CA I beseech you! (With poll)

[General SupaCrunk]

No, because i can't wait!

[Discoman]

At this point it seems unrealistic to be asking for this... but if they needed it I'd give them the two extra months. If there is one thing a customer wants its quality and if they're offering it then, and only them, am I going to take it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If it's really needed, then sure. However, if something like naval combat is not buggy but simply finished as CA sees it, then release it. At worst, I'll just auto-resolve naval battles (or avoid purchasing the game if it's really inconvenient).

[pyradyn]

I do want a fully structured game, but do remember the best beta test to find bugs, glitches is none other than full release. With millions playing bugs will be found that they never did in beta. As for full multiplayer in the game on release since we are getting a small 1 v 1 beta. Understand as I am a programmer as are a lot of the moders on this forums. That would not be a month or two delay we are talking about 6 month delay to a year to rebuild everything for MP. It is a lot of just changing code here and there but when you get to go through hundreds if not thousands of pages of code to change the smallest thing it is not a quick processes I will vote no CA cannot afford to break date again. To release when no other games come out is a smart move, then people who have never heard of TW and are just looking for a game might buy TW. The more people that CA can get that has never heard means they will tell friends. After all we all know CA final goal is world domination!


Again just my two cents....I am going to be broke here soon

[Durango]

It is a lot of just changing code here and there but when you get to go through hundreds if not thousands of pages of code to change the smallest thing it is not a quick processes I will vote no CA cannot afford to break date again.

%¤#*@!

Well, I voted for additional time anyway, rather than have the game riddled with bugs that take a year just to sort out.

[Marius Dynamite]

I don't think a 1 or 2 month delay would do any good. Much of that time would have to be spent re-testing the entire game because of only slight changes, and if they end up making some bugs because of these changes we could be seeing some very long delays.

The problems with the Naval battles won't be sorted in a month or so either. It's a new thing and will not be perfect and will possibly be very boring, but it is a start and at least from now on it will be (or should be) a key part of total war games as much as land battles.

As for the multiplayer campaign, bringing it out as an update is perfectly reasonable. It will let them see better how the SP campaign is working out for people and let them design around that. Also, for those who are not interested in a MP campaign, they don't have to wait. It's not a core element of the game after all.

[Sir Beane]

One advantage to releasing the MP campaign later than the SP is that it allows CA to see which units and factions are overused or overpowered. Then they can make adjustements to the MP campaign accordingly to balance things up.

Think of the SP as one great big public beta for the MP campaign.

[Zenicetus]

I voted "no." Obviously they should take whatever time is needed to release a game that's reasonably free of first-order bugs, and fun to play. That's a given. But if the idea is that they'd use the time to make naval combat more realistic and fun (for those of us who do know how to sail), then that ship has already sailed... the horse is out of the barn... pick your metaphor.

The devs have decided that a majority of players won't want to deal with tacking against the wind, with an enforced "no go" zone as there is in real life. So they're allowing square riggers to sail directly upwind with a speed penalty. They're not going to change that design decision, at this point. And it doesn't sound to me like something that can be modded (since the AI has to deal with it also).

So the only thing that remains, is to see whether the speed penalty for sailing upwind means that both the player and the AI actually sail and tack in a reasonable way in relation to the wind direction... or whether we end up with battles that are nothing more than circular tail chases. We might as well be driving powerboats if that's what battles will be like. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I want to see a naval combat demo.

[knoddy]

i like how 1 90% PLUS review gives birth to these sorts of threads. Give the guys at CA a break. ps they will not delay it now, its too late. there would be murder on the streets if they did :P

also MP was never in the original plan, they delayed it a month just to include it so ye

[Sir Beane]

i like how 1 90% PLUS review gives birth to these sorts of threads. Give the guys at CA a break. ps they will not delay it now, its too late. there would be murder on the streets if they did :P

also MP was never in the original plan, they delayed it a month just to include it so ye

Sadly 90% plus doesn't mean a great deal these days. I fully expect that Empire, like Medieval 2, will get nothing but high scoring reviews regardless of bugs, flaws and other problems.

It was the comment about naval combat being sub-par that had people worried. CA seem to be trying to address that issue however, so I'm remaining reasonably confident ETW will be a great game.

[neoiq5719]

Empire: Total War Finally Deploying on March 3

All grand strategy players in the world became a bit worried when, in December, Creative Assembly announced that it would delay the release of Empire: Total War to March, the game being expected to arrive in February. Games in the Total War series have a nasty history of shipping with bugs (although they are usually quickly fixed via patches) and a delay does not bode well for one of the few PC exclusives of 2009.

SEGA, as the publisher, and Creative Assembly, the developer, have released an official date of March 3 in North America and March 4 in the rest of the world for the game and promise that there will be no more delays. The publisher says that all copies of the game, whether they are bought in retail stores or downloaded, need to be activated through Steam. It also reveals that those players who buy the game through Steam will be able to pre-install it 48 hours before the release date, so they can then quickly activate it and get to play Empire: Total War.

The bad news for players is that the multiplayer mode for the campaign, which has been long requested by fans of the series, will not make it into the initial release. Still, Creative Assembly says that the mode is coming, but in a post launch patch. A beta is expected shortly after the release of the game and the developer believes that it will take note of the comments made by players.

The biggest innovation of Empire: Total War will be the introduction of naval warfare, which will be fully simulated. The game also moves into the XVIII and XIX centuries, allowing for more diplomatic options, a far expanded game map and a bigger importance for trade. Of course, as the name implies, the game continues to focus on warfare, with a new physics model and a better tactical AI.

Found in softpedia news( so issue closed or not?)

[USS Providence 1972]

I have not played ETW, or a demo, so I obviously do not know much about the game yet, but, the impression that I have gotten looking at the reviews, interviews, screenshots/videos, etc was that the game may be being rushed a bit, and certain aspects of it not as developed as they should be. In particular, I mean naval combat and the SP campaign map. Naval combat is the flagship of ETW, and is something that fans have wanted for a very long time, so I am sure that know how important it is that it is as well developed as land battles and up to Total War standards. (I have not seen the naval combat, so I am not sure if it is up to par with land battles or not, but reviews have made me suspect that it is not) Also, MP campaign is something that everyone has wanted for a long time, and could be one of the largest and most popular features of the new game. This is something that SHOULD be included with the game, not added on later. It is also something that needs to be up to par with the SP campaign.
I am not writing this to bash you CA, but to tell you that if you need more time you should just postpone the release a month or two if possible. Everyone WILL still buy the game, AND they will probably like it a lot more. I know that your distributers have deadlines on you, but I do not think that it would be an unwise business move to delay it a bit IF you need to to make sure that those parts of the game are up to Total War standards. I have been a fan of Total War from the start, and am sure that you will deliver an excellent game again, but please, if you need the time and if it is possible, just take the time to get it out right the first time.

Vuk

Here is a video of a naval battle. It looks good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU

I saw a reference to trying to make the naval aspect more fun. If that means deeper or more realistic I'm all for it but I hope the resist the temptation to add arcade stuff simply to make the game "fun". If they make it realistic with good AI it will be plenty fun.

[Belgolas]

I don't know if any of you guys remember Star Craft but it was released good but has had basically a thousand patches(well seems like it) after release. They have changed so much since the beginng. Then there are other games like Supreme Commander where they added extra content and units and fun stuff. Then there is Half-Life 2 and it is a first person shooter for those people not privilaged enough to play it and there are mods that turn it into a RTS. Infact there are several mods that do that with upgrading units and mounting guns and stuff that the original HL2 didn't have. So what I am getting at is that it can be fixed. Even after release I see no reason why CA can't release a patch that can change hard code. Why couldn't they since it is just some files that can be replaced. So no worries.

Please no more delays.

Although even when the game is released and got a perfect 100/100 there would still be people that would wait six months for a few patches anyways. I and the majority of the public do not want that. Besides we haven't even played a demo (which should get released this week if it goes to tradition). So who knows if it is good or not.

[Zenicetus]

Here is a video of a naval battle. It looks good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU

That video clip begins with two square-rigged fleets approaching each other head-on. Think about that for a minute. Where's the wind? If it's abeam (coming from the side) then this might be possible, but then why aren't the sails showing that? Each fleet's sails are showing that they're being blown and filled out from astern, but that can't be possible. Okay, maybe the sails don't show wind direction... I can live with that. But it gets worse...

At the 2:00 mark, a ship is shown being selected and making a fairly quick turn to starboard. It's doing that with every sail reefed (not deployed) except for very small sails at the bow and stern. Why is that ship fighting with its sails furled, when other ships in view are showing full sail? This might be due to damage, if we're coming in at the middle of a battle. That would be fine, but you still can't maneuver a sailing ship like this, when it isn't using sails as the "engine." These aren't rowboats.

At 2:49, that same ship is shown deploying full sails, in less than one second. It shouldn't work like that. It looks like the game is allowing very rapid furling of sails to minimize damage, and then deploying full sail again, all with no real effect on the ship's movement or turning rate.

At 2:56 you can see exactly the kind of circular tail chase, with no regard to wind direction, that I've been worried about. They're driving around like powerboats.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

[Polemists]

The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting...

Your against the main stream here I'm afraid. CA has stated once they did play testing back when ships could not sail into the wind and most players found it boring and dull. So they improved it to make it more "fun". Now most tw veteran historians get mad at "fun" because that usually means lack of "history".

Fact is your average gamer prefers a Sid Meyers Pirate like game more then a intense tactical naval simulation. At least that seems to be the design decision of CA.

Of course no one has seen final product, so we will just have to wait and see.

I still say no. The only argument now I hear is, well if they need time, give them time.

Yet the arguments here was basically, should we give them time to fix naval and mp.

Naval seems a design decision and MP will take a looong time. So I don't see much of the argument anymore, the release date is about as gold as it can get.

[knoddy]

i think this thread just proves that u cant please everyone.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

hate to say it but u will be in a minority here. this will be the reason why CA chose a more arcady style of battle, because they know the majority of people like big epic battles.

i have to say i didnt mind Pirates, but then i wasnt after a naval battle simulator. and also despite the crazy turning u could do in pirates the wind still did have an effect. this is how i suspect it will be in Empire, the wind will have a role, it will just be toned down to make the game more playable and exciting. which im ok with.


and finally aside from the 1 review that said naval combat was a bit worrying or w/e it was. all the other reviews have been full of praise for the naval combat so how bout we wait for demo/release b4 we start criticizing everything we see.


also the camp map looks so damn sexy cant wait :D

Cheers knoddy

[Ituralde]

Concerning the question at hand here, whether I think that CA should delay the game if needed is really easy to answer, I think. The answer is of course yes! If the game crashes every other instant then it should not be shipped. Why didn't I vote it then? Because I don't think it would answer the question asked by Vuk. So much depends on the definition of the if needed part.

From what I've read you seem more interested in getting one of the following answered.
1) Do you think ETW is ready to release in its current state?
2) Would you still buy ETW if it came out one to two months later?

Especially 1) seems to be the issue of much discussion and speculation in this post. My personal oppinion on this is, that I believe ETW to be polised enough to make the March release date. But I would stlly buy ETW if it came out two month later. Of course I would be initially disappointed about it, but as a gamer you learn to live with delays.

So I hope that answers your question without changing the numbers of the poll too much, as I don' think the numbers hold much value to the question at hand.

Cheers!

Ituralde


Besides, where is the Gah! option?

[Fisherking]

Thanks for the video USS Providence 1972.

I have to say I will have to have the game or at least a demo in hand before I can pass judgment on the naval battles.

The instant setting and furling of sails is arcade-like. But I fear that 12 year olds are not going to want to wait for their top men and deck crews to rig sail. I can’t say I actually really expected a sailing sim. That would be a bit much for the parent company to stomach unless it was the total focus of the game, I fear, and even then they would want the “fun factor” to be higher.

The wind moved around about 45° from start to finish, and I don’t know what the strength was.

It was very hard to tell what shot they were firing. Chain may have been fired but it was obvious that round was much over used. Not less than three and perhaps five or even six ships sunk.

Capture didn’t seem to be a priority. If a prize crew was put aboard the one ship, I sure couldn’t see a result.

It was a decisive battle and it sure didn’t take much time. To me it was reckless by both the player and the AI…but it was quick!


The quote from the article above shows they are not going to delay so that discussion is mute.

Besides the quicker we get it the less tweaking to make it “fun” they can do.

Though with Steam and continuing support it won’t be possible to stop it…

[Polemists]

One thing to bear in mind also is that isn't just CA's call, those days are gone. It's true CA once had complete call on everything but now they answer to Sega as well as fans.

There is already a sega release coming out in summer and one in spring, so it's probably in Sega's interest that this comes out Q1 rather then Q2.

I think the article proves that in it's current state it's fun, and the comment proves the date is pretty solid.

At this point I think you are best if you just try to have fun and not focus on the minor nuiances in great detail.

[Zenicetus]

Your against the main stream here I'm afraid. CA has stated once they did play testing back when ships could not sail into the wind and most players found it boring and dull.

That's not how I remember it. What I remember is a CA rep posting a message here saying that they tried realistic tacking, and playtesters (internally, I assume) got confused when they told a ship to "go over there," and the ship turned 45 degrees to the opposite direction because you can't sail directly upwind. Or anywhere near that direction, with a square-rigger.

This is understandable, but it's a question of education. Players learn other things about warfare in this period. We had to learn about phalanxes in Rome. We had to learn about pikes and horse archers. Why shouldn't the naval combat be as tactically interesting as the land combat? Why should it be dumbed down like this? It's not rocket science. You can learn the points of sail, and why ships can't sail directly upwind without engines, with a few minute's study of the Wiki on sailing. The basics of sailing are much less complicated than learning all the minutae of land combat. Without it, the naval combat is an arcade game.

So they improved it to make it more "fun". Now most tw veteran historians get mad at "fun" because that usually means lack of "history".

Do you know why many people still own, and even race sailboats, even though it's a totally outmoded form of transportation on the water? It's because sailing is fun! It's a challenge to move a boat with just wind power. Sailboat racing is fun too, and it involves exactly the same tactics as combat at sea.

Steering ships around as if they had engines and screw props can be fun too, but let's make that a WWI game about the golden age of dreadnought battleships, not the golden age of expansion of Empires by sailing fleets.

Naval seems a design decision and MP will take a looong time. So I don't see much of the argument anymore, the release date is about as gold as it can get.

I agree. But it won't stop some of us from wishing it could have been more.

[Zenicetus]

I can’t say I actually really expected a sailing sim. That would be a bit much for the parent company to stomach unless it was the total focus of the game, I fear, and even then they would want the “fun factor” to be higher.

This is the part I really don't understand. Fans of historical land combat will nitpick the Total War game series to death on minor points of historical accuracy. They'll obsess over whether a shield is being held on the correct side of a soldier to give the right damage reduction against archers. But apparently, most don't care if the naval combat is not up to the same standard.

It's very frustrating for those of us who actually have sailed on real water, when we can't get the same depth on the naval combat side of the simulation. I know that not everyone here is a sailor, but I hope you can understand the frustration. Imagine being a fan of the historical longbow, and seeing it modeled in the game as an AK-47 assault rifle. It's about on the same level.

And the shame of it is that sailing tactics are fun! Or at least, they should be.

[Belgolas]

Guys that video is a few months old. They probably fixed some of it up. Anyways I vote that naval combat be less realistic but more fun. Although like all other TWs you should be able to choose arcade battles or not. So I dpn't see why there isn't an options box. Unless the AI can't handle it. Although if naval battles are too hard for the average joe then they probably wont play it.

[hoom]

I would be entirely happy for CA to delay even until next year if they need the time to make the game as good as possible.
I still play mods for the Rome engine now & there are a bunch of bugs from that engine that were never fixed either by CA or by modders.
To me it is much preferable for CA to take the time & make sure everything works properly.

[Polemists]

Well Zen, whether you missed or not here were Jack Lusted comments on the issue a while back, I can link the thread in a edit later if you like

You expect gamers to be sophisticated enough to appreciate flanking tactics and the use of cavalry in land combat, but you think they're unable to grasp the concept of tacking in sail combat?

Oh I'm sure they could, it's just that we felt battles are better without forcing the player to spend ages tacking up wind just to be able to engage.

Or is that CA just couldn't develop an AI that could handle it?

No the AI can and does tack if it's required. Remember, just because we've not made tacking required doesn't mean that if you choose to tack you'll see benefits.

This might as well have been a WW1 game with propeller-driven ships, if you're going to disregard the way sailing ships actually move on the water!

Ships do move at different speeds relating to the wind direction(and in fact sail fastest with wind slightly off one beam instead of directly behind them) so it's a very realistic sailing model, the only thing we've really changed is ships sailing into the wind

.

You can say it's dull or you can say it's annoying or a fun factor or whatever. The bottom line was everything you want, tacking, wind, etc is in there, just in small dosages. Which people enjoyed more then large doses. (or CA thought they would enjoy more)

Like I said it's probably like Sid Meyers which I found very fun but several historians here loathe. Just personal opinons at end fo the day.

[Fisherking]

This is the part I really don't understand. Fans of historical land combat will nitpick the Total War game series to death on minor points of historical accuracy. They'll obsess over whether a shield is being held on the correct side of a soldier to give the right damage reduction against archers. But apparently, most don't care if the naval combat is not up to the same standard.

It's very frustrating for those of us who actually have sailed on real water, when we can't get the same depth on the naval combat side of the simulation. I know that not everyone here is a sailor, but I hope you can understand the frustration. Imagine being a fan of the historical longbow, and seeing it modeled in the game as an AK-47 assault rifle. It's about on the same level.

And the shame of it is that sailing tactics are fun! Or at least, they should be.

While a lot of fans broil over historical inaccuracies, when the smoke clears, they have always gone with some “fan boy” fix to a precived problem that wasn’t there in the first place.

It is a shame that the history and realisam is usualy sacrificed because someone with an attention span disorder can’t fallow what is going on. It isn’t just in the naval game however and it is not just CA that does it.

I can’t think of a sailing naval simulater that is accurate, if someone knows one…drop a name.

I am looking forward to this game…even with out all the nay saying.

If you want to wait a year or two for a game…than that is the next one. Maybe E2TW will give you what you want.

I can hardly wait for them to add ship to shore warfare and landing parties, but I don’t want to wait for them to rewrite the engien and put it in.

Multiplayer in a few months I can live with, especially since that is what they told us in December.

I would much rather be playing the game and complaining about it than spending endless hours discussing what if, and will this be in ,or how much delay to have the game this way…

[Polemists]

I don't think it's just navy getting picked on, if you scoured these forums you'd find there are historians of land combat who are just as angry about certain things in ETW (land formations, charges, musket volley, etc).

However, at the end of the day, like I said, you can call it not a "fun factor", you can call it angles, you can call it hyper active kids, you can call it short attentions spans. Whatever phrase you like.

When they get the testers together though, they seem to want the factors included in a minor fashon.

Not say wind is not in, it's just not AS in as some want.

The fact it's in at all, is CA trying to cater a little to the veterans, because let's face it, they could do red alert 3 graphics naval combat, and the game would still sell at end of the day. The rts fans out number the historians, fact of life. The two groups rarely get along.

[Sir Beane]

I like as much historical accuracy as CA can get in game, but it isn't why I play the game. I play the game for the escapism, scale, scope and spectacle. If it happens to be histoprically accurate as well then thats a nice bonus.

Most people aren't holding naval combat to the same standard as land combat because CA have had four games and several expansions to get the land combat feeling right. This is the first time we have seen naval, so many people aren't expecting too much from it.

I have to admit to being slighty disappointed with things like sailing against the wind and being able to turn on the spot though.

[Polemists]

I guess it all depends what you want, I was just happy they fixed diplomacy, and AI.

After that it's all gravy.

[Sir Beane]

I guess it all depends what you want, I was just happy they fixed diplomacy, and AI.

After that it's all gravy.

They only say they did. We don't actually have any proof yet.

Im remaining quitely confident though.

Please let them have fixed it.

[Polemists]

They only say they did. We don't actually have any proof yet.

Im remaining quitely confident though.

Please let them have fixed it.

Well going off the review, and I only have the one. The guy did manage to keep spain and france from attacking him through bribes and diplomacy, and it sounds like he choose to fight the ottomans.

So sounds like diplomacy at least, makes sense.