be pinned down to suffering from that flaw.

You have not provided a logical reason as to why speed should not be a needed skill in an RTS game. It seems that you simply don't like fast clicking. But not liking it does not equate to it being a wrong thing to put into a game.

Part of commanding in RTS games is controlling your army with precision. This requires fast clicks, as it should - he who is able to control his army better and faster is fully deserving of the victory that is coming his way.

[hellenes]

The tactical thought needed comes in the things I've mentioned in previous posts in this thread. It's not just "click fast and win" but rather it is "apply fast clicks wisely with strategic thought and win".

In regards to your shortcut complaint: I'm sure all the TW players have all the fastest ways to access and move their units memorised, so your "shortcuts" argument doesn't really make a lot of sense.

As previously mentioned I do agree that with most RTS basebuilding games, BO memorising is vital. That is an unfortunate thing that needs to be dealt with properly. It's one mar on that game type, yet one mar is not enough to dismiss the genre altogether.

I also don't mention it all that much because most my RTS experience comes from Westwood games; Westwood which implemented a brilliant anti-rushing rule wherein any player could quit within 3 minutes and not be penalized because the game did not actually exist as a "game" if that happened. This allowed for BO flexibility and tactical variety and made it so that memorizing the status quo BO and rushing with it did not allow for undeserved "victory". It's a shame that all Blizzard RTS games are BO-memorising rushfests, as is Dawn of War. Yet Westwood games were not like that thanks to that rule they had to circumvent this problem; so the genre can't uniformly be pinned down to suffering from that flaw.

You have not provided a logical reason as to why speed should not be a needed skill in an RTS game. It seems that you simply don't like fast clicking. But not liking it does not equate to it being a wrong thing to put into a game.

Part of commanding in RTS games is controlling your army with precision. This requires fast clicks, as it should - he who is able to control his army better and faster is fully deserving of the victory that is coming his way.

If you read my post again you ll see what Im saying:

"If STRATEGY games desntegrade to the point of FPS reflex demands I cant really see any tactical thought needed"
"RTS"=FPS? Is that strategy?
Ask any decent chess player if they think that time chess (which is the fast one) delivers any though...
There are NO battles in basebuilding RTSes and in gunpowder/sci fi/modern based games its fine since the real scale of the warfare cant be emulated, but in MELEE "RTS" games there is NO:
1. Flanking
2. Manouvering
3. Push back effect.
4. Charge physics
5. SCALE..just gang fights..
Most tactical battle parameters are ABSENT!!! So the game is jack of all trades master of none, it IS oversimplified, it IS dumbed down to the lowest common denominator....
Look at AoE III so much fear of change...

Hellenes

[Afro Thunder]

Yep, that's a gang fight, alright...

[Geoffrey S]

This whole debate, is pointless and rather elitist. Hellenes, you're comparing games with each other which have practically nothing to do with one another; you don't prove anything by doing so, but you do show precisely that narrow-minded mentality you're criticising in this topic. Also, holding up RTW as a beacon to which other games should aspire is patently absurd, due to the fact that it also presents an extremely simplified representation of both tactical and strategical warfare, and the fact that above all the majority of games is designed to be just that, a game.

AOEIII never claims to be anything but a RTS, nor does it aspire to historical correctness, nor do many games in the genre. What is the point in criticising something for what you want it to be rather than for what it is designed to be and by all accounts is?

Torrisen spring catapults were used as early as alexander the great. That does not mean they are accurte thou. The Torrisen spring catupaults were basicly stone throwers and ballistas.

Not the point the Wizard was making or refuting. Fact is, in that particular period ranged weapons could not break down walls as the RTW Onagers can. Sapping and rams were the main ways of breaking down walls, or more often actually storming the walls was the method of choice; even then, a direct assault was relatively rare.

[hellenes]

Yep, that's a gang fight, alright...

OPTIONS ----> VIDEO SETTINGS ----> UNIT SCALE ----> HUGE
....does this exist in any "RTS" game?

This whole debate, is pointless and rather elitist. Hellenes, you're comparing games with each other which have practically nothing to do with one another; you don't prove anything by doing so, but you do show precisely that narrow-minded mentality you're criticising in this topic. Also, holding up RTW as a beacon to which other games should aspire is patently absurd, due to the fact that it also presents an extremely simplified representation of both tactical and strategical warfare, and the fact that above all the majority of games is designed to be just that, a game.

AOEIII never claims to be anything but a RTS, nor does it aspire to historical correctness, nor do many games in the genre. What is the point in criticising something for what you want it to be rather than for what it is designed to be and by all accounts is?

Oh well lets all pretend that they dont compete that they dont have to deliver strategic immerssion in depicting an era...
Its like stating that FIFA and PES dont compete since one is making a tennis like arcade gamey and the other delivers the closest to football gameplay... but they do compete.
Ill repeat and stand by my points:
"Also my point on the oversimplification was that this outrageously dumbed down attempt to come ever near a battlefield (like a medieval battlefield in AoEII) is analysed and studied so scrutinously and throughrouly that gives the impression of some serious thought involved in a simulation game, is a basebuilding "RTS" game so deep as the hardcore MASTERS percieve it to be?
The presence of little peasant gathering resources, the gang fights with the dumbed down hit points bar over them and the total absence of flanking/manouvering/moral/fatigue/height parameters all in a tiny toy scale universe dont look so deep and (I dare to say mature) to me...
But the marketing department toghether with mass pshychology and the natural resistance of people to change all have lead to a desparate clining to the past..."
Also as I said and apparently none paid attention: DONT COMPARE RTW ALONE TO THE REALISM...
IT IS a beacon because it delivers the CLOSEST experiense we have to an ancient battlefield...
If we compare also the pike & musket mod which is set in AoEIII era it clearly shows the huge gap between the two games as far as oversimplification and realism is concerned...

Hellenes

[Geoffrey S]

Oh well lets all pretend that they dont compete that they dont have to deliver strategic immerssion in depicting an era...

:shrugs: They don't compete since RTW and regular RTS games do appeal to different people generally speaking, and no, other games don't have to depict authentic battles or tactics; I'd prefer it, and obviously you would too, if authenticity both in a graphical sense as in a tactical sense was taken more seriously by developers, but we do have to accept the fact that a majority doesn't agree with this view right now and this is kept in mind by said developers. The fact that RTW sold fairly well does indicate there's a potential market for this type of games, but that could be down to flash graphics or the relative accessibility when compared to its predecessors.

[hellenes]

:shrugs: They don't compete since RTW and regular RTS games do appeal to different people generally speaking, and no, other games don't have to depict authentic battles or tactics; I'd prefer it, and obviously you would too, if authenticity both in a graphical sense as in a tactical sense was taken more seriously by developers, but we do have to accept the fact that a majority doesn't agree with this view right now and this is kept in mind by said developers. The fact that RTW sold fairly well does indicate there's a potential market for this type of games, but that could be down to flash graphics or the relative accessibility when compared to its predecessors.

Agreed...
It all depends on what the target group wants...but also this can be easily shaped IMO through massive marketing...
They dont depict and thus are FAR behind in the realism race, if we view RTW in that light it stands as a giant of realism compared to the rest of the market...
I was an RTS fan, Ive played AoE2, EE, Starcraft many times, so by your standard the TW series shouldnt appeal to me? MTW chnaged my gaming life...Ive never touched a basebuilding RTS since then... I believe that there are many people like me that like strategy but are unaware even of the existence of the TW series they thus analyse the basebuilding RTSes (like most hardcore online players) and give them some imaginary tactical deph...
I just hope that CA in the 4th TW game give the MP the attention that it needs and deserves...

Hellenes

[Geoffrey S]

I was an RTS fan, Ive played AoE2, EE, Starcraft many times, so by your standard the TW series shouldnt appeal to me? MTW chnaged my gaming life...Ive never touched a basebuilding RTS since then... I believe that there are many people like me that like strategy but are unaware even of the existence of the TW series they thus analyse the basebuilding RTSes (like most hardcore online players) and give them some imaginary tactical deph...

That's probably the main difference between our opinions. I view RTW and MTW before it as a different type of game than most RTS', and thus don't berate RTS games on something they don't claim to be. I enjoy RTS games on their own merits (currently Perimeter springs to mind), and the Total War series on its merits; I do prefer the TW approach in general, but I can also fully understand that this not the view held by a majority of game buyers and this is realised by publishers.

[Slyspy]

IMO the best tactical/strategy games are the Close Combat series. They blow away everything else, even the TW series, in their modeling of morale and reaction of troops during combat. Too bad the AI in the Close Combat games is even worse than in TW. :P

Certainly the best RTS. However the best tactical games are the Combat Mission series, though they employ a simultaneous turn-based system.

[PaolinoPaperino]

My ideal game would be Civ with a mixture of Total war battles.

I am still dreaming of Vicky with battles in TW style ...