Do the current TW speeds and/or AI detract from your gameplay?

[sunsmountain]

I don't think you comprehend the true nature of the game. Nor, the fact that the game is imbalanced and what it will take to BALANCE the game. As well as how such an effort relates to the the development schedule which one of the CA members was good enough to outline for us several weeks ago.

You mean the beautiful fact that:
monks kill spears
spears kill cav
cav kill archers
archers kill monks?

And how beautiful that (indeed) was in Shogun? And how much harder doing it with 120 units is than doing it with 12? How many hours of army testing and match ups it would take? How that would never fit into the schedule? Why I therefore focus my efforts in demanding a better AI, rather than a better balance (which takes even more time to program / get right) ?

It would take more time and effort to accomplish what you think they *might* do to accomodate the peverbial US! Conversely, it would mean they've spend LESS time and effort developing all the eye-candy they've thus far previewed.

May I remind you that those teams work separately: AI/game core and graphics? And that they cannot showcase the first in a preview? Have you listened to podcast 5 yet?

According to the CA member, the majority of the AI work is done near the very end of development. THIS fact is ALL too evident. Look at all the wonderful and amazing RTW eye-candy such as, the campaign map with its zooming feature, the 3D battlefield, and not to forget the flaming pigs!

Lotta work, lotta time, and evidently little time to create and work-in a sensible AI, or to balance the game properly.

Please, make a distinction. You're asking for both (to get Shogun-style single- and multi-player back), whereas I would already be happy in first getting single-player back (needs better AI and speeds, not necessarily balance - I'll get back to that later in this reply). Multiplayer needs better balance, but I'm not expecting MTW2 to give that. As you say, schedule. Plus, you can mod it.

Sooo, you *think* it will be different for MTW2???

The thought did cross my mind, yes. It's not a resounding yes, but I'll play the devil's advocate since you use three question marks. En guarde!

Why? Cause a bunch of lound mouthed hardcore crazies keep demanding? These same people who CA has repeatedly downplayed and dismissed over and over and over again, in this forum and at the .com site.

Downplayed get only those who get their hopes up to unrealistic high levels, and inevitably fall. Demanding something (historical accuracy, realism) never worked, communication however, does.

Take for an analogy, Movies. The highest grossing/profitable films are NEVER the **best** films made in any given year. They are usually ones with the *best* eye-candy (special effects), sex and/or shock value.

Sometimes the blockbusters actually deserve the oscars they win. (Dances with wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Schindler's List, Ghandi, Platoon, The Last Emperor). Though they do not need to have sex, eye-candy or shock value, all have some of it; but if you're honest about the intro to Medieval Total War, that had a pretty good Shock value to me as well when I saw it for the first time. Or walls tumbling down. Or the Shogun assassin movies. Can't call that eye-candy?

First, "changing speeds" won't **re-balance** the game. It's not so simple as "changing speeds", the game must be balance for to a speed, etc.

Actually, no, i don't think it does. An army of legionares must be able to beat an army of peasants, no matter how tactical you play with those peasants. If you're talking about units that are roughly the same level (of building necessary to build them), then they are roughly the same strength in RomeTW. Where it goes wrong is that bonuses from spears VS cav or non-spears VS spears are not noticed. Likewise, terrain bonuses are not high enough to get noticed.

If you change the kill speeds (number of times you throw the attack dice should go up, the percentage to hit should go down) back to MTW levels, those bonuses will automatically start to matter.

From screenshots and previews it is evident that they have changed overall defense levels in such a way as to decrease the overall percentage to hit for all units, while maintaining the same engine. Plus there are now combo's, implying that the number of times the soldiers throw the dice also goes up. That means terrain and unit VS unit bonuses will have a larger effect, etc, etc...
...add to that the slightly lower movement speeds, and we may actually get the enjoyment of (longer) STW/MTW battles back!

Personally, I don't think they *learn* anything from these forums. A great example, take *replays*, if the perverbial THEY have been monitoriing and participating in the forums all these years---then how in H could the decision have been made to do away with replays??

You know that each battlemap is randomly generated (in the same way) for each square on the map. That map is not saved on your hard disk, it only exists for the duration of the battle. It had various benefits, like realism, saving design time, and saving you space on your hard disk, making the game shippable (oh and we forgot, here are disk 4 and 5... they contain the 10,000 maps...).
They found out too late that the engine could not easily save all values necessary for a replay. In effect it requires a map editor, which I'm sure you will have noticed is missing from RTW (and still is). I'm guessing they will implement it this time in MTW2, because they stripped the engine and rebuilt it. We can hope.

As for your they don't learn a thing, they did fix the load/save game bug, where reloading caused the AI to often lift the siege. See it whatever way you like, but it was due to forum protests. (They didn't see it as a bug.. I'm sure they see that differently now, same for replays. Are people allowed to make mistakes?)

The overall posting policy became: No speakee badee about RTW or get bandee

I can speakee plenty of badee about RTW and i am not bandee (yet)

[Myrddraal]

In effect it requires a map editor, which I'm sure you will have noticed is missing from RTW (and still is).

There is a map editor in 1.5. You need to enable it though.

[Bob the Insane]

You need a "don't really bother all that much but it would be nice if was slowed a little and a bit smarter: selection...

Detract from fun? not really....

If imporved would make the game more fun? absolutely...

[highlanddave]

i voted for both.

also on a similar line, i hope cavalry outrun fleeing troops on foot this time. also i hope cavalry do not run along side fleeing troops but run straight at them.

[Puzz3D]

You mean the beautiful fact that:
monks kill spears
spears kill cav
cav kill archers
archers kill monks?

And how beautiful that (indeed) was in Shogun? And how much harder doing it with 120 units is than doing it with 12? How many hours of army testing and match ups it would take? How that would never fit into the schedule? Why I therefore focus my efforts in demanding a better AI, rather than a better balance (which takes even more time to program / get right) ?

Yes, so I wish CA would stop saying they are making the game better by increasing unit types and factions. They've taken this so far that it's now impossible for them to balance the game. This is particularly bad for multiplayer where the use of mods is very limited. What modder wants to spend the hundreds of hours necessary to make a playbalance mod for multiplayer when only a few people would use it?

Downplayed get only those who get their hopes up to unrealistic high levels, and inevitably fall.

I agree. Expecting the gameplay to equal the original STW game is unrealistic especially when CA has made it clear that they are now aiming for the lowest common denominator (maximum customer base).

If you change the kill speeds (number of times you throw the attack dice should go up, the percentage to hit should go down) back to MTW levels, those bonuses will automatically start to matter.

A hardcore consideration brushed aside in RTW/BI. I haven't heard anything to suggest that CA has become more receptive to hardcore considerations.

From screenshots and previews it is evident that they have changed overall defense levels in such a way as to decrease the overall percentage to hit for all units, while maintaining the same engine. Plus there are now combo's, implying that the number of times the soldiers throw the dice also goes up. That means terrain and unit VS unit bonuses will have a larger effect, etc, etc...
...add to that the slightly lower movement speeds, and we may actually get the enjoyment of (longer) STW/MTW battles back!

Yes that could all happen, but don't forget there will be marketing people opposing it on the grounds that some players will be bored by longer battles.

They found out too late that the engine could not easily save all values necessary for a replay. In effect it requires a map editor, which I'm sure you will have noticed is missing from RTW (and still is). I'm guessing they will implement it this time in MTW2, because they stripped the engine and rebuilt it. We can hope.

There is a map editor in RTW. The models and their coordinates could have been saved in a savebattle file, and the campaign battlefield reconstructed from that. Probably they didn't have enough time to do the necessary work, and this was a low priorty item.

As for your they don't learn a thing, they did fix the load/save game bug, where reloading caused the AI to often lift the siege. See it whatever way you like, but it was due to forum protests. (They didn't see it as a bug.. I'm sure they see that differently now, same for replays. Are people allowed to make mistakes?)

Yes they are allowed to make mistakes, and I have a right to know what they are before I purchase the product. Now we hear about deficiencies in the RTW map generator and the RTW tactical AI in podcast 5 only because they can say it's better in M2TW. I wanted to know this stuff back in Sept 2004. If the "squeezed too tight" combat penalty has been removed, they should make that known so that players don't go off playing the game thinking it's still in there.

I have the Official MTW Strategy Guide and there are two chapters covering the battle engine combat modifiers and morale modifiers. There was no such info in the RTW Official Strategy Guide, and a big curtain of silence came down which is great for covering up the fact that you are removing features. I hear plenty from CA about "new" features, but there's never any mention of the features that have been dropped. Now I'm supposed to make a decision whether or not to purchase the game, and all I've been told is that features have been added. Sounds great doesn't it? It's a nobrainer. You'd have to be crazy not to buy the new version. The last version got an average 92% rating. The new game must be higher than that since nothing is ever done that might lower the rating.

[Nikodemus]

Guys, we all need too face the facts sooner or later, if you make something and you intend too sell it you would (most likely) go for maximum profit rather then quality. lets try this: you could make a game with eye candy and packed too the brim with graphical effects etc and if would probably sell rather well, atleast you would make a profit out of it or you could make a game with love and care, sure it would take three years instead of one and maybe it would even brake your budget and when the game goes for sale....total disaster.


for lets face it, the general public is stupid and much rather go for that game that has those awe-inspiring graphic and those big guns and *cool* bullet time effects then the game that handles medival europe with all the bells and whistle gameplay-wise but lacking in graphics, cus after all, the sole purpose of a company is profit.

the real "conflict" here is Gameplay vs Graphic or in more general terms: quantity vs quality with graphics being quantity and gameplay quality, this conflict is not just CAs problem but the whole industry, why make one game that is a masterpiece when it comes too gameplays but takes four years too make when you can too one game a year with beautiful graphics but gameplay as shallow as Paris Hiltons IQ


sorry if im a little off topic

edit: and the movement rates are fine, the only thing that really detracts me from gameplay (atleast in Vanilla rome) is that by the end game the only factions left standing are roman ones, ohh they could really improve the battlefield AI thats for sure. the killrates are rather...off and they cavalry chasing routing infantry bug better be fixed, umm...lets see...nope thats my biggest gripes with this game.