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

[therother]

Good analysis there Jambo. The route EB came up with to try and alleviate this problem was to significantly increase the cost of armies, so that one can't have stacks all over the place, even towards the end of the game. This had the dual effect of making battles less frequent and more decisive; losing a single battle versus the AI could be disastrous. Admittedly, the AI does get massive cash injections, so it can have more stacks. Then again, as the battle AI isn't really capable of giving a half decent human player a challenge on a level playing field, it's to some extent understandable.

As you say, the new game mechanic of the "recruitment pools" they're adding may indeed be a more elegant solution. Assuming the battle AI is now capable of basic tactics...

[Empirate]

Although much could be said about M:TW and it's system of only allowing sixteen units per side in a battle at the same time, it still made for more decisive battles. Odds are, your borders with a powerful faction were defended by more than one stack, and the AI often accumulated massive multiple-stack armies, especially in one-province-borders like in northern Africa. If one side or the other finally decided to fight it out, it was one epic battle (though divided into sixteen-unit-per-side portions), after which the outcome of that war was very much decided. This made battles much more important, as there were fewer of them, and as multiple stacks could participate in them. Of course, beating the first wave was often enough to win the whole battle, which was unrealistic in itself.

The fact that in R:TW stacks often march around the map without keeping together makes this kind of "wipe out their eastern army, then their provinces are open to you" strategy more or less tedious: It can't be done in one big battle; rather, you'll be fighting many smaller ones. This can usually not be done in one turn, giving your opponent time to field more troops - often several turns. So it might be that a strategic AI that was keeping it's armies more or less together for one region would force the human players to do likewise, lest their armies be wiped out in several smaller battles.

This kind of bigger, more decisive battle would further need to be enhanced by better performance. Most players don't own a PC that is younger than, say, one or two years. An abundance of beautiful but processor time consuming graphical effects slows the battles down too much for fifty or one hundred units per side to be processed at the same time. Such a large battle would easily be possible to be fought in R:TW where unit availability is concerned, but the engine doesn't support them because of performance issues and possibly so as not to put overdue demands on players.

In this kind of battles, the faster speed might be very welcome. But it is just not ideal for the army size throughout R:TW, i. e. only twenty units. Also, the killing rates are rather absurd, not only historically speaking, but also in gameplay terms. I don't like to lose the full 1500 men I sent into battle because of one blunder. More realistic would be something like 500, with the rest probably losing some experience or whatever. And knowing full well in advance that, after I attack this or that stack, it will cease to exist, is a bit ridiculous, too. It would make for more realism as well as more fun to know that this is the enemy's only army, and if you can beat it, you'll be a good step further in winning the war. But killing three, four stacks in a single turn, not losing more than 200 men in all, only to face three, four stacks more only a few turns later... is not nearly as interesting.

While the speed issue has seriously put me off, freshly coming from M:TW a few years ago, I can by now win most battles with even odds reliably. But somehow the battles don't feel important, don't feel right, and don't last long enough. Often I feel that my tactics didn't make much of a difference: Charge in your cavalry at the right moment, then that's that. There's simply no time for using tactics!
I voted both: speed and AI detract from gameplay. But, as somebody mentioned before, the AI is actually quite OK. Still, the M:TW battle AI was so much better it was just more interesting. You usually couldn't cheap it, it would always aim for a good unit-to-unit matchup, it would keep it's troops together, it would flank and so on. In R:TW there's no cohesion in armies, there don't seem to be strategic goals, at least not in building, and keeping large armies under captains while sending family members with just a few units up front doesn't impress me either.

So please, ye bringers of computer game goodness, who have given to us loads of fun in the past, hark! Low battle speed and good enemy AI give your players fuzzy feelings when they win. It is these fuzzy feelings that make them buy the AddOn. I never rued buying Viking Invasion, but will never touch Barbarian Invasion or Alexander. In M:TW it felt like an accomplishment to win. In R:TW it feels like they let you.


BTW: If anybody voted they liked AI and speed as is, please comment! Why do you think it was good the way it was, and in what regards? Don't be afraid of Samas or Puzzes, dogs that bark don't bite!

[Voigtkampf]

Gah! I'll show you my mild taliban! Where's my "ban" button!

One can insult with a smile, and Toranagasama, you did exactly that. Btw, adding the suffix "sama" to your name isn't exactly the definition of modesty...? Alas, two can play that game.

Let's not. The policy of Org is simple, as already stated so there's no need for me to repeat them. If it means anything to you, you bring dishonor to yourself by "kindly" insulting a formidable, compassionate, hardworking moderator of the Org like econ, which is something he surely does not deserve. If you feel the need to take on a hard case, try me instead.

Besides, calling someone "dude" can go by only if you are a teenage mutant ninja turtle. Or Bart Simpson. Shame to see patrons treating moderators with less respect they get in return, and think its a proper way to behave.

[Orda Khan]

Gah! I'll show you my mild taliban! Where's my "ban" button!

One can insult with a smile, and Toranagasama, you did exactly that. Btw, adding the suffix "sama" to your name isn't exactly the definition of modesty...? Alas, two can play that game.

Let's not. The policy of Org is simple, as already stated so there's no need for me to repeat them. If it means anything to you, you bring dishonor to yourself by "kindly" insulting a formidable, compassionate, hardworking moderator of the Org like econ, which is something he surely does not deserve. If you feel the need to take on a hard case, try me instead.

Besides, calling someone "dude" can go by only if you are a teenage mutant ninja turtle. Or Bart Simpson. Shame to see patrons treating moderators with less respect they get in return, and think its a proper way to behave.

Regardless of insults or whatever, this episode was dealt with already, by two other moderators and there was no need to rekindle it IMO

......Orda

[sunsmountain]

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).

What I meant was (going overboard on) historical accuracy and realism, not in particular gameplay. You can never have too much gameplay, as it defines the gaming experience.

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.

It doesn't require them being receptive to hardcore gamers to work: The graphics programmer artists simply require more rolls of the attack dice in order to show off all the cool new combo moves they've made. Incidentally, those considerations also benefit the hardcore gamer. If CA were totally unreceptive to the hardcore gamer they would not have fixed the load-savegame bug, would not have made podcasts, would not have admitted their faults in RTW, would not have posted on these forums, would not have been human, and in general, would not have created Shogun in the first place.

Essential to understand is that an AI is improved incrementally, which means step by step. The room to grow is large, the initial version was found lacking. Some important gameplay parameters have been changed, and you can read the effects of that in this thread. Did we know precisely why we liked playing MTW over RTW? If you would have asked me before RTW's release, I could not have told you. Now we can, and CA obviously also learns from that. Getting gameplay right is every game designers dream and goal. If new features destroy that gameplay at first, you can always try to restore it later. But it will never be the same.

I blame a 3D engine, motion captured animations and a campaign map designed from scratch for the gameplay problems we face. Not CA. We know how they welcomed new ideas into the game, much like inviting pretty girls into their offices. And then they jumped on them and partied implementing them until the sun went down. Next morning, when ordinary gamers go to game, they find out that all those new girls require a lot of extra intention. Instead of giving that intention, what did they do? You guessed it, they got more girls. They also spent a large amount of time getting the girls into their boxes and making them jump through the right hoops, resulting in a pretty stable game that you can play for over 8 hours without crashing. Believe me I've tried.

Now, with MTW2, the girls are finally getting the attention they need and hopefully, enough. The gameplay gods will severely punish CA again if they failed to resist the temptation of getting even more girls/ideas into the game. Then again we are only men


ps.: Hopefully Penny Sweetser (game designer) will have a positive influence on giving attention to ideas already in the game.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Well, does speed detract from my gameplay experience? You bet, since I COMPLETLY STOP PLAYING RTW BECAUSE OF THAT

And let me add a couple of on top.

I would call THAT detracting me from playing the game at all!

I don't really care about AI, I play (or rather, used to) MP mainly, and there is no AI there, so it's really all about gameplay, gameplay, gameplay, and tactically challenging game.

How tactically challenging is RTW? Well, picture a stack of 20 cavalry all in 1 group, stacked on top of each other, charging anything in sight, and winning or losing in 30 sec. That's how challenging that game is.

RTW MP is neither fun nor interesting, and it's mainly because of kill speed and ensuing randomness in fight + moving speed detrimental to tactical thinking.

On the positive side, I am not sure that MTW2 can do worse than "not playing at all" as far as detracting goes.
Well, maybe "not buying at all" is a valid alternative.

Louis,

[roman pleb]

Well, I voted that the speed is good, but the AI could use some help. If anyone has a problem with the speed of units, then they can download one of the numerous mods which reduce speed, or they could mod it themselves.

[Orda Khan]

What I meant was (going overboard on) historical accuracy and realism.

Is history really that boring? I don't think so.

Now, with MTW2, the girls are finally getting the attention they need and hopefully, enough. The gameplay gods will severely punish CA again if they failed to resist the temptation of getting even more girls/ideas into the game.

It remains to be seen doesn't it? This time however, I will wait until those whose opinions I respect report that this new game is actually worth buying

........Orda

[naut]

Papewaio

[rory_20_uk]

I voted for the AI, as IMO it is something of a joke.

Thinking about it after reading posts, I did not realise how speed (or at least the mechanics of play) affected me.

Cavalry don't charge down fleeing enemies. I don't know how to make them do that. A gentle jog alongside appears to be closer to reality.
Archers fire far too infrequently / troops close far too fast. They can charge up a hill in full gear in the same time it takes to loose two volleys of arrows.
Once battle is enjoined it is a wait of about 20 seconds before one side bottles it unless the units are fanatical / generals are very high powered.

I don't want or need special kill scenes for every troop. I find the way they die already is OK.

What I WOULD like is that a pile of 100 bodies might perhaps slow the next wave down possibly????... Nah - but there's this cute cutscene when that soldier hits the other one...

I have almost given up bothering with unit types. No way I can tell the real difference in battle. Attack a phalanx in front or in the side doesn't make enough of a difference either (oh, and troops can somehow force themselves into a phalanx).

So, there are masses of new types of troops, but I still use them as archers, spearmen, swordmen and cavalry. The AI is generally so poor that as long as the unit is not obliterated I'll win by such a margin that I'll make up the losses easily.

In MTW I used to laugh out loud as my halbediers clanked in from the woods and meted out some punishment to some poor fools that were attacking some basic blocker unit. I honestly can't remember when I last bothered to do so - the enemy runs so quickly that I just chuck anything into a flank.

All in all the game has improved enough that it is better than the predecessor. But it has not been a universal march forward.

[econ21]

Attack a phalanx in front or in the side doesn't make enough of a difference either (oh, and troops can somehow force themselves into a phalanx).

I find that hard to believe. I guess the phalanx may turn if you don't pin it, but otherwise, it really does make a difference, front or side. For example, I've found levy pikemen can walkover Praetorians in a frontal battle. From the flank, there are few infantry that can't beat them.

Maybe the strengths and weaknesses of the phalanx formation are more apparent when you control them. The AI does such a bad job of keeping a solid phalanx line, you may not realise how formiddable it can be. (Until you unleash one on the poor AI).

If you want more of a challenge with RTW, try a realism mod. I tried a Julii campaign with SnakeIVs mod for RTR: Platinum. The beginning was very tough on VH/M (so tough, I've paused playing it ).