Years to turns....

[Peasant Phill]

I thought I saw the year on some information parchment in the low res map screenshots.

It went something like (numbers not accurate): turn 3 year 1105

[A.Saturnus]

That's what we're talking about.

[caravel]

I remember the turns debate at .com... it was quite exhausting and several people argued until they were blue in the face, that turns was a bad move by CA... then the apologists, that love everything CA do, endeavoured to explain to us lesser beings as to why turns would be great and we'd all have such great fun now that the burden of remembering all those dates was gone! Who needs history anyway? Not the 10 years and above target consumerbase!

The main reason that ditching years is a "bad move" is due to the fact that many players find them immersive, and can sit there thinking to themselves: "well I conquered Constantinople in 1251...", and those same people could post something to that effect up on a messageboard like this one. Moving away from years is a move towards more simplistic action based gameplay, to capture the RTS clickfest market. In all of the marketing blurb there has never been a word about historical realism, accuracy, strategy, AI or anything of that sort. Every bit of spin has been based around graphics, the number of men and the visual realism and effects. Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game.

[A.Saturnus]

The main reason that ditching years is a "bad move" is due to the fact that many players find them immersive, and can sit there thinking to themselves: "well I conquered Constantinople in 1251...", and those same people could post something to that effect up on a messageboard like this one. Moving away from years is a move towards more simplistic action based gameplay, to capture the RTS clickfest market. In all of the marketing blurb there has never been a word about historical realism, accuracy, strategy, AI or anything of that sort. Every bit of spin has been based around graphics, the number of men and the visual realism and effects. Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game.

A bit one sided don't you think? It's true that CA did say little about historical realism, they never did, but they have mentioned improvements to both tactical AI and AI behavior in, for example, diplomacy. And of course various tidbits about gameplay in general. To say that they only talk about visual aspects is untrue and can be refuted with ease.
I don't know about the .com but here no CA "apologists" (I didn't know there's something to apologise) have defended turns as clear improvements. While some dismiss any possible benefit of the idea many months before they saw it in action, others try at least to find a good side in it.

[Puzz3D]

While some dismiss any possible benefit of the idea many months before they saw it in action, others try at least to find a good side in it.

Apologist means to find the good side and dismiss the bad side. It's not a good thing to do except for the seller.

[TigerVX]

Years are still in, proof.

[magnum]

It does appears that at least in the alpha that the turns were still be displayed. Also noticed that it seems the year is 1080, which would mean thats a sceen shot of what was the current starting position of the factions in the game.

Really sick how we can pick at so much stuff gleamed for really poor quality alpha screen shots. Thinking maybe I ought to get a life.... naw, just kidding.

[Mooks]

How can you read that sc? Its blurry to me.

[caravel]

A bit one sided don't you think?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm merely stating this how I see it.

It's true that CA did say little about historical realism, they never did, but they have mentioned improvements to both tactical AI and AI behavior in, for example, diplomacy. And of course various tidbits about gameplay in general. To say that they only talk about visual aspects is untrue and can be refuted with ease.

Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else. The AI was hardly mentioned. Then the wikiman let the whole turns thing slip in the forums. The fans became so enraged that a multiple paged thread ensued. The wikiman (CA staff) was never seen again! (maybe he was on holiday or busy, who knows?)

I don't know about the .com but here no CA "apologists" (I didn't know there's something to apologise) have defended turns as clear improvements. While some dismiss any possible benefit of the idea many months before they saw it in action, others try at least to find a good side in it.

An apologist is how Puzz3D described it. I find it to be a much politer term than "fanboy".

The screenshot definitely shows years, but this could be an older screenshot where the years have not yet been removed?

[econ21]

Then the wikiman let the whole turns thing slip in the forums. The fans became so enraged that a multiple paged thread ensued. The wikiman (CA staff) was never seen again! (maybe he was on holiday or busy, who knows?)

Can you blame him? Game designers have probably got better things to than get dragged into an online flame war. Never wrestle a chimney sweep and all that. I don't know if you live in the UK, but it reminds me of those British adverts where Michael Winner says "Calm down, dear, it's only a commercial".

[caravel]

Can you blame him? Game designers have probably got better things to than get dragged into an online flame war. Never wrestle a chimney sweep and all that. I don't know if you live in the UK, but it reminds me of those British adverts where Michael Winner says "Calm down, dear, it's only a commercial".

I couldn't agree more. Some of those involved felt he was there solely to serve them with the latest tidbits of info. I feel that he was caught in the squeeze between CA and some of the more overzealous forum patrons. Nothing he could say would be the right thing, so in the end he bowed out.

[A.Saturnus]

Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else. The AI was hardly mentioned. Then the wikiman let the whole turns thing slip in the forums. The fans became so enraged that a multiple paged thread ensued. The wikiman (CA staff) was never seen again! (maybe he was on holiday or busy, who knows?)

Ok, I'll attribute our disagreement on your sloppy use of adjectives instead of ill-will.
Anyway, the focus on turns rather than years may be an immersion killer or it may work as CA imagined it. It may also be that we systematically misunderstand what CA means with that. We will see when the game is finished. No one will have to buy the game before knowing the truth of it.

[caravel]

Ok, I'll attribute our disagreement on your sloppy use of adjectives instead of ill-will.

There was no ill will, I think you may have misunderstood me, though now, due to your mildly insulting and patronising manner, there is no good will either.

[A.Saturnus]

There was no ill will, I think you may have misunderstood me, though now, due to your mildly insulting and patronising manner, there is no good will either.

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for coming over that way. But in your first post you said
"...there has never been a word..."
In the second post you said
"The AI was hardly mentioned."
Now, hardly is infinitely more often than never. You also said:
" Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else."
Which is strictly taken a contradiction since not a lot else is usually understood as "slightly more than nothing" while every single bit implies that it would have to be absolutely nothing.

In your first post, your claim was very strong rhethorically ("never"). When I challenged that claim, instead of defending or dropping it, you changed the claim into something weaker and vaguer ("hardly mentioned"), to defend it from further attacks. I found this bad argumentative style.
The truth is that the marketing emphasis did not lie on what you would have preferred (which is understandable) though we both know that you couldn't quantify it. You made your opinion seem more objective than it was.

My reaction was mediated by your statement "Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game." I find that offensive because I don't consider myself a CA apologist nor do I think the target audience of the game is as clear as you make it out.

[ChewieTobbacca]

What if they simply made it so that turns weren't equivalent to a year, but they still meant that time passed by? Yeah I can see where it is less immersive, but turn 116 might correspond to the year 1251 and 117 to 1253 or what not. In that way, you can say that you still conquered blah blah blah in the year etc. but are playing on a turn scale, where it takes 100 turns to reach the high age, and not have to play through 150 turns.

[caravel]

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for coming over that way.

Well telling someone their use of adverbs is sloppy is almost guaranteed to come across as an insult. Sorry to break it to you.

But in your first post you said
"...there has never been a word..."
In the second post you said
"The AI was hardly mentioned."
Now, hardly is infinitely more often than never. You also said:
" Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else."
Which is strictly taken a contradiction since not a lot else is usually understood as "slightly more than nothing" while every single bit implies that it would have to be absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately while hurriedly typing out posts in my dinner breaks I often make glaring grammatical errors such as those that you have quoted above, and I often make quite a few errors anyway. I didn't come here claiming to be an literary expert, nor a an exemplary grammatist. Anyone that wasn't deliberately being pedantic could have easily worked out what I was trying to say.

In your first post, your claim was very strong rhethorically ("never"). When I challenged that claim, instead of defending or dropping it, you changed the claim into something weaker and vaguer ("hardly mentioned"), to defend it from further attacks. I found this bad argumentative style.
The truth is that the marketing emphasis did not lie on what you would have preferred (which is understandable) though we both know that you couldn't quantify it. You made your opinion seem more objective than it was.

Yes what I was trying to say was that other aspects of the game have gone largely unmentioned by CA. It is the nature of my culture to use definite language to signify the indefinite. You can think of it as a kind of exaggerative slang. It doesn't come across well when using this medium however and maybe I should refrain from such definite statments in the future? Though in your case it seems that every statement needs to be exacting.

My reaction was mediated by your statement "Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game." I find that offensive because I don't consider myself a CA apologist nor do I think the target audience of the game is as clear as you make it out.

I'm at a loss as to how you can find that statement offensive. If you can recognise the target audience of the game, then you are not a CA apologist. And only the pedantic choose to deliberately rip apart the grammar of a post they don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

Now was that worded ok? Or shall I run all my future posts through my solicitors?

[iraklaras]

hi guys i konw that this tha i will tell has no sence with the topic ~years to turn~ but when i try to make a new topic in the forum look what i see






iraklaras, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.


why is this happening?i havent do something bad and i can post a reply.plz someone tells me

[econ21]

why is this happening?i havent do something bad and i can post a reply.plz someone tells me

Off-topc: Hi, I think the problem is that junior members can't start threads in this forum but can reply to them. The Guild FAQ in the Entrance Hall explains it all. I realise it may be frustrating but we operate a kind of "probation" policy at the Org to stop spammers and nutters (e.g. KKK or AQ supporters) messing up the forums.

[Mooks]

I love making good and constructive threads...

[A.Saturnus]

Well telling someone their use of adverbs is sloppy is almost guaranteed to come across as an insult. Sorry to break it to you.

Really? If someone would point out problems with the meaning of my wording I wouldn't find it insulting. I'm of the opinion that having errors pointed out is something one should be thankful for.

Unfortunately while hurriedly typing out posts in my dinner breaks I often make glaring grammatical errors such as those that you have quoted above, and I often make quite a few errors anyway. I didn't come here claiming to be an literary expert, nor a an exemplary grammatist. Anyone that wasn't deliberately being pedantic could have easily worked out what I was trying to say.

I'm notoriously pedantic.

I'm at a loss as to how you can find that statement offensive. If you can recognise the target audience of the game, then you are not a CA apologist. And only the pedantic choose to deliberately rip apart the grammar of a post they don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

My point is that if I can't recognise the target audience it would be arrogant and offensive to infere from that that I must be a CA apologist. In fact, what you said is a subform of the old "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid"-argument that has never enriched a conversation. And that's not pedantery.


To summerize and come to an on-topic conclusion: our problems stem from a different use of language and the difficulty to transfere meaning online and we both aren't quite happy with CA's decision to drop years in favour of turns, we only differ in the amount we're prepared to look at the bright sight of it (if there's any). Agreed?

[caravel]

Really? If someone would point out problems with the meaning of my wording I wouldn't find it insulting. I'm of the opinion that having errors pointed out is something one should be thankful for.

That depends on how the person "points it out". Let me give you some advice on your wording. Describing someone as "Sloppy" is not too diplomatic.

I'm notoriously pedantic.

"Notoriiously", as in, you go out of your way trying to be pedantic, to the point that many other patrons are well aware of it? That is often what we call "trolling".

My point is that if I can't recognise the target audience it would be arrogant and offensive to infere from that that I must be a CA apologist. In fact, what you said is a subform of the old "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid"-argument that has never enriched a conversation. And that's not pedantery.

Sounds like it to me:

I'm notoriously pedantic.

You're reading far too much into that statement, so much in fact it's hardly worth me trying to explain it to you again, but I will... The apologists I was referring to are those that fail to see the dumbing down of the game (check the interviews and press releases) for what it is, and go to great lengths to explain to the contrary, when it's glaringly obvious that it is plain and simple dumbing down in it's purest form. No matter how much CA change something for the worst, the apologists believe it's just a round about way of making the game even more challenging and strategic.

To summerize and come to an on-topic conclusion: our problems stem from a different use of language and the difficulty to transfere meaning online and we both aren't quite happy with CA's decision to drop years in favour of turns, we only differ in the amount we're prepared to look at the bright sight of it (if there's any). Agreed?

And now you're basically trying to force your own smug solution on me, to try and save face. In fact I'm not at all happy with the loss of years from M2TW, and their replacement with turns, but I actually got over it months ago. And our problems do not stem from any different use of language, but from your nitpicking overly pedantic style.

I'm now bowing out of this topic to avoid taking it any more offtopic that it is, due to your determination to save face and have the last word on the matter, this could go on forever. Basically you were insulting and your specific targetting of my post was unwarranted.

The statement I made about the "target audience" was perfectly true. CA themselves have made statements to the effect that M2TW will try to target a younger audience. They themselves named the age groups they will be aiming for. So this is why only the apologists I mentioned in that post are the only people refuting this. If you can see that CA have lowered the age barrier with the release of Rome Total War, and, from all of the news so far, intend to do so even more with M2TW, then you are not a CA apologist and shouldn't really feel offended, unless you're just being "pedantic"...

[econ21]

EDIT: I locked this thread temporarily as it seemed to have run its course, but I have been asked to re-open it in case anyone has anything new to contribute on the subject.

[Puzz3D]

What if they simply made it so that turns weren't equivalent to a year, but they still meant that time passed by? Yeah I can see where it is less immersive, but turn 116 might correspond to the year 1251 and 117 to 1253 or what not. In that way, you can say that you still conquered blah blah blah in the year etc. but are playing on a turn scale, where it takes 100 turns to reach the high age, and not have to play through 150 turns.

A turn does represent time, but it's a different length of time depending on which aspect of the game you are considering. They might as well display the year because it's going to be obvious by the technology that becomes available that the people are living longer than they should and that armies aren't moving as far as they could.

[Sabuti]

Couldn't CA make everyone happy and have the turn scale adjustable. That way those how want 1 year turn incriments could have them and those who want the new turn system could use that. I don't see how that would be hard to do.

[Lusted]

Well Ca have said the number of turns is completely adjustable:

The game is currently paced to be a 225 turn game, and is optimally played at that length.All this information is still being kept in .txt files.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...cID=1145.topic

[Kralizec]

I really don't understand CA's line of arguing on this one. Characters still age 1 year every 2 turns, and that's a reason not to have years because "We wanted to cover a large period of history and streamline the gameplay whilst still allowing players to get some kind of attachment to their characters."

It's not that the developers are lazy by doing this...it just doesn't make sense.
I'd much rather post a message on the forum that says "yay, I conquered Jerusalem as soon as 1102, a new record!" instead of "wow I conquered Jerusalem on turn 44!"

4) Each era is effectively a completely new campaign that needs to be individually setup, tested and balanced. Having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game.

I think that this would mean that you can't play an early campaign and then advance to the high era, instead it will end (that also corresponds with their statement that one campaing equals 225 turns). That's a shame

[A.Saturnus]

I think that this would mean that you can't play an early campaign and then advance to the high era, instead it will end (that also corresponds with their statement that one campaing equals 225 turns). That's a shame

The game doesn't end unless you want it to or are defeated. The comment you quoted means that there won't be eras. I wonder whether there will be any time-related changes during the course of a campaign.

Though, my immediate reaction to "having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game" would be: "Why don't you delay the release then?"

[Kralizec]

This is disturbing.

1080-1530 = 450 years
225 turns, so each turn would equal 2 years
Yet generals age 1 year per 2 turns- meaning they age 1 year in 4 game years, and I guess CA hopes that not to many people will notice it.

By the looks of it CA is abandoning realism in favour of gameplay abstractions that make no sense whatsoever.

I don't like this. I agree with A.Saturnus, I'd much rather wait an extra 2-3 months for a game that keeps the good traditions from MTW such as eras.
EDIT: removed some overemotional parts.

[caravel]

It's important not to forget this statement:

The game is currently paced to be a 225 turn game, and is optimally played at that length.All this information is still being kept in .txt files.

From this we can assume quite a few things, though it's dangerous to assume of course. Firstly the word "currently" implies that this aspect was far from finalised at the time of writing. Secondly "paced" leads us to believe that the game would be best played, that is to say optimally played, over 225 turns. The third point is the reference to .txt files which hints at some or all aspects of the turns being moddable. The issue of generals, aging 1 year every two turns however is another confusing point. If CA are trying to move away from any kind of timeline, then why do generals, age at all? 225 turns give 112.5 years of agents/generals lifetime. This is less than two generations of generals and royalty, over a period ranging from the early 11th century through to the discovery of the americas...

[R'as al Ghul]

Characters still age 1 year every 2 turns, so you will be a ble to roleplay them as you did in Rome. This issue is actually one of the reasons for dissociating years and turns.

Why not make seasons? Sumer and Winter. Two turns= 1 year.