ROME TOTAL NONSENSE^H^H^H WAR: Insanely Speeded Up RTS Garbage?
Giftzwerg
Uh, even with the "speed mod" installed, this is just comical. Is there
any point in my going on with this silly click & twitch bullshit? Or
should I just shelve it and move on with something that appears to have
been designed around (a) human beings and (b) normal earth gravity and
(c) non-relativistic time?
[Have the "designers" of this batshit ever walked a half mile? Do they
understand that it can't be marched in 20 seconds? Is the problem
really that fundamental?]
--
Giftzwerg
***
"I would call the French 'scumbags,' but that would
be a disservice to bags filled with scum."
- Dennis Miller
Nats
the http://twcenter.net/ mods for some great speed mods. I recommend the
following mod speeds for unit travel. I got them from a mod and they seem
fine to me. I also modded the attack rates so the battles span out more as
well.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
climate default
grass_short 0.792
grass_long 0.792
sand 0.792
rock 0.792
forest_dense 0.6
scrub_dense 0.792
swamp 0.792
mud 0.792
mud_road 0.792
stone_road 0.792
water 0.48
ice 0.396
snow 0.5
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Giftzwerg" <gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bcb4f20a...@news-central.giganews.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28/09/2004
Hermann
> there any point in my going on with this silly click & twitch
> bullshit? Or should I just shelve it and move on with something
> that appears to have been designed around (a) human beings and (b)
> normal earth gravity and (c) non-relativistic time?
I honestly didn't think this was much of a problem, as I usually speed up
the battle pace anyway, but this seems to be a common gripe, and might be
corrected in the patch. CA has a history with slow and few patches though
(but that is more a statement on the comparatively rigid testing rather than
sloppy coding).
You're spot on about gravity, though.
I'm more bothered with the in-battle movie-style sequences whenever you
break open city gates. It seems CA went for a more cinematic feel rather
than realism, which, of course, is evident from the rest of the game.
I'm very pleased that this game, unlike M:TW and S:TW actually provides a
decent challenge on the very hard game settings.
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>I'm more bothered with the in-battle movie-style sequences whenever you
>break open city gates. It seems CA went for a more cinematic feel rather
>than realism, which, of course, is evident from the rest of the game.
I think you can turn those off.
I still haven't made up my mind about this game... so many good
things here, marred with almost as many bad things.
I am terribly sorry they didn't use this "advanced graphics
engine" with previous two titles - Shogun and Medieval. This
super-fast fights would suit those two better. Shogun wasn't 100%
realistic but is among top 5 games on my personal "fun and strategy
factor" list of all times.
But, as we all know antique battles were slow, pushing and
shoving, rugby-match like affairs. In RTW units break and lose morale
very quickly, which unerves me much more than the fact they march and
charge quickly (I used to click on FFWD during their march phases in
STW and MTW anyway).
I do hope the morale modelling can be modded, as it *could* help
the game tremendously. Last night I could not help but laugh when the
following happened....
One of my onagers (catapult-like thingies) was charged by enemy
cavalry. They destroyed the machines, but onager crews survived,
because enemy cavalry was counter attacked by my own cavalry a bit
later. So I had two onager crews with super-low ratings, armed with
what appears to be bread knives, wandering aimlessly around the
battlefield or sifting thru charred remains of their once mighty war
machines. Fine. Enemy units started to break, and most had their
morale seriously shaken.
One of the remaining enemy units was some elite greek hoplite
infantry - serious looking dudes armed with very long spears
(lances?). Just for the fun of it, I ordered my onager crews to charge
the elite greek dudes, expecting them to be massacred to a last man.
Au contraire! Hoplite dudes - already having their morale shaken by
their general being killed and whatnot - broke at the sight of 20-some
overweight onager crew reservists and run for their life. Onager dudes
went running after them, and cut them down with their bread-knives
mercilessly. I mean how "shaken" a soldier must be to allow slow
artillery crewman to kill him with a knife, even when he's armed with
what appears like 10x more dangerous weapon.
Only thing I am sorry about is that I didn't saved the "batrtle
replay" after the affair was over.
O.
Peter Ford
> understand that it can't be marched in 20 seconds? Is the problem
> really that fundamental?]
Experiences teaches that it's better to consider any new, unpatched
Creative Assembly opus as a 'suggestion'.
Giftzwerg
nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Huh? With the slow mods my game seems great. Exactly right in fact. Look at
> the http://twcenter.net/ mods for some great speed mods. I recommend the
> following mod speeds for unit travel. I got them from a mod and they seem
> fine to me. I also modded the attack rates so the battles span out more as
> well.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> climate default
>
> grass_short 0.792
> grass_long 0.792
> sand 0.792
> rock 0.792
> forest_dense 0.6
> scrub_dense 0.792
> swamp 0.792
> mud 0.792
> mud_road 0.792
> stone_road 0.792
> water 0.48
> ice 0.396
> snow 0.5
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
0.5 *what* in snow? 0.5Mach? 0.5c?
I flipped up a "quick battle," hit the "start" button, and timed it with
a stopwatch to see how long it would take the AI to plan, initiate, and
completely execute a whole battle.
Nine minutes. From start to finish.
I've seen dogfights in IL2 that lasted longer.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If it weren't for the small matter of the war for civilization,
I'd find it hard to resist a Kerry Presidency. Groucho Marx once
observed that an audience will laugh at an actress playing an old
lady pretending to fall downstairs, but, for a professional comic
to laugh, it has to be a real old lady. That's how I feel about
the Kerry campaign."
- Mark Steyn
Gizmo
Well, Giftzwerg, as you know in those ancient days after battle comes
plunder and rape of women so everyone hurry to slaughter the enemy :o)
Mario
Robert Pollard
for that console. Explains why RTW is completly dumbed down. Its still a fun
game, but with minor tweaking it could have been VERY good.
As it stands battles occur so fast that you cannot outflank anyone. My heavy
infantry can sprint for miles, at sub 4 minute miles, the only issue for
them is they are 'winded' when they get there, despite all the armour they
carry. A quick rest and they are soon ready for battle.
The units even do dumbed down RTS stuff where all their bases go green and
they declare you have clicked on them.
Also of annoyance... Whose idea was it to invite the WWF? You know the bits
I mean, just before deployment in a battle... The bit where the rhetoric
sounds EXACTLY like a wrestler from the WWF sizing an oponent up in the
ring?
I like this game, but I could of loved it. However, the need to accomodate
the XBox and the generation-X dweebs that use it, has meant that a
potentially very good game has been completley ruined.
I don't play the battles anymore, unless I'm outnumbered by a significant
amount. I just auto them because they are just too boring.
I hope someone somewhere sorts this game out.
RobP
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bcba2482...@news-east.giganews.com...
Thomas Davie
news:MPG.1bcb4f20a...@news-central.giganews.com:
>
> Uh, even with the "speed mod" installed, this is just comical. Is
there
> any point in my going on with this silly click & twitch bullshit? Or
> should I just shelve it and move on with something that appears to have
> been designed around (a) human beings and (b) normal earth gravity and
> (c) non-relativistic time?
>
> [Have the "designers" of this batshit ever walked a half mile? Do they
> understand that it can't be marched in 20 seconds? Is the problem
> really that fundamental?]
>
You must not be the real Giftzwerg that normally makes sense. The game is
as moddable as you want to make it. I know, I know....why couldn't the
designers get it right the first time. You see, hidden within the
confines of what I am assuming you are actually calling a piece of twitch
and click bullshit is a detailed highly controllable wargame.
The file export_descr_unit_speed allows you to make the game as fast or
as slow as you want it. Want to play like you've just taken a hit of
methyl-amphetamine? Change this
climate default
grass_short 1.0
grass_long 1.0
sand 1.0
rock 1.0
forest_dense 0.75
scrub_dense 1.0
swamp 1.0
mud 1.0
mud_road 1.0
stone_road 1.0
water 0.6
ice 0.5
snow 0.75
which is the default into numbers 5 times as much. Want to slow it down
to something you think is more appropriate? Well....you get the picture.
But Tom, that's not my job. Ok, shrug. Your loss. I don't give a toss.
But the game is modifiable. Maybe you should learn a little thing called
patience. .
Really, what is your problem?
Tom
Giftzwerg
roberta...@hotmail.com says...
> Its shit. Can anybody say X-Box? I bet this game has an evil twin destined
> for that console. Explains why RTW is completly dumbed down. Its still a fun
> game, but with minor tweaking it could have been VERY good.
>
> As it stands battles occur so fast that you cannot outflank anyone. My heavy
> infantry can sprint for miles, at sub 4 minute miles, the only issue for
> them is they are 'winded' when they get there, despite all the armour they
> carry. A quick rest and they are soon ready for battle.
Were the previous TOTAL WAR titles this bad? I never got into them
because I suspected exactly what I found here; an RTS clickfest. I was
expecting GBOH/A/C and got C&C with elephants and pikemen.
HR
There are easy a 100 battles to fight and to have a long detailed tactical
battle would just make the game too long and hence unplayable.
The game is akin to Legions,though more sophisticated, which also had quick
battles but with a LOT less options than present in RtW.
So basing the game soley on the tactical element,though clearly it's better
than anything current, is just missing the boat. I guess you can't have it
both ways (tactical and strategic) unless you got hours on end to play. As
it is now it's a very long game.
At any rate slowing down the game will not enhance the tactics anymore so as
they can be handled as they are now. I might have to pause it once,if at
all.
CD
"Nats" <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cjsa09$spd$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Huh? With the slow mods my game seems great. Exactly right in fact. Look
> at the http://twcenter.net/ mods for some great speed mods. I recommend
> the following mod speeds for unit travel. I got them from a mod and they
> seem fine to me. I also modded the attack rates so the battles span out
> more as well.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> climate default
>
> grass_short 0.792
> grass_long 0.792
> sand 0.792
> rock 0.792
> forest_dense 0.6
> scrub_dense 0.792
> swamp 0.792
> mud 0.792
> mud_road 0.792
> stone_road 0.792
> water 0.48
> ice 0.396
> snow 0.5
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
This must be you version 3 mod Nats. I'll update to this and see what
happens. As for the previous mod. I seem to be having a problem with troops
in woods during both summer and winter. All troops (both foot and mounted)
belonging to the player and AI seen to be walking like there on ice. The
have the appearance of walking or running but have very little forward
movement until there finally free of the forest. I checked my movement
modifiers update and all appears to be correct. Any Ideas???
CD
Nats
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"CD" <loco_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4161f9f9$0$23896$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Giftzwerg
tda...@rediffmail.com says...
> You must not be the real Giftzwerg that normally makes sense. The game is
> as moddable as you want to make it. I know, I know....why couldn't the
> designers get it right the first time. You see, hidden within the
> confines of what I am assuming you are actually calling a piece of twitch
> and click bullshit is a detailed highly controllable wargame.
Ah. I see. So your position is that they *designed* a hideous cowpie
of click & twitch bullshit, but by tediously editing some text files
it's possible - by extensive trial and error - for the gamer to jigger
these numbers and cut the brain-damage to some sort of less insane
level? Sort of like a gaming version of ripping one's hair out diddle-
fucking with xf86config, circa 1996?
I mean, I've seen a couple of "mods" for this, and I have no clue if the
"modder" knows squat about how fast a friggin' *elephant* can cover
ground, or a heavy pikeman, or a light cavalry horse.
These are things the game designer is supposed to research - *and* *get*
*right*.
> The file export_descr_unit_speed allows you to make the game as fast or
> as slow as you want it. Want to play like you've just taken a hit of
> methyl-amphetamine? Change this
>
> climate default
>
> grass_short 1.0
> grass_long 1.0
> sand 1.0
> rock 1.0
> forest_dense 0.75
> scrub_dense 1.0
> swamp 1.0
> mud 1.0
> mud_road 1.0
> stone_road 1.0
> water 0.6
> ice 0.5
> snow 0.75
>
> which is the default into numbers 5 times as much. Want to slow it down
> to something you think is more appropriate? Well....you get the picture.
No. I don't. What you're suggesting is ludicrous. These numbers are
general multipliers which apply to *all* units - from camels to
legionaries to heavy axemen to light bowmen to cavalry. Are you
seriously suggesting that if *everything* is moving too fast, I can slow
elephants and men walking by *precisely the same factor* and end up with
correct figures?
I mean, do you really believe that *horses* and *men* move through mud
at the same relative rate? Shouldn't a swamp stop a chariot cold, but
be no particular obstacle at all to an elephant? Shouldn't a forest
stymie an elephant, but allow easy passage to barbarian infantry?
Sorry, but this "fix" is nothing more than a crude, ham-handed attempt
to amateurishly slow down movement rates (which are clearly stupid)
across the board. If they couldn't get this - which is so *obviously*
wrong - correct, I have no confidence whatsoever in any of their other
design choices.
> But Tom, that's not my job. Ok, shrug. Your loss. I don't give a toss.
> But the game is modifiable. Maybe you should learn a little thing called
> patience. .
Patience? What am I waiting for? Version II? Some amateur hacker to
save my $40 investment?
> Really, what is your problem?
That this is click and twitch horseshit? I thought I'd made that rather
clear.
See, I *really* dislike this theory which holds that, faced with
shitware, it's the *gamer's* job to put things right. To my mind,
that's nonsense. A "mod," in my book, is something that adds some
chrome or interest for individual gamers or groups - along the lines of
a new skin for a Jagdpanzer IV in CMBB - *not* rectifying fundamental
issues with research or design.
And that's what we have here.
Frank E
<gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote:
>
>Uh, even with the "speed mod" installed, this is just comical. Is there
>any point in my going on with this silly click & twitch bullshit? Or
>should I just shelve it and move on with something that appears to have
>been designed around (a) human beings and (b) normal earth gravity and
>(c) non-relativistic time?
>
>[Have the "designers" of this batshit ever walked a half mile? Do they
>understand that it can't be marched in 20 seconds? Is the problem
>really that fundamental?]
The speed seems about right with the mod. I do have a problem with the
lack of control for units but it isn't a speed related thing. What I'm
missing so far is a 'lock formation' command, something that will let
me maneuver large, mixed formations without screwing up my lines.
... but that might be in there somewhere and I just haven't found it
yet.
I find myself playing it mostly on the strategy map though. Only the
close, important battles get fought out on the tactical map and those
take me about 15 minutes on average. Given how many potential battles
you have in a campaign, I wouldn't want them to take any longer.
Heck, I even like the 'fluff' that others are bashing in this thread.
The speeches your commanders give at the beginning of a battle, the
into movies you get for each faction, etc.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> I find myself playing it mostly on the strategy map though. Only the
> close, important battles get fought out on the tactical map and those
> take me about 15 minutes on average. Given how many potential battles
> you have in a campaign, I wouldn't want them to take any longer.
Well, I guess that's the main issue; I bought the game *primarily* to
fight ancient battles. I don't give a shit about building little
academies so my archers get a +2 shortbow.
R. Cohen
> Its shit. Can anybody say X-Box? I bet this game has an evil twin destined
> for that console. Explains why RTW is completly dumbed down. Its still a fun
> game, but with minor tweaking it could have been VERY good.
>
> As it stands battles occur so fast that you cannot outflank anyone. My heavy
> infantry can sprint for miles, at sub 4 minute miles, the only issue for
> them is they are 'winded' when they get there, despite all the armour they
> carry. A quick rest and they are soon ready for battle.
>
You can definitely outflank units. You just can't expect the enemy
units to wait for you. The mod does help but the units do seem to be
able to sprint across the battle field. Hopefully that will be
addressed soon.
>
> Also of annoyance... Whose idea was it to invite the WWF? You know the bits
> I mean, just before deployment in a battle... The bit where the rhetoric
> sounds EXACTLY like a wrestler from the WWF sizing an oponent up in the
> ring?
>
I don't know, that seems very appropriate to the times.
> I like this game, but I could of loved it. However, the need to accomodate
> the XBox and the generation-X dweebs that use it, has meant that a
> potentially very good game has been completley ruined.
>
> I don't play the battles anymore, unless I'm outnumbered by a significant
> amount. I just auto them because they are just too boring.
>
The battles definitely go faster then in MTW. The battles definitely
get chaotic quicker then in MTW.
R. Cohen
> In article <cjsmor$b1v$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> roberta...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > Its shit. Can anybody say X-Box? I bet this game has an evil twin destined
> > for that console. Explains why RTW is completly dumbed down. Its still a fun
> > game, but with minor tweaking it could have been VERY good.
> >
> > As it stands battles occur so fast that you cannot outflank anyone. My heavy
> > infantry can sprint for miles, at sub 4 minute miles, the only issue for
> > them is they are 'winded' when they get there, despite all the armour they
> > carry. A quick rest and they are soon ready for battle.
>
> Were the previous TOTAL WAR titles this bad? I never got into them
> because I suspected exactly what I found here; an RTS clickfest. I was
> expecting GBOH/A/C and got C&C with elephants and pikemen.
>
It was easier to keep control of your army under MTW then with RTW but
it was definitely something you needed to learn how to do. If you
didn't you would lose control easily and chaos would definitely reign.
With a little work, you could maintain control and perform all those
fun manuvers that people like to do. Certainly morale was a factor
and units would break on you but the mechanisms to rally allowed you
to regroup and put the unit back into the battle.
So far, that all seems harder with RTW. There's no question you can
still manuver your troops and use your supporting units etc. etc. but
chaos seems to come easier and quicker then in MTW. Units definitely
seems to break quicker and it's much harder to rally them. (I suspect
it might take personal intervention by the general and other officers
to do that in RTW) Maybe that reflects the battles of the times,
maybe battles were more chaotic then during medieval times, I don't
know. Maybe the game is just newer to me but those are my initial
impressions.
Both titles are a mixture of RT battles and turn-based strategy. If
you just play the battles you're missing a good part of what the game
offers (for both RTW and MTW)
Nats
> See, I *really* dislike this theory which holds that, faced with
> shitware, it's the *gamer's* job to put things right. To my mind,
> that's nonsense. A "mod," in my book, is something that adds some
> chrome or interest for individual gamers or groups - along the lines of
> a new skin for a Jagdpanzer IV in CMBB - *not* rectifying fundamental
> issues with research or design.
>
> And that's what we have here.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments here. Its not our job to sort
these things but the developers job to get it right to start with. Theyve
provided a moddable game which allows for user flexibility so that we can
accustomise it to our tastes but thats no excuse for poor testing before
release. Surely they must have known that the game is well sped up and
wouldnt appeal to many strategy fans rather than RTS clickers. At least we
can alter it but I feel sorry for those people who dont have internet access
or the knowledge of computer modding etc. Theres a lot of older strategy
people who will not like this game and not be able to correct matters
themselves.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
Giftzwerg
nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk says...
> I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments here. Its not our job to sort
> these things but the developers job to get it right to start with. Theyve
> provided a moddable game which allows for user flexibility so that we can
> accustomise it to our tastes but thats no excuse for poor testing before
> release. Surely they must have known that the game is well sped up and
> wouldnt appeal to many strategy fans rather than RTS clickers. At least we
> can alter it but I feel sorry for those people who dont have internet access
> or the knowledge of computer modding etc. Theres a lot of older strategy
> people who will not like this game and not be able to correct matters
> themselves.
Before we conclude, "Ah, we can fix it by editing some text files," I'd
like to see some indication that a fix is even possible. As I pointed
out in a previous post, crudely lowering the speeds of *all* units in a
specific terrain isn't enough; to really fix the problem, different
units need to have different degrees of slowing - or stopping altogether
- based on terrain.
And RT[N/W] really has a *lot* of very different movement classes; much
more so than, say, a WW2 game. That game might model leg, wheeled,
tracked, and semi-tracked movement classes and call it a day. But here
we've got camels, horses, elephants, horses pulling chariots, camels
pulling chariots, men carrying swords and shields, men carrying 20-foot
pikes, men carrying axes and heavy armor, men carrying light bows and no
armor. Color me "dubious" that a simple, general multiplication factor
can fully and accurately resolve all the issues all these movement
classes might create.
My overall point is that I think a lot of gamers are going to seize on
this .txt file, throw in a bunch of .25 multipliers, note that movement
rates are much slowed down, and conclude, "Aha! Game fixed." Nothing
could be further from the truth; if you're not carefully researching and
tailoring movement rates of specific units to terrain, you're just
substituting more-manageable unrealistic bullshit for unmanageable
unrealistic bullshit.
Oh, and that's all forgetting the fact that the on-map Praetor is
apparently issuing orders via satellite phone, given the utter lack of
command delays in the game.
This is bad, folks. Unserious. Witless.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because
the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not
just in the globe, but elsewhere."
- John Kerry
"Elsewhere?!?!?!"
- Giftzwerg
Andy Brown
> wouldnt appeal to many strategy fans rather than RTS clickers. At least we
My problem is that I'm not sure an overclocked simulation of ancient battles
does appeal to clicktwitchers. The RT component of the TW series is
significant but it exists alongside the turn-based strategic overlay which
is certainly not RT fodder. Is the idea that clicktwitchers will buy the
game for multiplayer RT games while ignoring the strategic engine? That
doesn't make sense to me.
The TW series is the tactical battles and the strategic overlay in roughly
equal measure. For those whose interest in the game is mostly concerned
with the tactical battles, it is the ability to simulate ancient warfare
reasonably well that I reckon holds the biggest attraction. By itself, I
doubt the RT component of the TW series would rate very highly against other
dedicated RTS games on the market.
Those buying TW games expect a reasonable amount of historical accuracy from
the tactical engine, especially after it has been touted as a serious
historical simulation on two TV shows. By failing in this regard, CA have
alienated a major portion of their customer base. The ease of the fixes
demonstrates how inexcusable this is. Wasn't anyone on the R:TW development
team a military historian?
Cheers,
Andy
Nats
unit movement rates over terrain. I would be very surprised by this. I
assume that several files work together to create a units movement - for
example different units like elephants will run at a different speed than
horses or men. And as you mention will slow down and turn differently -
which does seem to be the case in the game to me. I would imagine that this
file determines basic rates for certain terrains which in turn modify
particular unit movement files. In addition weather, degree of slope,
tiredness, weight of unit/size etc will no doubt all affect the actual speed
a unit moves.
You may well be assuming simplicity in the movement rates, and that maybe
not how the file is actually applied.
Just cause you can see these rates dont assume that the game is that simple.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bcc9f738...@news-east.giganews.com...
Nats
what they should be like in this time frame.
Some items like phalanxes are really well done. But the introduction of
gimmicky units like wardogs, screaming women and head hurlers does make me
wonder what they were doing when they introduced them. The Britons would
have been really interesting to play if they were like those featured in the
recent King Arthur film. But I cant see them hurling heads for any reason!
Thats just daft.
Hopefully we will get a decent all encompassing realism mod come out that
does away with all of these stupid units and mods the game to some kind of
accuracy.
Theyve been pandering to the kids with this game and its pretty sad.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Andy Brown" <andy...@somewhere.in.nz> wrote in message
news:cjuuqf$p1n$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
HR
strategic simulation (or whatever they call them) which belongs in that NG
(not that I mind talking about it here). The game goes beyond the normal
games we see in the strategic NG and gets close to the wargame side but it's
not. Take away the strategic element (building and what not) which you don't
like and no, the tactical game is not even close to a wargame. But that was
not the intent either.
The strategic element is the focus of the game, the tactical is there to
play manually but the fact it can be resolved by the AI says right there
that is not the main focus. It's pretty to look at etc but EVEN IF it was
slowed down...I could just drag a box around the whole army and charge and
get pretty much the same results I want so that tells you something right
away.
Personally I like the game because I'll play SOME of the building games like
civ, not the typical rts boring ones like Rise of Nations etc. At least the
strategic part is turned based. You can set the building to automatic and
concentrate on just the strategic movement which does have some tactics.
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bcc62e1a...@news-east.giganews.com...
Andy Brown
> get pretty much the same results I want
No, you couldn't. The TW systems are about matchups, which is pretty much
the way most ancient wargames work. The whole trick of the TW tactical game
is to put your troop types into stuff they can screw while avoiding other
stuff that can screw them.
Quite often, if you only fight battles resulting from the strategic game,
you will have often won the battle before it starts (the height of
generalship according to Sun Tzu). In a balanced scenario or multiplayer,
however, successful play requires a bit more thought.
Andy
Hermann
Oh. Hrm. Nevermind, then. =) Still, during sieges, I keep expecting my
general to start shield surfing at any time.
> But, as we all know antique battles were slow, pushing and
> shoving, rugby-match like affairs. In RTW units break and lose morale
> very quickly, which unerves me much more than the fact they march and
> charge quickly (I used to click on FFWD during their march phases in
> STW and MTW anyway).
The problem is that it all comes down to your general. With a good general,
troops will fight until they die, but with a stock general, they rout at
first opportunity.
Nats
enemy when inexperienced does seem to rout bloody quickly. Ive had an
experienced army of 600 Romans defeat full Gaul armies of over 1500 with no
problem caused by the Gauls routing quickly. I suppose this is quite
realistic considering my armies experience but I cant help thinking that the
enemy do rout a little too quickly - I mean these people are supposed to be
defending their homeland! At this rate I will wipe the floor with the whole
Gaul civilisation in a few turns.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Hermann" <hr_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RiO8d.5098$d5.4...@newsb.telia.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 05/10/2004
Giftzwerg
nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Youre assuming that the movement rates file is the only file that affects
> unit movement rates over terrain.
No. I'm not. I frankly admit that I have no idea what affects movement
rates over terrain; but I am saying that adjusting the movement factor
of *all units* by the *same multiplier* is plainly and obviously The
Wrong Thing - yet it's being seized upon by many as THE SOLUTION to a
system that's terribly broken.
> I would be very surprised by this. I
> assume that several files work together to create a units movement - for
> example different units like elephants will run at a different speed than
> horses or men. And as you mention will slow down and turn differently -
> which does seem to be the case in the game to me. I would imagine that this
> file determines basic rates for certain terrains which in turn modify
> particular unit movement files. In addition weather, degree of slope,
> tiredness, weight of unit/size etc will no doubt all affect the actual speed
> a unit moves.
That's fine. And by extensive hand-hacking of all these different files
- provided they exist - might actually result in something fairly close
to reality.
That's not the point. The *designer* is the one presumed to be
responsible for getting this stuff right, not some amorphous cloud of
after-the-fact "modders."
> You may well be assuming simplicity in the movement rates, and that maybe
> not how the file is actually applied.
Again, I have no idea how this works - and I was sorta hoping not to
have to know how it works. In my simplistic, innocent way I naively
assumed that the guys who programmed this abortion would have done the
work for me.
Peter Ford
> enemy when inexperienced does seem to rout bloody quickly. Ive had an
> experienced army of 600 Romans defeat full Gaul armies of over 1500 with no
> problem caused by the Gauls routing quickly. I suppose this is quite
> realistic considering my armies experience but I cant help thinking that the
> enemy do rout a little too quickly - I mean these people are supposed to be
> defending their homeland! At this rate I will wipe the floor with the whole
> Gaul civilisation in a few turns.
Yeah, but here were only 2K men present. We hear of ancient battles
lasting from sun up to sun down, but they involved tens of thousands
of troops. The Total War series shrinks these engagement by a factor
of ten. Hence, perhaps(?), the quick resolution.
I just thought of something else; the quickbattle screen defaults to
the most inexperienced level of soldiers. Playing QBs, you're getting
deceptively brittle formations.
Here's a two day battle involved 40K per side.
And why is there no 'War Wagon' unit in RTW? Enquiring minds want to
know.
The Battle of Asculum 279 BC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Greek King in Italy
Probably one of the best examples of an Alexandrian army against the
Roman legions. It has elephants, phalanxes, manipular legions, cavalry
and strange war-wagons (portable towers?), combined with balanced
armies, hopefully this will be a good fight. Pyrrhos fought the Roman
consul Publius Dentius Mus near Asculum in Apulia. Both armies were
about the same size, either 40,000 men or (less probably) 70,000 foot
and 8,000 horse. Pyrrhos, now joined by his Oscan allies, had slightly
more cavalry and 19 elephants. Dentius Mus had four legions, 20,000
Roman citizens plus allies, with a slight infantry advantage. He also
had 300 special anti-elephant wagons, hung about with spiked beams and
inflammable weapons.
The Battle
The first day's fighting was among woods and hills which hindered
Pyrrhos' cavalry and elephants; it may have been for this battle that
he mixed Italian units between the phalanx speiraito give greater
flexibility. If the incidents described by Dionysios belong here,
Pyrrhos' Macedonians broke the Roman first legion and Latin allies, on
their left wing, but the Roman third and fourth legions beat the
Tarantines, Oscans and Epeirots of Pyrrhos' centre. Meanwhile a force
of Dauni attacked his camp. He sent reserve cavalry to deal with the
breakthrough, more cavalry and elephants to drive off the Dauni. When
they withdrew to an inaccessible steep hill he switched the elephants
against the third and fourth legions; these too took refuge on wooded
heights, only to be shot at by the archers and slingers escorting the
elephants, to whom they could not reply. Pyrrhos then sent some
Athamanian, Akarnanian and Samnite infantry to winkle the Romans out
of the woods, but they were intercepted by Roman cavalry. Both sides
withdrew at dusk, neither having gained much advantage. Next dawn
Pyrrhos sent light infantry to occupy the difficult ground which had
given him trouble the previous day, and thus obliged the Romans to
fight a set battle in the open. As at Heraclea, an even fight between
legions and phalanx followed, until the elephants, supported by light
infantry, broke through the Roman line. It was probably now that the
anti-elephant wagons were driven against them; after a brief success
they were overwhelmed by the light infantry. The Romans then retreated
to their camp. Their losses were 6,000 men, Pyrrhos' 3,500, a narrow
victory.
(Plutarch, Pyrrhos 2 1; Dionysios XX. 1-3, describing only one day's
battle, mostly relevant to the first day; Garoufalias pp 88-93.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.wargamer.com/greatbattles/Asculum.asp
Continue...Basics
Giftzwerg
says...
> > No. I'm not. I frankly admit that I have no idea what affects
> movement
> > rates over terrain; but I am saying that adjusting the movement factor
> > of *all units* by the *same multiplier* is plainly and obviously The
> > Wrong Thing - yet it's being seized upon by many as THE SOLUTION to a
> > system that's terribly broken.
>
> But the game already does this and just changing the games multipliers
> will in no way alter the relationships between different units. It's not
> like this file has been added by modding or that altering the multipliers
> will result in any real difference except everything will move more
> slowly. Just like having a speed slider as in MTW in fact.
>
> Using x as some base number;
> Lets say cavalry moves at 4x in the open when moving quickly, 2x at
> normal marching speed and half these speeds in amongst trees. Maybe
> heavy infantry moves at 2x when running in the open and 1.2x in amongst
> trees, while light infantry moves 30% faster. Not that I have a clue if
> these figures are anywhere near the real game speed but for demonstration
> purposes they will do.
> Adjusting all these figures by multiplying them by say 0.5 should only
> result in the wehole game running at half the default speed. I don't see
> why you are so against this.
My point is that you cannot just modify the rate of all units in a
specific terrain and *assume* that this produces a realistic result,
without knowing these other numbers that you're proposing. It may be
that this is the case, but until your hypothetical numbers are replaced
- exhaustively, and covering all cases - by the actual numbers that the
game uses (and assuming that the game does make differentiations among
unit types/terrain outside of the one .ini-type file we've seen), we
have no way of knowing this.
> Granted we shouldn't have to do this but isn't it better than not being
> able to do anything at all.
Well, in the same way that employing a makeshift splint beats walking
around on a shattered femur.
> I doubt the designers have a very good idea
> about real unit speeds, after all who does?
Good question! And my response here is, "Maybe it's a question that
needs to be answered before one sets about 'designing' a credible
ancient wargame."
> I'd be willing to bet you
> would be hard pushed to get any historians to agree on troop speeds in
> ancient battles.
Hard, perhaps. Not impossible. And even educated, informed guesses
based on solid history and plain physiological fact would be better than
the "I pulled these numbers from my ass" method seemingly employed here.
> Most people would probably find the game far too slow and boring if it
> was realistic. Too much time wasted skirmishing and taunting and not
> enough fast paced action for the general public so I can see why the
> designers chose to make the game as it currently is. Maybe it costs too
> much to make game like this for the wargaming market alone.
Nonsense. You can always *speed up* an *accurate* game to produce the
idiotic frenzy that stupid people sometimes prefer; the trouble is
accurately slowing down a bullshit click & twitch game.
HR
more casualties) than you can with any slowed down version spending an hour
on a battle. Which means it's not a wargame as we know them. Clearly this is
not a wargame.
Don't get me wrong..I use some tactics..mostly in the deployment. It's not
that fast I can't order the calvary to come in when I want. But in the end
drag and box and attack works.
"sr" <nom...@for.me> wrote in message
news:Xns957A12EEC8D...@140.99.99.130...
> "HR" <H...@horizon.net> wrote in news:G2F8d.418216$8_6.151360@attbi_s04:
>
>> The strategic element is the focus of the game, the tactical is there
>> to play manually but the fact it can be resolved by the AI says right
>> there that is not the main focus. It's pretty to look at etc but EVEN
>> IF it was slowed down...I could just drag a box around the whole army
>> and charge and get pretty much the same results I want so that tells
>> you something right away.
>>
>
> I don't see how you can say this right after you've posted a message
> saying - "At any rate slowing down the game will not enhance the tactics
> anymore so as they can be handled as they are now. I might have to pause
> it once,if at all."
>
> This obviously shows you aren't using any real tactics. I don't know if
> your not interested in trying because of army/unit advantages in your
> battles or, like most of us before modding, you just don't have the time
> because of the speed of movement and routing.
>
> Once you slow the movement down, leaving the built in base figures for
> different unit types despite giftys suggestion that this might make
> cavalry move at the same speed as infantry, and slow down the kill rate
> slightly you can suddenly use tactics like pinning infantry from the
> front while attacking from behind or the flanks before one of the engaged
> units breaks. It also allows time for units to actually throw a javellin
> before the bionic enemy units reach them. It's so much better being able
> to use units in a more realistic fashion even if the movement speeds are
> a still a little too fast to play without pausing. Lowering the movement
> speed multipliers too much results in animation problems like the
> moonwalking units someone mentioned earlier and makes units tire very
> easily which seems to make everything slower yet.
>
HR
requires more thought. But against the AI..nah
"Andy Brown" <andy...@somewhere.in.nz> wrote in message
news:cjvg6d$9rq$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Sierro
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical was:
>The Britons would
>have been really interesting to play if they were like those featured in the
>recent King Arthur film.
You mean the recent King Arthur film that was
A) A load of dog poo
B) Set in about 400AD, some 600 years after the start of Rome: Total
War
C) Featured King Arthur as a Sarmatian Cavalryman, which funnily
enough are in R:TW
?
Or did you just want them to be a load of barbarians with blue
warpaint and no different units whatsoever?