Who wants to have turns by seasons like STW?
Please start a yes/no answer list. And those who post in .com start one there as well.
Who wants to have turns by seasons like STW?
Please start a yes/no answer list. And those who post in .com start one there as well.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Pape for global overlord!!
not quite clear on what u mean explain plz
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *swings axe*
like each turn u take ur in a season season hence 4 turns equals one year, i am pretty sure thats what he meant
*Bows. Turns to return to darkness...bumps head...looks around, pretends noone saw. Dissapears in shadows while cursing at self*
Yeah it would be good to have a turn each season instead of one a year.
It's hard to say without having seen the game, but i can only imagine that having a single turn each year will detract from the game to some extent.
BTW this subject is already being discussed rather a lot over at .com, the news was met with fairly universal dismay!
What have we done to make the folks at CA hate us so?
[This message has been edited by Wart (edited 07-12-2002).]
Yes at present in STW four turns per year in MTW they will reduce this to one turn per year.
Which effectively means there is less turns in MTW then STW and your generals effective. battle lifespan is a quarter that of STW.
Anyhow this is more of a petition then a discussion.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
oh i get it.. well i think it should be by months not seasons
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *swings axe*
yes months in my opinion, I think that would be much better...like ucan send a troop to battle and it can say ur troops wil ltake 3 months to get to this province then in 3 months u attack...
*Bows. Turns to return to darkness...bumps head...looks around, pretends noone saw. Dissapears in shadows while cursing at self*
it might be too hard for CA to make it in month, but all they had to do was keep it in seasons. Why, Why did they change. Why, I say!!
"I have come on the enemy, thus the enemy has already lost" Napoleon.
CA?????
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *swings axe*
hmm SEASONS !!!! SEASONS !!!! MONTHS @ DIFFICULT YEARS TOO HMM SOMETHING ELSE BUT I THINK SEASONS !!!!!!!!!!!
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
think about it does it realy take a whole season to move an army across the border ... not often
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *swings axe*
Duh, the game isn't shorter, it has more years than Shogun, almost 400. Quarters would mean a game with 1600 turns! So what difference does it really make?
Grifman
well duh! grifman thats not what ahh well ya now woohoo time for my pills
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
CA=Creative Assembly
"I have come on the enemy, thus the enemy has already lost" Napoleon.
it does make a diference for one theres not 400 years cuase certain campains r in certain years and 2oundly it does matter cause what it takes japs to do in a season could take 1/3 less the time with europs
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *swings axe*
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
Duh, the game isn't shorter, it has more years than Shogun, almost 400. Quarters would mean a game with 1600 turns! So what difference does it really make?
Grifman[/QUOTE]
Shogun can last up to 120 years. Some peoples Daimyo die of old age in their one hundreds. That is a campaign with 480 turns.
The MTW turns are one per year. This combined with 3 eras spread over 360 years. Means the typical MTW campaign will be 120 turns. A quarter the length of shogun.
It also means you only get a quarter of the battles out of your generals before they depart the mortal coil. This puts more emphasis back onto making high valour units. Which in turn dimishes the RPG aspects of the game.
Also by having seasons you have different battlefield tactics in each season and hence different army configurations to take advantage of these seasonal changes. These different configurations then lead to strategic choices in defense and offensive army compostion, and to when to attack and what can defend in which season. Spring rains, gunners no!!!!!
Example (I play with timer as it forces speedier play and is more of a overall benefit to the AI);
Highly weighted gun armies are easier to defeat across a bridge offense in the spring rain with a heavy armoured melee units (naginata), in winter naginata may be too slow by themselves to take the bridge. In summer you need to cross quickly before the gunners decimate you so a one or two Calvary Archer units need to be deployed to sweep across and then behind the enemy defender. However in winter those calvary would get bogged down so I don't use them in offense against a bridge.
In defending I will use gunners in summer as the amount of ammo is large enough and the seasonal (likely) lack of rain makes them to more effective. But use archers in winter and spring as the timer means they will not be at such a disadvantage with respect to ammo.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
My only concern is what choice do they have in fighting conditions as you can have as many turns in Shogun pretty much or until the Giesha comes along.
------------------
"DP is correct" - Shiro
-----------------------
We may have years, we may have hours,
but sooner or later, we push up flowers
DP is correct - Shiro
The game doesn't have to be too long.
There should be several options. One option to play the full-scale game with season turns. And others to play one specific era, or cut-scene scenario, with the shorter turns.
This way, the uber-hardcore junkies can play the whoooole bigass thing out in 1600 season turns, and for those with less time, they can play the whoole thing out in 400 year-turns, or play, for instance, just a single era, say, 400-500 season turns.
Matt
.
1600 season turns.....now that would be beyond epic, that'd be breaking new ground!
my vote for seasonal turns
if we had monthly turns
1600 x 3 = 4800
that sound nice to anyone else ?
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
I say lets play the game first before judging it.
Darkmoor as already posted that turns can take much longer than in STW due to increased complexity. I know most of us wouldn't mind if the game required say 100 hours play to complete a campaign, but for some this is just too long to keep their interest.
CA have probably done what they thought best to suit, so we should at least wait until we have tried what is on offer before requesting changes.
yes
------------------
untouchable, unbreakable,elven spirit,Elven soul
Abandon all hope.
Konnichiwa,
Optional 1, 3 or 12 months a turn. Leave it to the user. I don't think it will be hard to implement it, or even just add it to the current game. They already have the thing balanced for 12 months a turn, all that's needed is an increase of resolution http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000509.html.
Note: a building time that is expressed in 5 years (a simple castle) would just be shifted to 60 months, a peasant that has the minimal available trainingtime of 1 year should get the minimal 1 respectively 3 months and still be 1 year in the 1 year/turn.
As construction/building times are in editable text files a user can always fine tune it.
As you only have say 1,000 gold in 1 year/turn, you'll also only have the same 1,000 gold when you have 12 turns a year: it'll be impossible to perform rushings (and then, if that is what a certain gamer seeks in an offline game, so what?). But 12 turns a year or 4 (seasonal) add a lot of tactic and strategical options for those who want that.
The second sad thing is that the walls of a castle under siege gets repaired: bullshit.
Save the map after leaving the battle, and update the game so that it uses this map the next turn and not the default map. You can deploy immobile trebuchets closer to the keep every month/3 months. And each turn you run the risk that a relieve force will show up. What's the use of 100 units, 12 fractions and 400 years if you even can't properly do these obvious things?
Please, forgive my disappointment.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Ja mata
TosaInu
was also a little dissapointed to see a 1 turn =1 year. For me personally ,the longer it takes to complete a campaign the better.
Sorry folks but i think you're being too presumptuous assuming that the move to years is "bad" without having played anything of the campaign game.
Im a strat fan and i wouldn't want to play the game AS MUCH if it used seasons: It would be too much time spent doing nothing waiting for build queues etc and be too sprawling.
It is impossible to compare seasonsal gaming on the STW map with that in MTW - its a FAR different strategy game not simply relegated to size. THe economics and management is far more detailed and requiring of attention (unless you go for the "auto-queues" and even then...).
The useage of years is the right one imo - the removal of seasonal choices for attacks however is another matter.
It allready takes 100's of hours to finish a long campaign, different era campaigns do "not" end at 120 years and 120 turns is not some mythical "average game", half the point of the introduction of the glorious achievements was to break up the SHEER size of the game into something that can give "stage post" goals to achieve in a vast game.
A stirct comparison to experiences in STW simply is not valid.
[This message has been edited by Darkmoor_Dragon (edited 07-12-2002).]
morsus mihi
Monthly turns would over do it. Think how many times you would advance through a turn doing nothing at all while you wait for things to get produced. What is now a two turn unit would take 24 turns. Totally impractical IMO.
The trouble with time scales is movement. However, even yearly turns can be rationalized somewhat. It will take more years to reach the Holy Land from Western Europe than it indeed took. On arrival though, you may conquer it in one or two turns which is much faster than the Crusaders managed. So it all comes out in the wash after a fashion.
I might miss seasons I’ll admit but I need to play the game. We may need to rethink our expectations concerning total conquest. Tokugawa Ieyasu did eventually control all of Japan. Nobody controlled the whole map in Medieval. 120 turns should (had better be) enough time to meet one’s victory conditions in the new game no matter the time scale. That for me is the paramount issue.
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.
Konnichiwa,
It's fine if you want years for whatever reason, I want seasons and maybe even months. Points is, that this should be choice of the individual gamer.
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Ja mata
TosaInu
I agree that an option wouldn't hurt so long as one year = 4 seasons = 12 months. The game would play differently but so what. I'd be the last person to say no to an option.
There are so many aspects of the game to be curious about. Sieges, trade, navies. I think we all pretty much know what to do tactically. It's the strategy that will demand study.
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks