When did Creative Assembly become a symbol of evil?

[Satyr]

Quite frankly, the anger was even more intense after Rome was released. There was even a campaign to smear RTW on Amazon. The problem is that the same problems exist in the game 2 years later so someone has made a decision that decent AI is NOT important in the Total War games. I am sure that it is a monetary decision and comes down to the fact that out of the hundreds of thousands (millions yet?) that buy the game, only a few are serious enough about the game to care. The average noob only spends a few weeks/months playing and just wants to win so a crappy AI is an asset.

I have only encountered 2 strategic game developers that really care about their AI and they are Firaxis (Civ4) and Stardock (Galactic Civ2). CA just isn't one of those companies that puts the time and resources into creating a challenging game. They were when they started, but they haven't been in a long time. When you realize this, and that they probably have valid monetary reasons, you will realize that it is time to move onto other company's games if an AI is actually important to you. I know I have.

[Graphic]

I have no false hope that it will have any effect though; CA didnt appear to take notice of us during and after RTW.

Did you ever think that's because the majority of the criticism, like your post, was hyperbolic rantings and ravings full of exaggerations, insults, and threats? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously?

[Noir]

Originally posted by Graphic
Did you ever think that's because the majority of the criticism, like your post, was hyperbolic rantings and ravings full of exaggerations, insults, and threats? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously?

You must be joking right?

If you read the forums for STW/MTW, you'll find that TW fans were extremely hopeful, dedicated and made tons of suggestions for CA essentially playtesting and correcting their games for them. Some people even put forth guides for the SP and MP games spreading the word for TW long before the fanbase got swarmed with (RTW) veterans, in the period that these games were sold neither on appearances nor prestige, but on the fascination and immersiveness they offered and good gameplay.

The "thank you" from the part of CA was full fledged ignorance in the knowledge that their newer games were succesful commercially and that whoever doesn't like them may criticise all they want now as it changes nill.

I'm sorry to say though that for me this attitude doesn't make their newer games any better than the low gameplay standard and unfinished state they are released.

Noir

[Graphic]

The "thank you" from the part of CA was full fledged ignorance in the knowledge that their newer games were succesful commercially and that whoever doesn't like them may criticise all they want now as it changes nill.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the very title of this thread. How would you know their attitude or motives?

You honestly believe they're swimming around in piles of cash, commenting to one another "haha, those fools, we got them! we can just make good graphics and sell thirty times as much! forget strategy! as much as I love all this money, it wouldn't be worth it if we didn't get all the fans to suggest stuff and waste all their time! *reads fan suggestions - evil cackle* Oh, and those angry posts! Simply smashing!"

Some of you are so blinded by your rage to even consider the possibility that they might have been rushed, lost key development team members, or just suck at writing A.I. that needs to be infinitely more complex than the AI for 2D games like STW and MTW. No, they have to say to each other at an official meeting "Ok, it's agreed then? F*** the fans and make money? OK, meeting adjourned!"

[Noir]

I rarely get angry and especially for such a matter (my hobby) that is entirely out of my control; much less to feel "rage" and even less express it in a posting board.

By "CA" i mean whoever is taking decisions in them or for them; the decision makers have beyond any doubt by simply choosing to emphasise on certain aspects of the game ignore people that play it with expectations in the tactical and strategic department. The AI has worsen with every release past VI, bugs that were solved returned and testing and balancing the units and gameplay is almost non-existent and has been broadly accepted as "normal" due to small development times, despite the fact that interferes with game playability upon release.

I also dislike the colourful expressions you use to bring out the absurd, as they are a trick to support your argument and not an argument themselves. That's your choice though.

In any case the TW community has been among the most dedicated and optimistic ever since STW came out and i don't know how long have you been following the various forums dedicated to it or read their past posts but the stance of CA at various incidents has been pretty much as i describe above; hence the incident with the rejection of the mp petition that was signed by a significant number of known and full fledged members of the .org for RTW and many others that i do not wish to speak about. Are you aware of these episodes?

M2 was released with the shield bug and the two-hand bug that essentially ruined gameplay as they made it counter-intuitive. Does that bring flowers and praise out of you? Or the fact that you were playing so long without knowing their existance made everything ok?

Noir

edit = I doubt very much that the AI needs to be an inch more complex because the men became 3D polygonic, but even if that is the case, CA shouldn't have moved on till it had it working, or at least make it work 4 years on with the same engine. Unfortunately for those that are buying their games neither happened.

[SpencerH]

Did you ever think that's because the majority of the criticism, like your post, was hyperbolic rantings and ravings full of exaggerations, insults, and threats? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously?

My post was filled with hyperbolic rantings? Feel free to point them out...

[SpencerH]

Quite frankly, the anger was even more intense after Rome was released. There was even a campaign to smear RTW on Amazon. The problem is that the same problems exist in the game 2 years later so someone has made a decision that decent AI is NOT important in the Total War games. I am sure that it is a monetary decision and comes down to the fact that out of the hundreds of thousands (millions yet?) that buy the game, only a few are serious enough about the game to care. The average noob only spends a few weeks/months playing and just wants to win so a crappy AI is an asset.

I have only encountered 2 strategic game developers that really care about their AI and they are Firaxis (Civ4) and Stardock (Galactic Civ2). CA just isn't one of those companies that puts the time and resources into creating a challenging game. They were when they started, but they haven't been in a long time. When you realize this, and that they probably have valid monetary reasons, you will realize that it is time to move onto other company's games if an AI is actually important to you. I know I have.

Just to be clear to those who werent here. It wasnt a smear campaign. We have every right to put our opinions onto amazon about the items listed there. I actually bought RTW at Amazon and felt quite OK about posting my opinions of it. Certain CA members here did get a little "miffed" though.

[Doug-Thompson]

Bugs, though frustrating, are fixable.

The lack of an effective AI is a core design failing.

I find myself being reluctantly forced to agree with those who argue that CA is not giving enough attention to making AI improvements. in core areas.

Before I go on and possibly get accused of being a malcontent ranter, allow me two points:

1. I've been a supporter of CA, more patient than many and maybe most. I've said before that I've consider the new, "free movement" map to be a very impressive feature but one that also imposes great burdens on designing an effective strategic AI. The programing used to have to decide on where to move one stack with a very limited range of options, sort of like tic-tack-toe. Now it has any number of stacks with any one of thousands of possible destination points every move. I am not willing to go back to a "Risk-style" map, however, which would be simplistic and a big step backwards.

2. We're not talking about one AI here, or at least not one thing the AI has to do. We're talking about at least four with considerable overlap and conflict: The resource management AI, the tactical AI; the diplomacy and agent AI and the military strategic movement and maneuver AI.

Resource management AI is notably better in Kingdoms, at least in the Teutonic campaign. I base that upon finding fewer stacks filled with useless, low-tier units. Danish stacks in my current campaigns have much better balanced armies with Viking Raiders, some archers and Huscarls instead of militia spearmen and a general, and in good quantities. Their cities have good upgrades, too.

Tactical AI is weak. I understand the core logic of trying to concentrate on a small reinforcement and crush it before a larger force. But to ignore the larger (human controlled) force? To turn every back in your army upon it and let it attack you from behind? To not even leave some archers as skirmishers to slow the bigger force down? To finally react by having your general charge the whole force? I could cite other examples of self-destructive behavior.

The diplomatic and agent management is OK, and I base that on clear signs of a will to live and to make concessions to accomplish that, at least in the Teutonic campaign.

The strategic maneuver and movement AI, however, is simply not up to the job. I could understand that in RTW, with the new free-movement map. However, we've been through BI, the Alexander expansion, MTW2 and now Kingdoms. While I consider MTW2 clearly superior to RTW in a number of important ways, the AI still falls short. Let me give just one example:

It eases into war by dipping its toe in the pool and not by jumping in. It will blockade a port or send one unit to besiege a town almost every time. It will, eventually, send a big army, but it keeps firing these warning shots. I can understand getting warnings about a barbarian horde coming your way or a Crusade being launched, but I never get a massive surprise attack from a rival out of the blue.

Here's an example from my latest campaign. The Danes were allied to me and they backstabbed me -- blockading a port. I moved an army all the way from central Russia to the Estonian border in the time it took them to move. I wiped their biggest army out. Their attack had no reasonable chance because their intention to attack was announced with fleabites.

It's a strange flaw for a game that quotes Machiavelli saying that the plans most likely to succeed are the ones kept secret until they are ripe for execution.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Doug-Thompson
Bugs, though frustrating, are fixable.

That's more true for the SP fans than the mp fans. The mp game is damaged greatly by bugs as the gameplay is altered with every released patch. However since TW is becoming almost exclusively concentated on SP, i guess that doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by Doug-Thompson
The lack of an effective AI is a core design failing.

The other design failings are the lack of playtesting for gameplay balance in the campaign and more importantly the battlefield. Balancing attempts are now made in the expansion and the vanilla release is treated more and more as a huge "beta testing".

Experience suggests that buying TW games upon release nowdays constitutes a true expenditure of patience and a test of nerves; better to buy them 2 or three years later (if they still look attractive) to play with modifications and full patches.

That still doesn't solve the poor strategic and tactical AI.

I have been writing about my reservations about the tactical AI handling shooters for a number of posts now regarding EmpireTW. CA is making the naval battles, makes a new engine and has to tackle the land battles that have different tactics based on shooters whithin two years.

However it seems that ship screenshots are perfectly capable of "screening" the hour upon hour of frustration that M2 has given out in terms of gameplay and challenge. As for the bugs, well i am always interested to hear about the new ones

Noir

[SpencerH]

I'm more than willing to forgive the "teething problems" with the strategic AI. What has caused me to stop playing is the essense of the game, the tactical battles. What was the biggest complaint with the RTW demo? The units were unrealistically and unreasonably fast, there was no control. We talked about it and decieved ourselves that "it was just the demo, the real game will be different". But it wasnt. We talked, and asked, and demanded change. Then came M2TW.

When the M2TW demo came out and the details of the game emerged, we discussed important matters like whether cannon elephants would be in the game. After all, they couldnt be, since there is no historical evidence they existed and no possible way to fire anything that could be called "a cannon" from the back of a elephant. But there they are! Great! Remember the calls for dark elves and other authentic units.

Remember the excitement over a "speed control" and the possibility that the units would not run at olympic sprinter speeds. All for naught. Yeah we can speed up the game (Great!) but the units are as fast and less manageable in M2TW than in RTW. Just who decided that the front line of a unit would attack an enemy while the remaining 2/3 stood around? maybe they had watched lots of Gung fu movies and were impressed with the characters in the background of the big fight scenes.

Lets not get into how bowmen are now as effective as children with wands (just how was Agincourt and Poitiers won anyway - musta been the stakes) while ballistae can now knock down castle walls.

[Noir]

The worst for me appears to be that the battlefield gameplay isn't intuitive anymore due to the animations taking over from unit stats and that cavalry has almost no counter and can take on anything in frontal charges. One can match up units but the result of the melee seems to be decided by forces that are incomprehensible to the player.

Balancing the game seems difficult as the animations need to be implicitly included into the balancing - changing a stat doesn't seem capable of doing the job anymore.

Control over units and armies has indeed degraded due to the absolute and relative speeds and the game remained action oriented with, despite the fact that there were attempts to re-introduce a more tactical gameplay through the blobbing penalty, the absence of which ruined tactics in RTW and possibly made the RTW AI look way dumber than it really ever was.

Noir

[Graphic]

My post was filled with hyperbolic rantings? Feel free to point them out fan boy.

I dont give a crap...It's irrelevant..."RTS in fancy dress"

You insulted the game, disregarded what the developers do to make a game, and had an angry disposition overall. Yeah, that'll get them to comply right away.

In any case the TW community has been among the most dedicated and optimistic ever since STW came out and i don't know how long have you been following the various forums dedicated to it or read their past posts but the stance of CA at various incidents has been pretty much as i describe above; hence the incident with the rejection of the mp petition that was signed by a significant number of known and full fledged members of the .org for RTW and many others that i do not wish to speak about. Are you aware of these episodes?

M2 was released with the shield bug and the two-hand bug that essentially ruined gameplay as they made it counter-intuitive. Does that bring flowers and praise out of you? Or the fact that you were playing so long without knowing their existance made everything ok?

I doubt very much that the AI needs to be an inch more complex because the men became 3D polygonic, but even if that is the case, CA shouldn't have moved on till it had it working, or at least make it work 4 years on with the same engine. Unfortunately for those that are buying their games neither happened.

I don't recall this petition. What did it call for, was it pre or post release? Link? Whatever it was, you still seem to assume their decision was born out of arrogance, greed, or indifference. Did they specifically state "Sorry, couldn't care less"? I highly doubt that. Have you considered that they didn't have time to implement all the suggestions, that they didn't have the resources to do it, or couldn't get the thumbs up from their corporate overlords?

I noticed those bugs shortly after I started playing. They were annoying but it really didn't hamper my enjoyment of the game (ruined gameplay? now there's that hyperbole I've been talking about ). I'd like you to point out a couple examples of games at 1.0 level that didn't have glaring bugs, you'll find that the vast majority, if not practically all of them, do. It's not unheard of. It's been patched since then so I'm not going to continue to hold a grudge against them.

I was specifically referring to the campaign map AI. MTW's map was just aesthetic, it could have played out exactly the same if it was just a bunch of staggered squares. It was actually incredibly simple. Move unit to adjacent square. Something happens that is randomly determined. End of AI. Now consider that compared to a 3D battlemap where walking distance, terrain, cities, farms, ports, and resources have to be considered, all while trying to position and outflank the adversary. You don't see how that's more complex?

[Graphic]

Bugs, though frustrating, are fixable.

...

See, the funny thing is I agree with much of your post, and the calm, cool, mature tone of it.

I seem to have to state this every couple posts but my point wasn't that no one's allowed to criticize the game or say anything bad about it or that it's perfect - quite the contrary. My whole point was that the bitterness and anger I see all the time is pointless, unproductive, and largely unwarranted.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Graphic
I don't recall this petition. What did it call for, was it pre or post release? Link? Whatever it was, you still seem to assume their decision was born out of arrogance, greed, or indifference. Did they specifically state "Sorry, couldn't care less"? I highly doubt that. Have you considered that they didn't have time to implement all the suggestions, that they didn't have the resources to do it, or couldn't get the thumbs up from their corporate overlords?

That petition was the reason why CA banned petitions and essentially closed the door. It was in all intents and purposes a reasonable amalgam of suggestions from a large part of the MP community, members of which have been pioneering in finding how the game works and bugs and conversely making suggestions as to rid of the swipe bug for example that benefited the SP game too. There are other incidents too which i feel is prudent not to discuss.

It seems that you are predisposed to excuse CA, so i don't know what you might make of their response to that. My personal estimate is that their response wasn't really good for that episode and for a few others.

Originally posted by Graphic
I noticed those bugs shortly after I started playing. They were annoying but it really didn't hamper my enjoyment of the game (ruined gameplay? now there's that hyperbole I've been talking about ).

It ruined gameplay since the match-ups were entirely distorted - if that's not ruining for you, then i arrest my case, sorry.

I guess you suggest that gameplay is fun when the player is not able to estimate what will happen in a melee because of the bugs present and does not have a trully decent anti-cavalry unit (making cavalry invincible and flanking maneuvers obsolete). I guess there are as many ways to have fun as there are people but talking about hyperboles? What else could be possibly wrong to mess up tactics for you, i wonder?

Originally posted by Graphic
I'd like you to point out a couple examples of games at 1.0 level that didn't have glaring bugs, you'll find that the vast majority, if not practically all of them, do. It's not unheard of.

I am sorry but this is irrelevant to me. It might be relevant for people that buy TW games, play them for a bit, leave them out and then play other games, but i play TW mostly.

On top of this older TW games were worked on by much smaller teams at about the same period of time and were having proportionally much less bugs. Ever since RTW, the number of bugs has increased probably ten-fold and most of them were interfering with the gameplay. Its a clear indication that the standard has droped and that deadlines and sales are taking over good gameplay and quality.

Originally posted by Graphic
It's been patched since then so I'm not going to continue to hold a grudge against them.

Neither do i, since i don't play M2TW.

Originally posted by Graphic
I was specifically referring to the campaign map AI. MTW's map was just aesthetic, it could have played out exactly the same if it was just a bunch of staggered squares. It was actually incredibly simple. Move unit to adjacent square. Something happens that is randomly determined. End of AI.

No it wasn't neither random neither simple. It was working well on the strategic level as it was well whithin the capabilities of the AI, that in all probability is the same (or very similar) as the one in the RTW/MTW engine.

CA IMO didn't move to the pseudo 3D map because it was more realistic or more complex or was giving better performance. It moved in all probability because this kind of representation (with the kiddy animated giants) was more familiar to the common RTS players and would attract younger SP players. CA staff have "hinted" clearly their aims to make the game "accessible" to 12 year olds and you can find the interviews for this in youtube.

CA succeded in their aim and the fanbase increase multifold since RTW came out despite the fact that there was a concensus among the community that the tactics were really degraded. The criticism for degrading the gameplay for exchange with visuals was ignored with an iron ear by CA during RTW - they denied even the obvious at several occasions (the obvious being that they had changed direction).

Originally posted by Graphic
You don't see how that's more complex?

Yes i do - now please point that out to CA too, that insists on using this map despite the fact that the strategic AI can't handle it. Players praise the pseudo 3D map (see post above) despite the fact that it ruined the strategy in the game as the AI isn't tuned with it. Its called bad design - but people will still stick to the newer version because it flattered their eyes and now they can't go back.

You try to say that CA is sort of innocent and in a sense is true. If RTW has been slandered and ignored sales - wise then they would be singing a very different song, i'm sure. Now though, they know that their games will succeed as long as they aim at streamlining them (take the depth out), visualising them (improve appearances) make them accessible (not too complex, not too difficult) and generally aim for breadth instead of depth; so they'll keep on the same track. I agree with you: its not really their fault.

Noir

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Read the manual (page 22)

Special thanks
......
Also to all those fans that make the Org a thriving cummunity. ........ and all the modders that have helped build a thriving community!

They listen to us and thank us. Of course they are human beings making mistakes. I for my part like the game. I am spending hours every day playing it. I have my moments of banging my head against the wall after a CTD, after a stupid decision of the AI, After.... But I have done that with all the games that I have played including Civ I to IV.

I really like this game. I think that some people simply have to many expectations of what is possible and what is fixable and especially how soon it is possible. Most improvements will probably come to light in Empire.

[Red Spot]

personally I dont know CA so cant say I like or dislike them ...
I do however know I like the main titels they released

Fact that CA let Sega implement such an intrusive CP-system is no reason to start a flame-war, but than again I can also understand that people who bought their games, often at full price, can feel rather insulted by such actions.

I can tell you I have ~€200,- worth of games I bought full pice cause I wasnt aware of the possible implications of some CP-systems and like what those developers made before.
So I'm paying to get my perfectly fine running system molested??
Thats how CA/Sega treats all of us, fans, paying customers, comprimising our systems for their income ...


G

[Mr Frost]

...Fact that CA let Sega implement ...

That would be like me saying "...fact that you let Damon Wayans make another movie..." .
The only realistic way you could have stopped him would have involved breaking the law several times , though in that example it would be justifyed .

Developers almost never have any control over copy protection . If C.A. were to insist , they would probably not be able to get a big enough producer to compete in the current games market .

How the hell were they to stop Sega ? They weren't even informed according to Caliban and Pallamedies . Should they have hired spys {illegal , called industrial espionage} and even if they had and thus found out what Sega was planning , then what ? Hired mercenaries to force them {obviously even more illegal} ? Mafia thugs ? What ?!

The only one who had any real say in the copy protection software was Sega . Blame Sega .
If you want to stop games from being produced with harmful or needlessly intrusive "copy protection" then target the producers , not the developers . Targeting developers who have no real say in the matter is a waste of time .

Of course , if you just want to Kvetch and take shots at someone because it makes you feel good , then keep doing what you're doing .

[SpencerH]

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

[alpaca]

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

Uh-oh, I see the water already retreating hundreds of yards from the shore

[Moah]

The worst for me appears to be that the battlefield gameplay isn't intuitive anymore due to the animations taking over from unit stats and that cavalry has almost no counter and can take on anything in frontal charges. One can match up units but the result of the melee seems to be decided by forces that are incomprehensible to the player.
Noir

But CA does listen to you!

They've specifically changed the stats for cav in Kingdoms. Cav is slaughtered by a frontal charge to spears or pikes.

But before you complain it's too weak they're still unmatchable as hammers, with HI anvils. Flank and rear, manouvering and tactics - they work.

Simply charging without thought = dead general.

I can now calmly have my cav flank the enemy an dleave none with my main army by just making sure I have some spears ready to charge to teh defence of my archers.

CA has rebalanced the entire nature of battles the way people asked - how is this saying "we hate you suckers and steal your money". I just don't get it at all....

[nameless]

The worst for me appears to be that the battlefield gameplay isn't intuitive anymore due to the animations taking over from unit stats and that cavalry has almost no counter and can take on anything in frontal charges

I dunno man, everytime I send a frontal cavalry charge I usually end up with quite a bit of dead horses....Unless your playing SS mod in which cavalry has no counter at all...

But CA does listen to you!

Not to mention they added a well-known TW modder onto the team.

[Noir]

For your information i gave already kudos sometime ago to the re-balancing team (Palamedes, lusted & Celtiberos clan) that worked in Kingdoms, which solves quite a few of the problems in the SP game:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89714

I don't take CA's word before i play; many promises were made over the years and they were either partially implemented or were simply forgotten altogether.

I am as happy to get good gameplay as anybody and rarely deny credits for when they are due.

Noir

[Nikos_Rouvelas]

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? Just play another game like Civ AoE or Europa Universalis. Personally I think they all pale in comparison to TW but thats just my opinion.

[Mr Frost]

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? ...

That is like saying "If you think that chicken tastes terrible , then why did you buy it ?"
Don't get it ? How would you know the chicken tastes like fried cardboard without eating it first , which in the real world requires you to purchase it , and the skin tastes good .

Game demos don't let you get a true feel for a full s.p. game {campaign in T.W.} nor do they give you a true idea of the M.P. experience .
Also , unlike Kentucky Fried Cardboard {I think they use artificial seagulls wrapped in chicken skin} , M2TW can be modded extensivly into something very different gameplay wise .

[mike2R]

A few random thoughts on the whole fanboys vs whiners thing:

I always tend towards the fanboy camp - not specifically on TW but other games too; you always get the same arguments on game forums in my experience. Recently I've been wondering why I always tend to take that position.

I think it boils down to working in a customer facing environment. I'm always polite to people I buy things from, because I know what it's like to be them. If something goes wrong, I will work out what I consider a reasonable resolution and then insist on it politely. If I don't get it I'll either withdraw my future custom or take matters further depending on what my rights are and how much money is involved.

I guess I take that on to computer games. If there's a bug then if I can be bothered I'll point it out, or agree with others who have pointed it out. But I'm not going to flame the developers because I seriously doubt it's going to do any good.

If that has any effect at all it will just be to annoy someone, and I don't have any desire to annoy someone for its own sake over a computer game that cost me 30 quid.

[SpencerH]

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? Just play another game like Civ AoE or Europa Universalis. Personally I think they all pale in comparison to TW but thats just my opinion.

I bought the game in the hope it had moved back to the fine tactical considerations that made the TW series great and away from the RTS-like focus that arrived with RTW. That is not the case, IMO. If anything, M2TW has moved further from the original games than RTW. It's hard to come to those conclusions without actually trying to play the game though.

I'm currently playing CIV4 BtS which I think is the best game since the original concept - even better than Alpha Centauri.

AoE, hmmm? Maybe it's not obvious but I'm not a fan of RTS (see above). I've played many but stopped when Shogun came out.

EU was Ok, just not my cup of tea.

[Nikos_Rouvelas]

I bought the game in the hope it had moved back to the fine tactical considerations that made the TW series great and away from the RTS-like focus that arrived with RTW. That is not the case, IMO. If anything, M2TW has moved further from the original games than RTW. It's hard to come to those conclusions without actually trying to play the game though.

I'm currently playing CIV4 BtS which I think is the best game since the original concept - even better than Alpha Centauri.

AoE, hmmm? Maybe it's not obvious but I'm not a fan of RTS (see above). I've played many but stopped when Shogun came out.

EU was Ok, just not my cup of tea.

If you were unsure you should have waited to see what other people said about it. No disrespect.

[SpencerH]

If you were unsure you should have waited to see what other people said about it. No disrespect.

It just doesnt work that way. I can get a feel about a game but I never really know whether I'll like it until I play it. Plus, most of the players who have had similar opinions to me about gameplay/unit/tactics dont seem to be here. Without knowing someones perspective, it's hard to evaluate their opinion.