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

[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.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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.

This does not work for MP game

Not to mention that as far as I have seen, those mods don't really do a good job at it, the most common mistake being that slowing down units just make them more tired when it comes to fight, there fore they break faster when it comes to fight...
Game is slowed... but it got some nasty side effects...

And anyway: this does not work for MP game

Louis,

[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

[roman pleb]

This does not work for MP game

Not to mention that as far as I have seen, those mods don't really do a good job at it, the most common mistake being that slowing down units just make them more tired when it comes to fight, there fore they break faster when it comes to fight...
Game is slowed... but it got some nasty side effects...

And anyway: this does not work for MP game

Louis,

My apoligies, Louis. I do not play multiplayer and was not aware that it doesn't work. We must continue to look to M2:TW and hope it corrects this problem!

[Spino]

I just realized something, CA has decreased combat speeds. I have no doubt in my mind about this. Why? Because they have to. Had they simply kept the same movement and killing speeds as seen in RTW combat in MTW2 would look utterly ridiculous. Fast paced combat would ruin the special move laden, mano y mano combat in MTW2 that the devs are constantly talking about. It would look ridiculous if a guy is about to lay a finishing move on a wobbly opponent when that opponent is already laying in the dust, dead as dirt. It would also look positively comical if CA kept RTW's high speed combat and compensated by increasing the animation speed for the special combat moves; everything would look like a silent era action film.

[CBR]

Well they can easily reduce combat speed without doing anything to movement.


CBR

[econ21]

I just realized something, CA has decreased combat speeds. I have no doubt in my mind about this. Why? Because they have to. Had they simply kept the same movement and killing speeds as seen in RTW combat in MTW2 would look utterly ridiculous.

Hopefully you are right. But Dawn of War had really good special killing moves etc and is still frenetically paced. Ditto Battle for Middle Earth. Logically, you are right, but maybe people are used to fancy images racing past their eyes from pop videos etc. (Boy, I'm starting to sound like a past it old fool: "kids today, I don't know, when I were a lad...")

[Gregoshi]

I voted "speed detracts/AI okay". In my experience, the games AI never bothered me as much as the speed does. Maybe if I played RTW as much as some of you have I'd have a different impression of the AI, but from where I am with the game, the speed is the main killer.

BTW, excellent post Jambo.

[Silver Rusher]

I think this thread is rather invalid because CA has already confirmed that they will be improving both in a big way.

[naut]

Papewaio

[Puzz3D]

I think this thread is rather invalid because CA has already confirmed that they will be improving both in a big way.

And if they haven't, they would still say they have improved both in a big way. We don't even know what they mean by "improved", and I'm not spending $50 to find out that their idea of "improved in a big way" is a 5% reduction in battle speed.

[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 ).