Happy with the decision made?

[Zenicetus]

I suppose some sort of patch 1.3 will be released when Kingdoms is, just like the 1.5 patch was with Rome.

Nope, the word on the street is that the 1.3 patch released with Kingdoms will only bring M2TW in sync for multiplayer. There will be no rebalancing or bug fixes for the original M2TW game. The info is in the last few pages of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89698

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to seeing what CA does with this new game, since they're going to a completely new design. Doesn't mean I'll buy it right away, given their history with RTW and M2TW. I really need to stop doing that, and wait for user feedback and a few patch cycles if necessary.

[caravel]

Another new TW game... I still haven't bought the last one...

You can also bet on it that some people will have their pallet load of Osprey books at the ready to use as hard historical evidence of musket diameters or the type of fabric used in the voluminous pantaloons of the era... I can hardly contain my anticipation.

[christof139]

The Ospreyettes and WFP (Wargaming Fashion Police)!!! Terrifying!!!

Chris

[NagatsukaShumi]

Nope, the word on the street is that the 1.3 patch released with Kingdoms will only bring M2TW in sync for multiplayer. There will be no rebalancing or bug fixes for the original M2TW game. The info is in the last few pages of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89698

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to seeing what CA does with this new game, since they're going to a completely new design. Doesn't mean I'll buy it right away, given their history with RTW and M2TW. I really need to stop doing that, and wait for user feedback and a few patch cycles if necessary.

Lusted, a modder who now works for CA, has already released his own unofficial unit rebalancing patch over on the Total War Center as that thread states.

Games cost, at the most, 30 pounds for the PC and to be honest, Total Wars are worth the price FAR more then the usual "top of the charts" PC Games that are out.

What I look forward to is the "Boycott Empire!!!!!!!" threads that will pop up

[Trax]

Will infantry sometimes (or often) break before contact when attacked with a bajonet charge, as in reality? Or will there be inevitably hand to hand fighting?

Giving the frighten_foot attribute to all infantry would make it more likely to happen. The soldiers often endured horrible punishment from distance but were likely to break without even crossing the bayonets when receiving a charge or forced make a charge.

[caravel]

What I look forward to is the "Boycott Empire!!!!!!!" threads that will pop up

I'm particularly looking forward to the "Empire No 2 was vitally important during that period and their troops were eliter than yours and if they hadn't lost the war against Empire No 1 then we can safely say that they would have won the war against Empire No 1 so they really, really, really need to be in the game and if they're not then it's because CA is crap <insert quotes and images followed by accounts of where Empire No 2 almost won battle a or won battle b... but sort of didn't><insert insults><insert moderator edits>" threads.

[doc_bean]

I'm happy with the decision. I never got M2:TW, partially because when i was playing the demo it gave me too much of a deja vu feeling.

However, I mainly didn't buy M2:TW since it didn't seem to promise massive AI improvements, neither on the battlefield nor on the strategic map. I could enjoy the game with not-quite-up-to-medieval-level battles, but decent strategic AI for a game like this is essential.

I think the concept has potential, but CA will have to sell the game to me on more than just concept. Tons of TBS games have pretty good to great AI, and are often more complex than a TW game, so CA better work on that department.

Also, I want the battles to look good from a distance, I don't really care for what they look like zoomed in since i'll rarely use that mode.

[Noir]

Good point about the sprites - the ones in RTW were bad enough, but the distance filter that distinguished half decent sprites from blurry mess was another visual fiasco of M2TW.

Also worth mentioning is the extreme simplicity of gemeplay depth of TW in the campaign that essentially is the STW unify/conquer all, formula reapplied over and over in periods and situations were it does not really belong without any true addition in strategic depth. For instance country/kingdom logistics and campaign logistics remain mostly out of TW although in most cases they dictated conquest potential, military technology and approach as well as external politics. Some mechanics like the recruiting pools were inserted in M2TW that have potential to represent such things.

Experience suggests that the most advertised new TW features are the ones that offer a wow of 20 minutes and become the unsolved gameplay spoiler for ever and ever after that. The "sieges and artillery" in MTW, the "3D men and horse jumps" in RTW, and the "battle animations & finishing moves" in M2TW.
Half baked features that appeal to the eye and become gameplay killers since they pay little respect to the ways of the AI or to gameplay or to what the engine can support reliably from a gameplay perspective.

Naval and land battles will be a whole new world in this period that will need to be balanced gameplay wise and possibly not in the same way on top of develloping a new engine..

Anyway, by the time people will be bored with it they'll probably announce a newer, flashier and even more euphemeral game that will also be a "brilliant" idea to make, i guess.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think this is the right direction. There will be more depth now that their will be actual naval battles and the use of tactics in this realm thrill me because I've always felt cheated in the naval "battles" in RTW, MTW, and MTW2.

Now that's not to say I wouldn't have LOVED STW2!!! Man that would be sweet.

I believe that this will be great and most of us will be pleased with the latest product.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

I'm glad that overall people seem to like the choice of setting :) We thought that it was time to break some new ground with the series, and since we were re-architecting the engine for the new hardware generation it was a good opportunity to do something a bit different. The early gunpowder era opens a lot of doors, and for naval battles too, the 1700's is *the* time and the perfect way to introduce the new game segment. It gives us some great material to draw inspiration from... expect to see Patrick O'Brian and Hornblower references aplenty.

On the gameplay side, I should mention that we're not approaching this as a missile-only battle game, as some people seem to be fearing. Charges and melee were still an important part of infantry fighting in this period, and a good balance between gunpowder, missile and melee is where we want to be - especially since some of the non-European factions lag behind a bit in terms of technology. The cavalry charge won't be the dominant factor anymore, but it will still be significant if used properly.

As far as the battle AI is concerned, we started from the best of the previous AI's available at the time development began (which was the RTW:BI one, for those who are interested), and have rebuilt it in the new codebase while adding several key new features such as goal-based planning and improved time awareness - for the first time in the TW series the battle AI will be projecting your unit's positions forward in time and evaluating your possible strategies at a high level in realtime, somewhat akin to what a chess program does, which will make it a lot better at understanding what the player is trying to do and making countermoves in time. We're still in full flow in the development, but it's starting to show some good promise.

It's always fun to lift the covers a little from what we've been working on, and hopefully that puts a few fears to rest.