Note on whinging

[Rodion Romanovich]

1. this forum is visited by many STW and MTW fans, even if they didn't like RTW, so there's no surprise there might be some who do and some who don't like RTW here
2. as long as the new games are moddable and offer better engines than previous ones, there's a chance even people who don't like the game will buy it, but perhaps with less tendency to buy it as early after release unless they're modders
3. all modern entertainment based on historical wars that is published today looks/feels like fast, blinking Christmas trees with less and less realism, strategy and tactics - movies, games, books, everything. It's no wonder that CA too wants to be in that market, especially because it seems to be selling better than the realism market
4. i've seen equal amounts of disgusting blind criticism as I've seen blind praise of equally disgusting character in the discussions here, for instance some people more or less implying that criticism isn't allowed
5. CA are creating the product they want to create and are succeeding very well at that. That that product at this time isn't what some are wishing for, means many fans will probably buy it a bit later after release than they've previously done, waiting for mods, or not buying it at all. If it would be true that the realism fans are more in numbers than the fast-paced fans it'll show up in CA's market analyses sooner or later, unless the mods keep the realism fans hooked onto the tw games. From CA's point of view which of those are true doesn't really matter, a company must try to maximize profits primarily
6. if CA has made market analyses judging by sales of STW, MTW and RTW and drawn the conclusion that fast-paced non-historical is more popular, that may or may not be a correct conclusion because of the many factors that could confuse such market research. For example at the time I first heard of MTW, it had already been out for over a year, whereas I knew about RTW before it came. Similarly it was through my enthusiasm over MTW that I affected many friends into buying RTW even though they hadn't heard of the game from anyone else. The question is whether the sales figures of RTW should be seen as the measure of the popularity of MTW1, or as the measure of the popularity of RTW. Maybe it's the former, maybe it isn't.

[Lord Adherbal]

if RTW sold better then MTW then it's because it had much more mainstream GFX, and probably a much bigger PR campaign. No one knew RTW's gameplay would change as much as the GFX did (compared to MTW). So you can't say it sold better because of the new fast-paced gameplay. In fact, if the "vets" had known about the change of gameplay that might've stopped them from buying the game. Which is probably part of the reason why some are so frustrated: we were never informed about the new design course.

[Ser Clegane]

Adherbal]So you can't say it sold better because of the new fast-paced gameplay. In fact, if the "vets" had known about the change of gameplay that might've stopped them from buying the game. Which is probably part of the reason why some are so frustrated: we were never informed about the new design course.

But wasn't the faster gameplay already part of the R:TW-demo? IIRC there were quite some discussions about this when the demo was released (a lot of players were not particularly happy about the speed-increase).
I am not very fond about the increased speed (actually I was really missing M:TW's speed slider that allowed you to change speed depending on the battle phase), however, IMHO it is a bit unfair to state that there was no information about the change in game design with regard to battle speed.

[Lord Adherbal]

I guess a lot of us were just kidding ourselves to think that CA would address this "issue" before the full release.

[Orda Khan]

Orda, what I don't understand is (to use the phrase of another) the polarisation of this thread. You talk to me about 'we' the upset veteran players. I'm not criticising dissapointment (how could I).

No, I have tried to stay on topic and any we reference is to we the ones who whinge.

Though I joined the .org two years after you, I've played the entire series, STW, Mongol Invasion, MTW, VI, RTW, BI, and modded MTW, VI, RTW and BI.

I never said that you did not.

I was upset because, with that sentence you strongly imply me as a 'new player' who hasn't considered the background of the total war series, and is blinded by shiny graphics. I take offence to that.

I already explained that. You misunderstood. I will explain again.

So to the people who say give them another chance, I am saying how many times are we going to do just that?

That was my explanation of this

People suggest we should all give CA a chance (yet again) Well all I can say is this......
When one reads the last page of a book, all one knows is its ending. To comment on the book one needs to read its contents

I clearly wrote people, I did not mention your name and I was talking about giving CA a chance. Where my post was directed at you was my initial response and your quote above. In the following paragraph (and back on topic) I directed my response to people so I fail to see how you can take offense or deduce that I question your knowledge of the TW series.

Re-reading my own post, I see nothing malicious, or at least, nothing intended as such.

Not even this?

Your bitterness about RTW permeates everything you post in this forum.

That is the particular sentence that I find offensive. You may think these things but I question whether you should actually post them, or at least not until you have some justification such as a similar attack on yourself.

You know you want to give them another chance really. Go on, you know you do, or else why are you here?

I have been asking myself that very question for quite some time. For the first time I will go on record as saying I will not be rushing to purchase MTW II and will instead wait for feedback. I never thought I would say that because somebody has to buy the product to test it but considering how little I actually played RTW, I must ask myself if I can really afford to squander money in this way. For the price of RTW and BI, I could have made two dozen arrows.

Just to make my own grievances clear, my main concerns are....

1. The Tactical AI......which has become steadily worse since STW.
2. Game speed ....Simply too fast to be believable. IMO any motion capturing did not include weapons or armour.
3. Faction Imbalance ....harder to remedy but not impossible.
4. MP Lobby.....The current one is so bad that no words can describe it.
5. Map Editor......Let's have it as an option without altering the target address and maybe make it a little more user friendly. I did enjoy the challenge of creating nice fair maps that people enjoyed using.

Finally, it was nice of Captain Fishpants to air his views but I tend to agree with Duke John's reply

........Orda

[therother]

But wasn't the faster gameplay already part of the R:TW-demo? IIRC there were quite some discussions about this when the demo was released (a lot of players were not particularly happy about the speed-increase).
I am not very fond about the increased speed (actually I was really missing M:TW's speed slider that allowed you to change speed depending on the battle phase), however, IMHO it is a bit unfair to state that there was no information about the change in game design with regard to battle speed.

To be fair, it was raised, but CA gave what (at least to my reading) amounted to assurances that the gameplay had not been adversely affected: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...213#post575213

[sunsmountain]

You have to be kidding. What they care about is bad publicity, and I've posted a lot about the gameplay.

I'm not kidding, the list you gave (i hope you copy-pasted that from your archives somewhere) is written in an imperative way: Do this, do that, as if CA was some kind of obedient dog.
And while I agree with most of your "commandments", it would be better to summarize them in a non-imperative way and give examples of reproducable ingame behavior. I know you already lost a lot of time, but given your "Posts: 3,958" I cannot imagine this taking that much more time...
...if one of the moderators could then sticky it CA wouldn't have to look through piles of old posts...

There are also some of your remarks i do NOT agree with, like:
"Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader"
and
"Get rid of exploding rocks"

That faction leader is too reminiscent of STW/MTW to me and I didn't like it back then, nor do I now, certainly not under the present (and may i say much better and clearer) loyalty system. But I do like exploding rocks

To give you more examples of what I mean:

"Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW"
This is too general and impossible given the difference number of units,

"Make the AI understand how to use a shield"
This is too judgemental and vague (unclear which situations you mean here).

If I were a programmer there would be little I could do with it. Given objective facts, however, I could make a rational decision and justify it to my business manager who is obviously only caring about bad publicity and money.

[econ21]

To be fair, it was raised, but CA gave what (at least to my reading) amounted to assurances that the gameplay had not been adversely affected: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...213#post575213

That old thread is a fascinating read. It reinforces my suspicion that we are just rehashing a two year old debate here, but never mind.

The thread initially focuses on the "unrealistic units" criticism. That sees to have lost its force somewhat, as people can opt for realism mods. And IMO, the criticism proved overdone anyway - dogs, pigs etc were not a noticeable blight on my unmodded games & many factions had largely historical line-ups (Rome, Carthage, Macedon, Parthia, Seleucia etc - just stay away from Egypt).

The movement speeds/kill rates criticism also came up - Puzz3D has certainly been consistent. To my mind that has also been largely defused if you are into realism mods. It's obviously still a sore point for some ex-STW/MTW multiplayers and may be also for SPers who don't want to bother with mods.

I am a little sad that we seem to have had a greater level of CA interaction then than now. I guess that is the result of the negativity that Captain Fishpants has commented on in this thread.

[JFC]

Pick that up, put it down, get out, come here, go away, never again, it's you fault, you don't appreciate me, if you don't know I'm not going to tell you, you're a mess, I hate you, come with me, leave me alone, what time do you call this, what have I told you, I told you this would happen, I'm cold, I'm hot, your trouble is you don't think, you'll break it, you'll burn it, turn it up, turn it down, stop showing off, stop showing me up, get off, don't wipe it there, turn it over, come to bed, go to bed, get out of bed, etc.
My Girlfriend (every day)

NOW THAT'S WHINGING!

[Puzz3D]

I'm not kidding, the list you gave (i hope you copy-pasted that from your archives somewhere) is written in an imperative way: Do this, do that, as if CA was some kind of obedient dog.

I didn't copy the list from anywhere. Those are the issues I have with the game, and there are even a few more that I forgot to mention. I intend to continue to state things in an imperative way. CA can take it or leave it.

There are also some of your remarks i do NOT agree with, like:
"Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader"
That faction leader is too reminiscent of STW/MTW to me and I didn't like it back then, nor do I now, certainly not under the present (and may i say much better and clearer) loyalty system.

Simplistic things are clearer. So you like the new simplified system where loyalty is tied to the straight line distance from an instantly relocatable capital, and it doesn't matter whether or not there is a logistical path back to the capital. In the new system, you don't have to be concerned about where your heirs are located since it doesn't matter. Let's find a nice word that puts a positive spin on simplification: Streamlining. That has a nice ring to it.

and
"Get rid of exploding rocks"
But I do like exploding rocks

Then be happy. The game has exploding rocks, and they aren't being removed. You aren't concerned that I have any influence with CA are you? I certainly do not.


"

Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW"
This is too general and impossible given the difference number of units

That's right. They overloaded their combat system with too many units. This has also made it impossible for them to balance.

""

Make the AI understand how to use a shield"
This is too judgemental and vague (unclear which situations you mean here).

My intention is to be judgemental. Take a horse archer, ride up to shooting range off the right flank of the enemy battleline and start shooting into the right side of the enemy infantry unit that's there. Dumbo unit will just stand their facing my battleline which is nowhere near them. Those men have a shield which they could use to protect themselve, but they don't use it. Another example is: watch the enemy AI advance a single, lightly armored unit, with a shield while under ranged fire, half-way across no man's land, turn it around and walk back to it's battleline and be decimated because its shield no longer protects it. I've seens this hundreds of times. It happens in virtually every battle where the AI has weak units.

If I were a programmer there would be little I could do with it. Given objective facts, however, I could make a rational decision and justify it to my business manager who is obviously only caring about bad publicity and money.

Well that's naive. The only way the programmer will get a change is if he can convince the manager that it won't hurt sales and the game will still be fun and spectacular. It doesn't matter how logical the change might be from a gameplay perspective. If it's something he hasn't been told not to change, he might change it on his own initiative. Just look at the years changed into turns to see irrational gameplay that is apparently rational from a business perspective.

[Puzz3D]

I am a little sad that we seem to have had a greater level of CA interaction then than now. I guess that is the result of the negativity that Captain Fishpants has commented on in this thread.

Well, I don't miss the PR spin. The Captain has said they operate under a code of silence. He's also said that they won't reveal if they have accepted or rejected a suggestion.

[screwtype]

Pick that up, put it down, get out, come here, go away, never again, it's you fault, you don't appreciate me, if you don't know I'm not going to tell you, you're a mess, I hate you, come with me, leave me alone, what time do you call this, what have I told you, I told you this would happen, I'm cold, I'm hot, your trouble is you don't think, you'll break it, you'll burn it, turn it up, turn it down, stop showing off, stop showing me up, get off, don't wipe it there, turn it over, come to bed, go to bed, get out of bed, etc.
My Girlfriend (every day)

NOW THAT'S WHINGING!

Well that certainly helps put things in perspective JFC!

[lars573]

SEGA didn't buy CA did they?

I thought they were the new publishers... like activision were before. No?

By and large in the games industry the relationship between publisher and developer is leige (publisher) and vassal (developer). There are very few developers that are 100% independant. ID, Valve, Epic, and Maxis are the only ones that I know of that are for sure where the publisher doesn't have a controlling interest in the developer. But you'll notice that 2 out of those 4 are more in the buisness of making and selling game engines that actual games. The amount of direct influence that the pub. has over the dev. depends on the corporate culture of the pub.

You'll also notice that CA has been passed from the most domineering and draconian publisher (EA). To the more hands off do your own thing publisher (SEGA). With Activision being in the middle in a bunch of ways.

[Myrddraal]

The amount of direct influence that the pub. has over the dev.

[lars573]

Shut-uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup! Did I just use some Britishisms without knowing it.

[Myrddraal]

lets just say that I'm sure that Captain Fishpants appreciates the pub. I'm sure it has a direct influence on him too.

[TosaInu]

Have you seen any dev come here and ask for a list of things to be fixed the way they do for a patch? They've never done that in 6 years when a new product is being developed.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=17904

[Little Legioner]

Make the battlespeed slow enough that you can coordinate 20 units
Balance the maneuver and attrition aspects of a battle
Balance offensive and defensive styles of play
Get rid of the bias that favors the AI on auto-resolve on normal difficulty
Put back the combat penalty when units overlap
Fix the suicide general
Make the infantry running speed 1.66x the walk speed
Make the cavalry run speed 2x the infantry run speed
Make sure that units fight long enough so that hammer and anvil tactics work
Make the AI understand how to protect a unit's flanks
Fix the group movement commands so they work so that you don't have to use drag all the time
Get rid of the delay to movement orders
Get rid of the battlefield upgrades in multiplayer
Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW
Stop using heavy artillery as anti-personnel weapons
Make crossbows use their ammo faster so that battles don't drag on for an hour with boring shootouts
Make the AI understand how to use a shield
Make the AI respond better to ranged attack
Make ranged units use their ammo before they charge into melee
Stop having the AI make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target unit
Stop AI units from walking towards the enemy only to turn around and walk away
Get rid of exploding rocks
Stop using fire weapons in the rain
Reduce the uncertainty in combat results to the level it was in STW
Stop horses from jumping into pikes
Stop the skirmish AI from shooting its own men in the back so often
Put LOS for individual men back in the game
Bring back the weather effects of STW
Make the AI use the secondary weapon when it's better than the primary weapon
Provide more settings on fatigue rate, morale level, and ammo
Separate the fatigue, morale and ammo settings
Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader
Stop having the AI sail around with a full army on a single ship until it's sunk
Make the AI provide reasonable garrisons for cities
Make sure the traits are working
Shorten the timespan of a campaign and provide multiple campaigns
Return to seasonal turns

Hats off Puzz3D

I'm totally agree with you. Any person who wants to critisize him first should check the main subject of this long list.

Behind the scene this list focuses on strong points of STW and MTW solid gameplay and critisize RTW's weak points wisely. This is not demand or wishlist. Just only smart manifest of TW series gameplay which is directly related past and close future itself.

CA has changed entertainment attitude of TW series in RTW. Entertainment with historic accuracy and serious strategic and tactic warfare replaced with fantasy mixtured and RTS style speed and click based new brand. We don't need any discussion over unnecessary details again and again.

So, why did RTW sold too much? Because of STW and MTW. Thats all folks. I speak for myself. When i bought the game from the store i thougt that i'll play old gameplay with new engine but in a different time frame.

If we focus this subject from this point of view we may complete the puzzle.

I demand that only CA puts the realism bar high again.

So, who am i? I'm a simple man that trying to make his way in the universe

[NeoSpartan]

....

I demand that only CA puts the realism bar high again.

AHMEN TO THAT!

I didn't play STW, and only played MTW for about 3 months before I got RTW. So I can't compare RTW with S/MTW. BUT the reasong I bought RTW, (and why I told about 5 other people that they should buy it too), was because I EXPECTED HISTORICAL REALISM!

I was preatty bumbed out once I saw Egypt, Gaul/Brittain/Germania, and the Greek Cities. Back then (in 05) I knew enough about History to know that Egypt was way off, the Barbarians looked too generic, and the Greek Cities's hoplites fought overhand.

That was my MAIN BEEF with RTW. But then I started downloading Mods to get the Historical Accuracy I paid $49.99 plus 5% State Tax to get the 1st time. (thank God for u guys who know how to screw aroudn with PC codes and stuff )

So this time with MTWII, coming out, my main causion is again HISTORICAL ACCURACY. I will wait to see what there forums 1st say, and then wait for mods like "Medieval Total Realism II" or "Medieval Barbarorum" to come out.

Now, there is one thing I don't agree with Being A Problem in RTW.
That is the Rock-Paper-Sissor thingi.
-There are many different types of units that preform the same basic funcion, say Spears which have a bonus VS cavalry. But not all Spearmen were trained and equipt equally across all factions. So their effectiveness will vary. Also, there were units who although being Specialised in One type of combat, (say Hoplites) they were also exelent at another type of combat (say good swordsmen too, like the Spartans).

[caravel]

CA don't listen to us.

Obviously, we spend all our time not listening. I personally spend nearly 23 hours a day not listening, with the remainder of my time spent ignoring things. Oh really, please. Don't be so silly. How many times do we have to say this: forums are monitored and sensible comments are fed back into the system.

I think the general consensus is, not that CA "don't listen", but that CA listens very selectively and to only that which fits their underlying agenda, and that agenda does not appear to fit with what some of the mature strategy gamers want. Evidence of this is the issues that Puzz3D has already listed with regard to RTW gameplay vs MTW/STW gameplay.

CA don't talk to us.

So this is probably true but, there are a couple of reasons that I could cite:

(a) When a CA post is made it is quite often dismissed because the answer isn't *exactly* what people wanted to hear. It doesn't matter whether what they are being told is the truth, it wasn't what they wanted. Or we're accused of lying. Eventually, even the most dedicated will give up trying to explain in the face of that kind of attitude, now won't they? I now predict that this post will produce a similar rash of negative comments.

This is the whole issue. A forum will always contain those that attack and post negative comments, those who rubbish everything because that is what they do best. Even members come under attack and have their views rubbished by other members, they don't then just stop posting, they just rise above it. Using this as an excuse for lack of communication is quite poor in my opinion. From most of the CA posts I've seen here at the org I've noted much of the responses by members to be very positive. CA just refraining from posting because of criticism looks bad and actually worsens the situation.

(b) Posting up anything as gospel during a development process is risky, because development by its very nature means that things are developing. What's mentioned one week may not be true the next, but by then the rumour machine will have constructed a complete "Grand Unified Theory of Everything And Why It's Rubbish".

I understand this, and so do most others. The few that don't are usually just immature. Example would be the video with the big gun, it was quite amazing how a bit of hyperbole stating the gun was on an elephant ended up in a multiple page thread consisting of "omg this is stupid elephants carrying cannons", followed by many theories as to why elephants could not carry and fire cannons... if those people had actually looked at the video in question they would have seen no elephants just a big gun. The valid criticism for said video would be the gun being fired at a unit of cavalry and the whole unit dropping dead on the spot. That was quite ridiculous, though funny as well. I sometimes feel that CA put that one particular one out to wind up the Ne'r-do-Well's.

Another example of this was spawned from the following comments made by Bob Smith.

They also act far more realistically. We’ve put in hundreds of hours of motion capture work and as a result our combat animation is far more realistic and the battles far more cinematic. You’ll see troops block, parry, carry out spectacular finishing moves. You’ll also see them scan the battlefield for their next opponent and fidget restlessly before engagement. The result is real-time battles beyond anything you’ve experienced in Total War games or the genre as a whole.

The hysteria generated from this was some of the most inane drivel I've ever read on any forum anywhere. A huge thread at the .com about "mortal kombat" style fatalities occuring in battles ensued, and went on for many pages followed by a few more threads before it died out. Yes it happened...

(c) Given the hostility and simple rudeness that CA posts have met, are you surprised? I suggest that one or two people would be well advised to think about how they would react if their work and/or competence was publicly attacked in such a fashion. How would you react if someone came up to you in your workplace (or school, for the worst offenders - the people who really haven't worked out that politeness costs nothing). The internet is a marvellous device for encouraging a lack of people skills to be the virtue of "free speech" when really it's just being uncivil at best and foul-mouthed at worst.

Again, the hostile and rude people are a minority. Why should CA stop providing information to the majority userbase because of a few negative people. From my own point of view, my work is criticised and attacked on a weekly basis, and it doesn' do much for my morale, so I can sympathise with CA, this comes with the job though. Games development can be like the film industry in some ways. You can put in alot of time and effort, but with the best intention in the world, the movie can be a complete flop, and get slated by the critics. This is why many movies, and indeed games, are very samey. Sticking to the tried and tested formula. This is what set CA apart with regard to strategic warfare simulations. STW was different to anything seen before, MTW was a continuation of the same thing. RTW seemed like more of a step towards commercial gaming, with it's faster pace, kill rates and overall look and feel. This is what gave rise to the general concern about the "direction" TW games are taking.

I also agree 100% about the internet "encouraging a lack of people skills". It seems ok for some people to talk to others like something they've just scraped off their shoe from the safe anonymity of the net. They would do well to remember there is a human at the other end of the wire not AI.

CA are deliberately damaging TW by doing/not doing X (whatever X may be).

No, we're not. It might surprise people to learn that we do actually think about this stuff, quite hard, and for quite a long time. You might not like some of the solutions we arrive at (and yes, we do think you're entitled to your opinions), but that's not the same as us "damaging" the games. There's also an element of the "shock of the new" still going on: it's not the same as it was, therefore it can't be as good. Well, things have to move on in this world; that's the nature of a competitive, commercial, capitalist system.

I don't think anyone with any sense is saying that CA is "deliberately damaging TW". People are of course entitled to their opinions and it's a good job that we have this forum, the .org, as a medium with which to express them. I don't agree with "shock of the new", this may be your's or CA's perception (I'm not applying your opinion to CA as a whole) of how some of the so called 'veteran' userbase think. There may be an element of this but it is small, it doesn't represent the majority opinion of veteran users. Everyone wants new stuff in new TW games. I for one wouldn't want MTW/STW's battlemap graphics in the next TW release for example. But "moving on" should also take the form of an intelligent AI. I want to sit back in complete and utter shock at how the AI just completely outwitted my army. I don't want to sit about on a board discussing "iron man rules", that is rules that I have to impose upon myself in order to give the AI half a chance. Nor do I want an AI that simply cheats in order to be more difficult (invisible morale bonuses etc). I am not asking for a flock of CA representatives to magicaly appear and post a long essay about how they're improving the AI, just a comment such as "we're working on it" or "it will be improved" or "it will be much better than in RTW". So far everything related to the AI has been a few vague offhand comments posted at the .com forums and not alot else.

We "know" what's going on inside CA. CA are secretly plotting to do X (whatever X may be) and the proof is that they don't talk to us.

Anyone but us who claims to know what is going on inside CA is not telling the truth. We have a code of silence round here that makes the mafia looks positively chatty because we take commercial confidentiality seriously. And because we are so secretive, we don't know everything that's going on either. I don't want to know everything that's going on - some of it is probably very disturbing and not nice. :)

Well, I do feel that statement to be rather OTT. I for one don't listen to those that claim to know what CA's secret agenda consists of. Obviously source code and other commerically sensitive information is not going to be leaked to public, but aspects of the general gameplay are not so top secret. If CA can release demo videos and screenshots they could also do a bit more talking about gameplay aspects and AI, this would stave off any of the Ne'r-do-Well's that prey upon the silence and uncertainty. (to see the Ne'r-do-Well's in action visit this fabulous link)

Whatever "they" do, it will be rubbish.

Really? Well, there's no arguing with this one, is there? It's really a matter of opinion. However, there are grounds for assuming that some people will never be happy with anything that's done. There are always people who would be unhappy if you gave them the moon on a stick, because the stick would be the wrong colour and the moon would be too big to fit on their shelving.

Not sure who said that... Though I've assumed here that none of your statements are exact quotes just a summary of the types of common attitudes. Some people are simply trolls for their own reasons. Maybe they just hate all the newcomers to the forums that new TW games bring? The "I was here before you and my postcount is larger" sentiment is common on some forums, though not so much here. I don't feel this is a TW userbase problem, just a specific 'forumite' issue and as such not really much to worry about. Some of these people probably disliked the "gamey" (kiddy interface, flashing markers, arcadey feel, faster unit movement, decreased importance of the morale/fatigue/height/flanking, RTS style campaign map, cartoon romans barking in american accents, etc etc factors, blah blah blah) feel of RTW and see this as persisting throughout subsequent releases of newer titles in the series. In short yes there is some negativity, and yes there is probably a reason for this, but blatent "CA will make a crap game" comments are good for nothing. If I got to that stage I'd go 'on holiday' for a while...

But to be sensible for a moment, in "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" Koster makes a good case that the sense of fun of discovering something new (Shogun, in this case) is impossible to recapture on later occasions (MTW and RTW). In short, he argues for a variety of "familiarity breeds contempt". This also goes some way to explain the rose-tinted view of the past that also happens, not just in the case of TW games, but in the case of many things. The excitement of the new is replaced by the blandness of the familiar. The other reason why some will never be happy -- and some here will immediately get all offended by this, I'm sure -- is simple peer pressure. In order to be part of an in-group, it's necessary to adopt the social norms of the in-group, and there's a natural human tendency to unite around a negative. The norm here for a vocal group has become one where they are the innocent hobbits and True Fans and CA are Sauron's orcs and are Messing Things Up.

I agree, the "same old same old", is a bad thing. CA didn't stick to the same formula when they produced STW, but in order to break into the games market a developer has to innovate. ID innovated with 'Doom' (or Wolf3D). Core design really took off with Tomb Raider, there are countless others. Though ID stuck to the same formula and are still making money producing what is still basicaly a souped up 'quake', they have also made a fortune from the game engine which is the foundation of games such as Half-Life and the Medal of Honour series to name but a few. Core continued producing Tomb Raider games based around the same game model. All have been a great success. Sticking to the same formula does work and is easy money. CA should be commended for not doing this but instead moving forward. The issue at hand is the actual direction. Many feel that CA has a new target consumerbase of the younger player, and this has been mentioned in the the general propaganda. I don't have a problem with the younger player being targetted by CA, though I would hope that the 'arcadey' aspects can be disabled, to give a better 'simulation' style of play, for us "old gentlemen of MTW". Nothing more, nothing less.

Personally, I think that there are people here who are squandering an opportunity. You could be feted by the entire community of players. Instead, many here exhibit an almost irrational dislike of noobs and enthusiasts - those who express any kind of liking for games that the group thinking has decided are flawed. That's a real pity. As the expert players, you have the chance to turn yourselves into netgods of helpfulness.

Cliques always occur. I tend to ignore them. I must stree however that they don't really operate here. They tend to be actually trolling up your own forums over there on the dark side. Sorry but it's true. Sometimes CA's aproach to this board is the same as that used when dealing with that other place. It is not necessary to enter here with your sword drawn, we don't bite...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...unless you want us to.

I really feel that CA themselves have either been affected by the cynicism of some of these forumites or that perhaps CA are quite cynical anyway...

CA are a bit stupid because of all the above.

Maybe we are stupid. But then, if we are, we're just as stupid as the rest of humanity. And in the long run, that's pretty clever.

Gah! Who said that? The problem is, that as the game is now targetting a younger (younger minded even? So as not to come across as insulting to some of our maturer younger members) audience, this is becoming evident by the general dialogue seen at the official forums. Statements such as "CA are stupid" seems quite immature, and as there is no way of working out the ages of people on the net, you've no idea who you're dealing with have you?

We are the only true fans, and we're being let down because of all the above.

Well, yes, we've never denied your enthusiasm. I don't think you are being let down, for all the reasons I've already cited. If you let yourselves admit it, TW games have been immensely entertaining so far, and that's what they are supposed to be: games, entertainment, fun. You know, the good stuff that makes life better.

Entertainment is not always 'fun' in the sense of sitting in front of your pc grinning widely while executing 10,000 rebels, then laughing hysterically. sometimes entertainment can be in the form of a more serious strategic simulation. My idea of 'fun' games are those multiplayer playstaton type thingies involving cars, motorbikes or martial arts. Those type of games are more "chill out", for me anyway.

The demo will be rubbish, you know.

I don't think it will be, but you have the freedom to arrive at your own opinions. Isn't it annoying when someone is reasonable? :)


And finally, there may be a solution available to one or two of you, if you have the courage of your convictions. You could always apply for a job here. We're looking for extra designers at the moment: www.creative-assembly.com/jobs.html#gamedes

Who knows, you may even be exactly what's needed. But obviously, you have to bring something special to the party, not just negativity, a pack of cigarettes and half a tank of gas.

Well I can't offer you fags and petrol either, but I can sort out your networks and fix pc's/printers?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or I can clean the CA toilets?

Regards


Caravel

[iwantmyaccountdeleted]

The voice of reason. Thank you caravel.

I sympathize for the vets for their concerns about the game. Myself - my expectations for the game.

-Powerful adaptable engine
It should be able to suit most modder's needs and have a lot less hardcodes.

-Mod compatibility
Make it easier for modders to create cohesive mods. Even with RTR I sometimes see the AI make really stupid moves that I can take advantage of to rip a faction apart.

-some realism
Hounds of Culaan. Come on. They're toting realism as a selling point. Hounds of Culaan? They even pretended these people were actually there historically. I'm not an expert on that area of history but I didn't know there was some sort of church of ChuCulain.

Basically, I don't mind what they do to an extent. my main issues are mod compatibility and historical realism to a certain extent. Modders always correct most of the faults in a game.

Anyway - to the whingers - I'm learning Ruby programming language. I wrote a program recently, and when my friends test-played it, they found issues that I had not seen. Please don't bash the 1.0 version of M2TW when it comes out. They don't have ten years to make everything perfect. That said, the patches should solve something each time

The (comparitive) newbie
Stormbringer

[lars573]

Let's have a look a Puzz3D's list. If I think it's a bad idea, there's a line through it. My comments, if I have any, are undernearth.

Make the battlespeed slow enough that you can coordinate 20 units
Pause. Plus it's supposed to be a challenge to mangage an army.
Balance the maneuver and attrition aspects of a battle
Make a battle too complecated
Balance offensive and defensive styles of play
Get rid of the bias that favors the AI on auto-resolve on normal difficulty
Put back the combat penalty when units overlap
Bad idea.
Fix the suicide general
Done, play 1.5.
Make the infantry running speed 1.66x the walk speed
Would slow down the battle too much.
Make the cavalry run speed 2x the infantry run speed
Would slow down the battle too much. Fast battles are better battles.
Make sure that units fight long enough so that hammer and anvil tactics work
I take it you got used to planning a battle after you press start battle.
Make the AI understand how to protect a unit's flanks
Fix the group movement commands so they work so that you don't have to use drag all the time
Learn how to use the groups right. I took me a while but I got there.
Get rid of the delay to movement orders
It's a second or two tops. Always has been.
Get rid of the battlefield upgrades in multiplayer
I though you wanted to not change things from S/MTW?
Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW
Gods no, never that!! That's one of the myriad of things that made STW battle suck like a black hole.
Stop using heavy artillery as anti-personnel weapons
It's too much fun never do that.
Make crossbows use their ammo faster so that battles don't drag on for an hour with boring shootouts
It's two to tango. The AI to start a shootout and you to keep it up.
Make the AI understand how to use a shield
Make the AI respond better to ranged attack
Make ranged units use their ammo before they charge into melee
Stop having the AI make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target unit
Stop AI units from walking towards the enemy only to turn around and walk away
Get rid of exploding rocks
Rocks don't actually explode
Stop using fire weapons in the rain
Reduce the uncertainty in combat results to the level it was in STW
Stop horses from jumping into pikes
Stop the skirmish AI from shooting its own men in the back so often
Put LOS for individual men back in the game
Bring back the weather effects of STW
Make the AI use the secondary weapon when it's better than the primary weapon
Provide more settings on fatigue rate, morale level, and ammo
Needlessly complex.
Separate the fatigue, morale and ammo settings
Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader
I hated that in STW and MTW. I'm glad they ditched it.
Stop having the AI sail around with a full army on a single ship until it's sunk
Make the AI provide reasonable garrisons for cities
If the AI though the city was threatened it would have a garrison.
Make sure the traits are working
Only a few don't.
Shorten the timespan of a campaign and provide multiple campaigns
Return to seasonal turns
These two are incompatable.

[Puzz3D]

Don't worry. Creative Assembly isn't going to do anything to detract from the awesome gameplay of RTW.

[TosaInu]

Make the battlespeed slow enough that you can coordinate 20 units
Pause. Plus it's supposed to be a challenge to mangage an army.

I consider pause cheating. High speed is also cheating, but now for the computer.

Put back the combat penalty when units overlap
Bad idea.

At times I'm a fan of realism: 100 men cramped into a square yard can't fight well.

Make the infantry running speed 1.66x the walk speed
Would slow down the battle too much.

That's exactly what some of us want. True, others don't.

Make sure that units fight long enough so that hammer and anvil tactics work
I take it you got used to planning a battle after you press start battle.

Hammer and anvil tactics are planned.

Get rid of the battlefield upgrades in multiplayer
I though you wanted to not change things from S/MTW?

multiplayer battlefieldupgrades have always been a problem in online games. At first it wasn't understood and then there was a lasting lobby by many multiplayers to remove it, which was done in MTW:VI.

Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW
Gods no, never that!! That's one of the myriad of things that made STW battle suck like a black hole.

It did (for some of us) because of the non-specific 9 levels upgrade.

Stop using heavy artillery as anti-personnel weapons
It's too much fun never do that.

But some of us are 'serious' at times. I've played different types of games: arcade, fun and groignard serious (sorry for the stupid labels). You know what: I enjoyed them all.

Provide more settings on fatigue rate, morale level, and ammo
Needlessly complex.

Not needlessly complex. Such things would easily allow the many different types of players (n00bs, vets, chillers, arcade, Pichatus(TM), groignards, dogs) to play the type of game(s) they like. TW games attract a wide audience: a simple submenu in settings serves them all. STW for example had morale on and morale off. That was a difference of some 12 (?) points. So, you either had to be mega n00b or ultra vet (all other players had no luck).

Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader
I hated that in STW and MTW. I'm glad they ditched it.

Others love it.

Shorten the timespan of a campaign and provide multiple campaigns
Return to seasonal turns
These two are incompatable.

They are compatible. Timespan is the era the campaign plays in. Instead of one 1100-1400 campaign with 1 turn a year you get say 3: 1100-1200, 1200-300, 1300-1400, each having 2 (or more ) turns a year. A campaign is now only ~200 turns instead of ~300, but what matters most (for some of us ) it allows more realistic games and/or the time to use the technology you developped (~200 instead of ~100 turns in 100 years) without being outdated again.

It's a pity and a missed opportunity that we are still stuck in this inability to grant the other fun with his/her game. Am I going to hurt any of you when I like exploding rocks? Am I going to hurt any of you when I like RPS? Am I going to hurt any of you when I say I strongly dislike campaigns with less than 4 turns? Or admit my groignard nerd love for sliders? That it pleases my n00bgland when I can turn on an arcade toggle?

[Monarch]

Get rid of the battlefield upgrades in multiplayer
I though you wanted to not change things from S/MTW?

I guess then that you couldn't think of a decent "come back" for that one, or that you don't play much MP.

I totally agree, lets disable upgrades, OR lets have an option for the host to disallow/allow upgrades. IMO we should allow the host to setup rules that arnt a typed list, but the game actually enforces, for instance when hosting a game in the same screen as say map selecting theres also a UI to set some rules that mean people litterally cannot take units like artillery. Host needs more power, ATM he can't even change peoples team which needs to be done to prevent noobs coming into a 2v2, going on their own team, spending two peoples worth of cash and having to change teams and build another army, whilst we sit there twiddling our thumbs. In addition money should actually be team money, not atm how team money is say 25k it means each person is given 12.5k. It'd be good for clans to make the most out of the money given by coordinating their faction selection, because on rome if say you have a spare 10 denarrii and your fellow clannie is 10 florins over then surely it makes sense that you should be able to give him your spare? Perhaps now a function that the masses would like, just clans, but again why not give the host the option to give players money or teams money.

TBH I just clicked "last post by" as it shows up in the forum index, god knows what the topic of this is and I'm sure I've gone off it. Which I apologise for. But I think my suggestions for MP are actually plausable, its not like I'm running around moaning for an mp campaign is it?

[caravel]

@lars573

Your attempted quickfire demolition of Puzz3D's points, is totally without substance. As TosaInu's post has already demonstrated. You seem to have gone out of your way to simply disagree with as much as possible without producing any valid counter-argument.

[Orda Khan]

Some people obviously have no experience with MP

.......Orda

[todaswarriors]

Gah !!!
Great to see all is well and normal in the world of total war. see ya soon
I just hope mtw2 has some of the old controls for online games.it was much easier to fight & control..and i think that's one of the things i used to enjoy the most..after 3-4 games of stw/mtw you know you had played them it was a faster game alround but the server lagg slowed it down...
ah well those were the days
Anyhow back to books
sayonara!!

[lars573]

I consider pause cheating. High speed is also cheating, but now for the computer.

I almost never pause. I do however use high speed, when manuvering.

At times I'm a fan of realism: 100 men cramped into a square yard can't fight well.

But a penalty would be a pain, as it's going to happen a lot.

That's exactly what some of us want. True, others don't.

But I do. Faster battles are always better. Why? Less chance for me to lose interest.

Hammer and anvil tactics are planned.

Yes they are. Which you should be doing if you have an ounce of sense in the deployment phase. Sure you can't always pull it off but who cares.

multiplayer battlefieldupgrades have always been a problem in online games. At first it wasn't understood and then there was a lasting lobby by many multiplayers to remove it, which was done in MTW:VI.

I never play MP in a strategy game. Buggy messes, and I don't have the time.

It did (for some of us) because of the non-specific 9 levels upgrade.

RPS calculations are the bain of strategy games. Any strategy game. I really hate games where a spearman could never defeat a swordsman because a sword is rock and a spear is sissors.

But some of us are 'serious' at times. I've played different types of games: arcade, fun and groignard serious (sorry for the stupid labels). You know what: I enjoyed them all.

There have been lots of posts about how Onagers used on the battles feild aren't right, act to much like a cannon. Lots of stuff, most of which I can't remember. Well I've seen reconstructions of seige weapons. And an onager ball would bounce and take out men, much like a cannon ball. Artillery has always been used as anit-personel weapons. To suggest otherwise is foolishness. Hence the foolishness of my retort to it.

Not needlessly complex. Such things would easily allow the many different types of players (n00bs, vets, chillers, arcade, Pichatus(TM), groignards, dogs) to play the type of game(s) they like. TW games attract a wide audience: a simple submenu in settings serves them all. STW for example had morale on and morale off. That was a difference of some 12 (?) points. So, you either had to be mega n00b or ultra vet (all other players had no luck).

Diffculty has modifiers on morale. Fatigue and ammo go away for arcade. So yes multiple setting are too complex. For the user and the developer.

Others love it.

But if your leader died you faced rebellions, or massive unrest. Tying it to a city is much more orderly, predictable, and quicker to wrap your brain around.

They are compatible. Timespan is the era the campaign plays in. Instead of one 1100-1400 campaign with 1 turn a year you get say 3: 1100-1200, 1200-300, 1300-1400, each having 2 (or more ) turns a year. A campaign is now only ~200 turns instead of ~300, but what matters most (for some of us ) it allows more realistic games and/or the time to use the technology you developped (~200 instead of ~100 turns in 100 years) without being outdated again.

But if you want and are desiging the game to be about the middle ages having a campagin ends in 1204 really breaks that. But having a campagin that covers 400 years with 4 turns per year no one would finish it. I only ever finished 1 MTW campagin. Yet I started dozens.

@lars573

Your attempted quickfire demolition of Puzz3D's points, is totally without substance. As TosaInu's post has already demonstrated. You seem to have gone out of your way to simply disagree with as much as possible without producing any valid counter-argument.

What I said is a version of what I believe (I wasn't thinking just reacting). I hated most of what was about the S/MTW battles. I never played them. I play about 1 in 5 RTW battles. Because of the vast improvements that CA has put into them. I can only hope that M2TW has kept most of these improvements.

[caravel]

RPS calculations are the bain of strategy games. Any strategy game. I really hate games where a spearman could never defeat a swordsman because a sword is rock and a spear is sissors.

I don't get this "bane of strategy games" argument. Under the RPS system level used in MTW or STW, spearmen would not always lose to swordsmen, but swords have an advantage over spears in hand to hand melee combat that I would have thought would have been quite obvious. Cavalry have the same advantage over the swords, and spears have that holding advantage against cavalry. It is not a clear cut system though. For example Trebizond Archers or other skirmishers can often take on light, or even medium cavalry and win. Swordsmen can win against cavalry when flanking, wheras in a head on assault they would surely lose. Morale fatigue and height all play a big part in this. When a unit is more seasoned, better equipped or elite it can counterbalance those effects, this adds another dimension to battles removing their predictability. If predictable easy battles are what you want then your simplified system is ideal.

You seem to be calling for a simplification of battles down to a high speed RTS style clickfest level. These type of fast battles don't involve any kind of tactical manouvering or outflanking. They are unrealistic and dull.