Note on whinging

[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.