PTW: Not Quite Ready
Fergus Gibson
Amiga), I rushed out to buy PTW the day it came to my local store. Ever
since, I have been enjoying BUT ALSO shaking my head at PTW. It's half
finished, full of problems, overpriced, and sometimes bizarre.
I recalled reading that PTW would come with a feudal Japan and a WW2
scenario. Whoever wrote that was very mistaken. It comes with the unit
animations and sounds so that we can create these two scenarios for
ourselves. Nice, but what did I pay so much for? Almost all of the
included scenarios are files I could have downloaded off the net, complete,
as Roger has noted, with tonnes of spelling errors.
The game's problems include some pretty bizarre ones. The Arabs and the
Chinese share the same unique colour. What were they thinking? They didn't
even bother to check? At least this error is easy to correct in the editor,
but once again, what am I paying them for if I need to "fix" the game they
sold me?
Another problem I have noticed is that outposts don't work as advertised.
The Civilopedia says that they see 2 squares on flat land, 3 on a hill, and
4 on a mountain. This is just not so. As far as I am able to determine,
they see 1, 2, and 3 respectively -- their vision is very comparable to a
normal unit. This makes them a fairly marginal addition, IMO, since you can
either build a unit and maybe pay maintenance for it depending on your
government, or you can build a worker and lose a point of population in
order to build an outpost.
The final problem I observed, and there might be others I haven't noticed
yet, is that the H'wacha is said to be capable of lethal bombardment; but it
isn't. Curiously, it does not have the lethal bombardment flag. I don't
know if the Civilopedia is wrong or the unit is wrong.
My penultimate complaint is the price. It's very nice that they have made
an expansion, but it seems to me that multiplayer and the eight additional
civilizations ought to have been in the original game. Most other games,
including SMAC, a Civilization-inspired Firaxis product, come with
multiplayer and 16 civilizations was far fewer than were available in Civ 2.
I don't think the expansion should cost as much as the original game.
And for my final complaint, I'll expand on my statement that PTW is
sometimes bizarre. What in the name of all that is holy is "medieval
infantry"? I don't expect total unit realism, but this unit is an
abomination. It looks like it's basically a dismounted knight, and that's
not at all what medieval infantry was.
Medieval infantry was mostly peasants who were charged with dying en masse.
Later infantry was the pikeman, so what is this unit doing there?
Medieval infantry also disrupts the unit balance, IMO, because, unless you
lack iron -- in which case you're in a serious trouble -- the longbowman is
now useless. It costs just as much as the medieval infantry, but it has a
worse defence value.
Despite all of these complaints against medieval infantry, I do like that
the swordsman is no longer a dead end, but I just don't think this unit is
right.
I guess I should say at least one thing that is positive. Berserks are fun,
though they seem ridiculous overpowered. I can't believe how easy it is to
load galleys full of berserks and then take out all of an enemy's coastal
cities as my blood-mad Viking warriors roll over their pikemen like they
were accountants. I guess this wasn't an entirely positive statement after
all...
Will
Really?
"Fergus Gibson" <ferg/ne...@islandnet.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
10365654...@news.islandnet.com...
Todd Stephens
Fergus Gibson <ferg/ne...@islandnet.com> proclaimed for all who would
listen:
>
> The final problem I observed, and there might be others I haven't
> noticed yet, is that the H'wacha is said to be capable of lethal
> bombardment; but it isn't. Curiously, it does not have the lethal
> bombardment flag. I don't know if the Civilopedia is wrong or the
> unit is wrong.
>
I changed that in the editor. Heck, I had to change a lot of things in the
editor to get the .bix file to match the old .bic file I was using "regular"
CIV>
> My penultimate complaint is the price. It's very nice that they have
> made an expansion, but it seems to me that multiplayer and the eight
> additional civilizations ought to have been in the original game.
> Most other games, including SMAC, a Civilization-inspired Firaxis
> product, come with multiplayer and 16 civilizations was far fewer
> than were available in Civ 2. I don't think the expansion should cost
> as much as the original game.
>
? I remember CIV3 being $40 or $50 US when it came out. I got PTW for $30
US.
>
> I guess I should say at least one thing that is positive. Berserks
> are fun, though they seem ridiculous overpowered. I can't believe
> how easy it is to load galleys full of berserks and then take out all
> of an enemy's coastal cities as my blood-mad Viking warriors roll
> over their pikemen like they were accountants. I guess this wasn't
> an entirely positive statement after all...
Yes. I love those berserkir. I finally found a UU that actually makes a
civ worth playing :-) What about those guerilla units? What is the point of
those? I changed the berserk to upgrade to marines instead of guerillas.
Just made more sense to me, preserving the amphibious ability and whatnot.
--
Todd Stephens
Sin
> US.
Indeed. I bought civ 3 for 75$ CND and PTW is 45$ CND... They aren't the
same price...
> civ worth playing :-) What about those guerilla units? What is the point
of
> those? I changed the berserk to upgrade to marines instead of guerillas.
> Just made more sense to me, preserving the amphibious ability and whatnot.
You'll learn the use of guerilla when you end up with Replacable parts but
no rubber!
They're basically a cheaper infantry that don't need any special ressource.
You have to agree that not having rubber at that particular part of the tech
tree pretty much makes you the bitch of everyone else. The tanks are usually
close by too... The guerilla are a welcomed addition for me, although they
are totally useless if you do have rubber.
Alex.
Todd Stephens
Sin <bro...@hotmail.com> proclaimed for all who would listen:
>
> You'll learn the use of guerilla when you end up with Replacable
> parts but no rubber!
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
--
Todd Stephens
Fergus Gibson
> ? I remember CIV3 being $40 or $50 US when it came out. I got PTW
> for $30 US.
Well, I don't remember at all what I paid for Civ 3. All I know is that if
you like me think the expansion should have been part of Civ 3 to begin
with, you end up with a very darn expensive game. Seventy to eighty dollars
US is pretty crazy.
> Yes. I love those berserkir. I finally found a UU that actually
> makes a civ worth playing :-) What about those guerilla units? What
> is the point of those?
As Sin pointed out, they don't require rubber. I would add that while they
are markedly inferior to infantry, they do provide an upgrade path for a lot
of older units that would otherwise be orphaned.
> I changed the berserk to upgrade to marines
> instead of guerillas. Just made more sense to me, preserving the
> amphibious ability and whatnot.
I haven't made that change myself, but I have definitely shared this
sentiment. It's almost as if the designer felt that since the berserkir
replaces the longbowman, he should have to follow the longbowman's upgrade
path. It really makes far more sense for them to upgrade to marines, and
I'll probably make that change too.
Scott Roper
> Really?
Yes.
-Scott
Paul J Gans
[...]
>> Medieval infantry was mostly peasants who were charged with dying en
>masse.
Actually, no. Take Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon infantry held
off the Norman army, complete with knights, infantry, and
archers for more than 9 hours. Of course, the AS troops
were on a hill, which gave them a defensive bonus, but even
so....
[...]
---- Paul J. Gans
Fergus Gibson
>>> Medieval infantry was mostly peasants who were charged with dying
>>> en masse.
>
> Actually, no. Take Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon infantry held
> off the Norman army, complete with knights, infantry, and
> archers for more than 9 hours. Of course, the AS troops
> were on a hill, which gave them a defensive bonus, but even
> so....
I have only a passing familiarity with this particular battle, but I do
believe that the infantry in question where primarily lightly armoured at
best and wielding axes. It doesn't seem to me that they are the model for
the medieval infantry unit that appears in PTW, particularly since that unit
is just as effective as knights on offence and nearly as effective as nights
on defence. I continue to think the effectiveness of the unit is grossly
unrealistic.
Insane Ranter
"Fergus Gibson" <ferg/ne...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:10375216...@news.islandnet.com...
Who says Medieval Infantry were peasents? Maybe in Russia or Japan.....Also
depends on where in the world you are....
Kitten
> believe that the infantry in question where primarily lightly armoured at
> best and wielding axes. It doesn't seem to me that they are the model for
> the medieval infantry unit that appears in PTW, particularly since that
unit
> is just as effective as knights on offence and nearly as effective as
nights
> on defence. I continue to think the effectiveness of the unit is grossly
> unrealistic.
>
as infantry. They did this also at Crecy (where the French did the same). In
the wars between England and Scotland, much of the English infantry was
similarly made up of dismounted knights/serjeants/men-at-arms. I can't be
sure (haven't got PTW yet) but I would imagine that's what is meant by
medieval infantry.
Incidentally, re Hastings: while the majority of the English were
light/medium armed, the core of Harold's army was the housecarls, who were
by no means lightly armed. They were every bit the equivalent of medieval
infantry, especially in defence (think shield-wall).
Rob Wynne
>Incidentally, re Hastings: while the majority of the English were
>light/medium armed, the core of Harold's army was the housecarls, who were
>by no means lightly armed. They were every bit the equivalent of medieval
>infantry, especially in defence (think shield-wall).
>
>
Indeed:
http://www.chivalry.com/cantaria/lyrics/shieldw.html
-R
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
Gafilk 2003: Jan 10-12, 2003, Atlanta, GA -- http://www.gafilk.org/
Paul J Gans
Of course. The entire game is unrealistic that way. All the
unit names do is give you a "hook" on which to hang expectations
of the abilities of the units. It is better to call them "medieval
infantry" than to call them "snagglegops".
---- Paul J. Gans