units look to be moving too fast

[Lord Adherbal]

the yawn fest of endless 2 hour battles certainly wasnt my cup of tea. that said, the 3 minute battles that RTW sometimes (not always) bought to the table also annoyed me.

I can only hope that the unit speed is exactly like RTW. They finally fixed the slow plodding pace of STW and MTW battles.

that's nonsense. In MTW the AI attacked with multiple stacks at once so you had to fight off 40-50 units in one battle. That's why they lasted long, not because of the realistic movement speed. Actual fights never took more then a couple of minutes. MP only took long because of the skirmish phase.

I guess I'm supposed to respect other people's oppinions, but IMO if you thought MTW/STW were too slow you shouldn't be playing TW games. But apparently CA itself agreed with you.

[econ21]

... but IMO if you thought MTW/STW were too slow you shouldn't be playing TW games.

Um, let's not go there. They like apples, you like oranges. Let's debate about other things. De gustibus non disputandum. Or some such.

[Orda Khan]

If we are talking purely SP, there is no need for any 'yawn fest' because we have the ability to increase the speed. That is all very well for SP but where does that leave the MP community?
As for slow plodding units in MTW, that is about all an infantryman in armour could manage. Take a look at some re-enactment and test the weight of a chainmail hauberk. Not even a doped up sprinter could match RTW speeds in full chainmail

.....Orda

[A.Saturnus]

If we are talking purely SP, there is no need for any 'yawn fest' because we have the ability to increase the speed.

Still, defending a bridge from 10,000 mongols was boring, because even with maximum speed it took quite long and needed no interference by the player. But I agree, what made MTW battles long was the fact that after the first stack, AI armies arrived piecemeal.

[Rodion Romanovich]

But I agree, what made MTW battles long was the fact that after the first stack, AI armies arrived piecemeal.

I agree, the "battles took too long" arguments against MTW kill rate isn't really an argument. RTW mods with MTW style kill rates have more enjoyable battles and they still don't take nearly as long as MTW battles.

I personally enjoyed fighting the golden horde, because of the odds, but with hindsight it was a bit of cheating that the khan could only send in one twentieth of his army at the time... I'd like to see more massive battles with very difficult odds in MTW2. And above all - make the battles fewer, but larger and more important when they happen, so I get an epic feeling of each battle being important!

[Callahan9119]

"the battles took too long" i dont think thats really relevant, it never really bothered me...but i didnt really enjoy the sp in mtw or stw...it was a design flaw...and after u beat the peasant army, or whatever rabble they happened to send at you all u had to do was line up and quickly rout any reinforcments and turn the game speed up..the problems with previous TW games was the crap AI, restricted unit deployment and <as mentioned> the way reinforcments enter the battle.

yet the balance of the gameplay was magical in mtw when u got down to the nitty gritty of MP. skirmishing had a very real and very strategic role in the battles... even in the early game when it was simply just archers and no arbs, this became a nonfactor with the release of rome. units moved to fast to be able to effectivly use your skirmishers to any effect

the more i read the more i become discouraged...the "turns" instead of years, the multiple recruitment of units and the novelty new world aspect does not sit well with me. if they would have just made dynamic AI, used the rome style campaign map and updated the graphics i would have been beyond happy

i bet i'll be playing rtr more than mtw2...until those guys can improve mtw2 with a mod

also BRING BACK GLORIOUS ACHIEVMENTS!!

[GFX707]

The bottom line is that if you say things to yourself like "Well, they probably sped it up for the video" and don't make yourself heard before release, you won't have any say in it.

In my opinion we have to be as vocal as possible that we were not happy with the run speed of RTW and do not want our game to suffer to please the ADHD kiddies (who should be playing AoE or something else instead). What I don't understand is why CA seemingly want to take their franchise, offering gameplay that is almost completely unique and turn it into a poor clone of the other moronic clickfests which used to be specifically WHY people bought TW games and not AoE or whatever.

Basically I would be satisfied if they just include an option in the "game options" menu along with all the other realism options like "limited ammo" and "fatigue" that just said something like "realistic speeds" so that all the ADHD kiddies can uncheck it and get their moronic fast action fix (maybe an option that said "totally submissive easy AI" too so they won't have to think either) and left the real game unspoiled for us TW veterans.

I remember how much I was pissing my pants watching the RTW videos and how disappointed I was after a week of playing it.

MTW is one of my favourite games of all time. Let's hope they don't ruin this one.

[lars573]

that's nonsense. In MTW the AI attacked with multiple stacks at once so you had to fight off 40-50 units in one battle. That's why they lasted long, not because of the realistic movement speed. Actual fights never took more then a couple of minutes. MP only took long because of the skirmish phase.

That's why it was boring, it took 10 minutes (I know this is an exageration no need to tell me) just to get to where the enemy was. By that time I've lost interest in the battle. I really don't care who wins anymore, I just want it over.

I guess I'm supposed to respect other people's oppinions, but IMO if you thought MTW/STW were too slow you shouldn't be playing TW games. But apparently CA itself agreed with you.

Well geez. I guess I must have missed the memo where it was declared that you get to unilatterally decide who should be allowed to play TW. Guess I better check my inbox. Guess I'll just comfort myself in the knowledge that what I want in TW games will be in and what the Total Whiners want won't be.

[CBR]

That's why it was boring, it took 10 minutes (I know this is an exageration no need to tell me) just to get to where the enemy was. By that time I've lost interest in the battle. I really don't care who wins anymore, I just want it over.

I dont get it. MTW and RTW had exactly same marching speed. If you felt it took too long in MTW why do you think its fine in RTW? Or do you just run the whole way in RTW?


CBR

[HarunTaiwan]

I think I recall Lars saying in another thread he autocalcs battles in RTW anyways, no?

I remember in Shogung that if you had Naginatas, you realized they were not going to be moving too much, so you would sometimes not take them into offensive battles, etc.

[Lentonius]

CA are making mediaval primarily as a game, and therefore want it to look exciting and fast paced, they arent gonna care about movement speeds, because to be honest if i was having a battle with knights, and they took 10 minutes to reach the enemy because they were more realistic, i would probably tire of the battles rather quickly.

Also, the battlefields may be much bigger, so they will have to increase unit speeds to avoid boredom.

Also, in the promotion video, they probably increased speed to allow for enough action.

[Callahan9119]

fine, then ca or whoever is running them is throwing its lot in with aoe, warcraft and others, they might as well throw it under the bus. but if i want to play as samurai or medieval french knights in this respect i will play rise of nations, or any other rts game that does this better. rome and further mtw2 look to be a sham and a deviation to what made this series great.

i can totally understand yet dont agree with many campaign changes...sure i spend maybe 10 years now putting together an army and putting it into the field and the changes will alter this allowing the benefit of being able to much sooner get to the blood and guts, yet there are also many things that happen over this time, such as creating new buildings and dealing with the smaller issues that tend to be "fun" in my opinion

but most importantly in my opinion is the ruin of the MP that many of us have purely loved in stw and mtw...i swear, in the 6 months i enjoyed unemployment benefits i played mtw mp about 8 hours a day < god bless you euros and your time zone

rtw and its crap gameplay destroyed this, at least for me....and mtw2 looks to go a step further, appealing to the lowest common denominator isnt always a good thing, especially when its negating such great success from critics and its fan base

but /applause on the graphics

[SpencerH]

What I'd like to know is why the movement speeds have been linked to the animations? As I understand it, thats the reason we cant modify unit run speeds etc.

[lars573]

I dont get it. MTW and RTW had exactly same marching speed. If you felt it took too long in MTW why do you think its fine in RTW? Or do you just run the whole way in RTW?


CBR

Because in Rome the armies would start closer together 75% of the time. And you could run to close the gap. Which I usually do.

I think I recall Lars saying in another thread he autocalcs battles in RTW anyways, no?

That depends 100% on my mood. RTW was the first TW game where actually fighting the battles held even 1 iota of interest for me. You'll also recall I said that my enjoyment of STW increased 5 fold when I discovered auto-calc. Anyway if I usually fight birgands and rebels more than other factions armies. Those are what I'll mostly auto-calc (along with 75% of my sieges). Unless I'm taking my Palatinae army horde hunting in BI, where the objective is to use Scholae's to kill horde family members. But you only go horde hunting after the horde stacks have been worn down to nubs via auto-calc.

[CBR]

Because in Rome the armies would start closer together 75% of the time. And you could run to close the gap. Which I usually do.

And time acceleration is not an option? I have used it for both MTW and RTW.

One thing with RTW campaign were the endless amount of battles I had to fight. None of them felt very important and especially not rebel armies, so it ended up being either autocalc for small battles and a quick charge for the big ones I had to fight. It was rare to have battles were the AI actually had a good enough army to make it interesting.

RTW killed MP for me so I ended up playing campaign more than I ever did for MTW. But in the end the crappy operational AI, the crappy battle AI and the crappy "what units to buy"" AI makes the game very difficult to like. And I could fill a list with stuff but that would turn this post into a rant...


CBR

[lars573]

Time acceleration is where MTW other gaping black hole of a flaw was made appearant. That gods aweful battle interface. I lost 50% of my troops at hyper speed more than once because of that counter inteutive mess.

On RTW's AI. The AI was actually better with less than half stack armies. Hence why I fought rebels and brigands. You could still trick the AI into doing something really moronic but with fewer than 10 units it wouldn't be as bad. Not that it was great, RTW is really indered by less than stellar (I will be generous) AI. Which is great for when your learning the game but after a while it gets old.

[CBR]

Time acceleration is where MTW other gaping black hole of a flaw was made appearant. That gods aweful battle interface. I lost 50% of my troops at hyper speed more than once because of that counter inteutive mess.

Hm thats interesting. My feeling is the opposite. MTW time accel is much better than RTW as its easier to use the slider than hitting some key that doesnt always work because of input lag in RTW at higher time accel (Im using minimised UI in RTW)


CBR