Total War fans?

[Ardie]

I have all the titles except the Viking Invasion for the Medieval TW.

There are rumours that another expansion is on the works for Rome TW and of course Medieval II is coming along also.

I'm a huge fan of this series. Anyone else?

[Pocus]

so-so... The tactical engine is marvelous, but the campaign is sub-par: no proper AI, no historical events, no political game.

[Kotik]

Yes there is a new expansion for RTR:BI called RTW:Alexander and is about Alexander the Greats campaigns.

Im a RTW fan too, Im even a tech support on the mod RTR.

[CristoFire-Ice]

I rather agree with Pocus. Excellent game but poor "historical background", I might say. Hope Medieval 2 will allow more political and economics concepts.

[Robin]

One place for each thing (bad translation of a french sentence... Sorry).

Perhaps the ambition of Rome total War is to be historic, but as in Shogun, the part of historicity is weak and it's not a problem for me since the gameplay is wonderfull.
It's not important for me in such game to have exactly the right unit or good event flux. Since Shogun, I take that game as a variation around the concept of chess game. To be exact, I must recognize that the abstract in Shogun was better in my opinion than in Rome, with less sophistication in strategic map and more gameplay in my sense to serve this concept of modern chess game.

In other way, the project of paradox games, and in large part of BoA (wich is not exactly a Paradox like game) is to be historic, even if the concept heritated from chess game an boardgame is strong. So, in our case, we MUST be very historic, but never forget simple rules of gameplay. A difficult mix to realize, no ?

[Kotik]

But CA (the company that made that has TW series) has said it main objective is to appel to a broad spectrum of strategy fans, and they therefore have added unhistoric units (Graal Knight is one example in MTW2). As for historic events well there are some like the plauge but what other events should there be?

Yes the AI is terribly dumb (sorry for this CA) but they claim it has been improved vastly after MTW1 and RTW plus expansions. I think they have improved the AI but let see how much better they have made it (they can have made it too good also).

On the economics well since Im a micromangement super fan anything that dont look like Victoria's (Paradox Interactive game) world market is not good. that game had what I think is a good economy (okay there is allways some tweaking to do but that is unaviodible)

[Ardie]

I kind of agree with Robin here. The gameplay is really fantastic but the unhistorical units are stupid.

There are lots of events in the game but they don't do anything for the player for the most part (unless it's a trigger for the dreaded plague).

I really hope that they (CA) aim to perfect their system and the diplomacy finally receives some attention.

[Robin]

My hope is to see the next game closer with Shogun, specially for the strategic part of the game, with more abstract, more "elegance", and less "gadgets". Shogun was a great game, and the sequelles are not a so good. in my opinion. But I know that I'm dreaming...
leure:

[Kotik]

I kind of agree with Robin here. The gameplay is really fantastic but the unhistorical units are stupid.

Well I think it was one of CA's developers that said "if you want historical units then down load one of the realism mods". And I do understand him since making the game historical then they would loose many fans who play the game just for the fun and visa versa.

There are lots of events in the game but they don't do anything for the player for the most part (unless it's a trigger for the dreaded plague).

Well I do think that players should be able to survive without help from the computer unless you play on the easier levels.

I really hope that they (CA) aim to perfect their system and the diplomacy finally receives some attention.

I better hope they have a better AI. Since I got a foot in the mod community I can tell you that CA's headquarters will be stormed if the AI isn't good.

My hope is to see the next game closer with Shogun, specially for the strategic part of the game, with more abstract, more "elegance", and less "gadgets". Shogun was a great game, and the sequelles are not a so good. in my opinion. But I know that I'm dreaming...
leure:

Gadgets? what do you mean? Some parts of the diplomacy I think they could have droped, like princesses and those religious guys, that could have been handled in a abstract way.

[Robin]

I mean for example, that the map is too complex. Almost the feeling of Civ4, but it's not Civ4...
The Rome map has not the "elegance" of the Shogun one. Too much details, things to do, to keep in mind, etc. And the artistic direction is poor and criticable (the colours are ugly...).
If I want a very complex map to explore, conquer and defend, why not play with Civ4 instead of play with that poor copy ?
Shogun was really like an "epure", a transposition of chess concept applicated to a medieval japan game.
it's not the same game experience to play with rome and Shogun. Althought Il really like to play with Rome, I still prefer the Shogun gameplay. I liked to go to my trone to encounter visitors or listen (In japanese ! ) to some strategic or philosophic ideas. I like to see these big units in whood and metal, just on a paper map with graphisms inspirated by japan "estampes". What, in the map or in the units of Rome, evocate something close to the antic world ? Nothing... neither colours, models, etc.
Rome is big, really enormous, but there is some lake like this diplomatic screen we had in Shogun. Surely a choice made to put more things like genealogic tree (not really funy in fact), Senat attitude and missions (good idea, but without enough polish...), etc.

Of course, the tactic part of Rome, with a 3d more impressive than this in Shogun, is brilliant. And the screen of medieval 2 make me dream a lot !
But it is not enough, for me, to garanty a masterpiece. Shogun was a masterpiece in its time...

All this is my own opinion, of course

[Ardie]

"Well I do think that players should be able to survive without help from the computer unless you play on the easier levels."

I don't know where did you get this one. I only mentioned that there are "events" which inform the player about certain inventions and such but they rarely affect the gameplay. IIRC MTW events had some effect but in RTW only the Marius event was a major one.

Improving the strategic AI is the most important aspect in the future releases. I think that the whole TW community has been bitching about it but the diplomacy is important too.

[Kotik]

I mean for example, that the map is too complex. Almost the feeling of Civ4, but it's not Civ4...
The Rome map has not the "elegance" of the Shogun one. Too much details, things to do, to keep in mind, etc. And the artistic direction is poor and criticable (the colours are ugly...).
If I want a very complex map to explore, conquer and defend, why not play with Civ4 instead of play with that poor copy ?
Shogun was really like an "epure", a transposition of chess concept applicated to a medieval japan game.
it's not the same game experience to play with rome and Shogun. Althought Il really like to play with Rome, I still prefer the Shogun gameplay. I liked to go to my trone to encounter visitors or listen (In japanese ! ) to some strategic or philosophic ideas. I like to see these big units in whood and metal, just on a paper map with graphisms inspirated by japan "estampes". What, in the map or in the units of Rome, evocate something close to the antic world ? Nothing... neither colours, models, etc.
Rome is big, really enormous, but there is some lake like this diplomatic screen we had in Shogun. Surely a choice made to put more things like genealogic tree (not really funy in fact), Senat attitude and missions (good idea, but without enough polish...), etc.

Of course, the tactic part of Rome, with a 3d more impressive than this in Shogun, is brilliant. And the screen of medieval 2 make me dream a lot !
But it is not enough, for me, to garanty a masterpiece. Shogun was a masterpiece in its time...

All this is my own opinion, of course

I haven't played Civ4 and I haven't even seen any screenshots since early in the development, I dont like the game.

On the map issue you are right, the shogun maps is cleaner, if you want info you can just click on it which is a good feature but the problem is that you can not use that feature if you have a map like in RTW.

On the colour issue I dont know. I just look for if I can diffrenciate between units and landscape the rest o dont care for much. Im not colourblind, I got perfect colourvision, but colours dont weighs so much for me. The mod RTR has made a new map that has much better colours that make the map almost step out of the screen.

Hmm I must say I have not seen the connection between shogun and chess until you said it. It is good way as it simplifies the game but many wants abit more. I know the developers goal was a map like RTW.

evocate? what does that mean?

I don't know where did you get this one. I only mentioned that there are "events" which inform the player about certain inventions and such but they rarely affect the gameplay. IIRC MTW events had some effect but in RTW only the Marius event was a major one.

Improving the strategic AI is the most important aspect in the future releases. I think that the whole TW community has been bitching about it but the diplomacy is important too.

It has been some time since I played MTW I must admit so I dont remember everything correctly.

I got the sense that you wished for events that helped the human player but I was wrong, sorry.

I do agree with you that if an event happens and it says it going to improve or make something worse then it should do just that.

During the RTW timeline there really wasn't anyother big events in the rest of the world. I know there are some complaint in the RTW modding community about the fact they can not add events.

The modding community has been complaining about the entire AI from the beginning both strategic, tactical and diplomacy.

It turns out that there has been 2 teams developing PC games, an australian team developed STW and MTW and a british team that developed RTW. RTW and MTW was developed at the same time and no experience sharing between the units so RTW ended up with a similair AI to MTW which was not good. It is the australian team that develops MTW2 and the british team has returned to console game.

[PDF]

My hope is to see the next game closer with Shogun, specially for the strategic part of the game, with more abstract, more "elegance", and less "gadgets". Shogun was a great game, and the sequelles are not a so good. in my opinion. But I know that I'm dreaming...
leure:

I feel exectly the same, but CA took the exact opposite path :more gadgets and less elegance. Until now I have all the series except RTW:BI , but played each less than the former and I'm not even very interested in MTW2...

[Robin]

evocate? what does that mean?

i mean "suggest". Sorry for my "franglish" (or "Englench")

[Dunhill_BKK]

I've been a fan of TW since STW, when the online multiplayer games were really fun and fluid.

I missed out on the MTW multiplay, but I hear it was just as good. However, the multiplayer games in 3D ala RTW are not that good and a number of things have changed for the worse. Unit speed on the field is an often cited example of something basic that is wrong enough to be commented on by many on the TW boards. The Tactical AI is poor at best. Nothing seems to have been done with that side of the game. The strategic AI isn't very good either.

You are correct in thinking many of the veterans are more than a little upset at the direction taken by the developers, who rarely if ever grace the forums. However, the mean forum age seems to be quite young or at least mentally immature.

Luckily we have a host of games to enjoy now, its been a bit like Christmas with TC2M, Birth of America and Conquest of the Agean coming out close togethor.

If I buy the next TW, and I'm likley to, it wont be right away. I'm sorry I want it to be a very good game, but I'm seeing much games by the smaller developers right now.

cheers to MMG, AGEOD and Panther.

[vonkraus]

A significant limitation, I think, with operational/strategic games is that the only way to expand them via modding is to apply the engine to new time frames. How may "what if" scenarios can one come up with? The Total War series has gotten around this by not worrying too much about keeping the operational/strategic aspect of the games historical while focusing modding efforts on the visual aspect of the tactical game. IMHO this is a "gee wiz" kind of thing; good for eye candy and realism of experience at the tactical level but not at all an "expansion" of the O/S options that adds true replay value. In short, the game can't be a hit without this, but this alone does not make it a hit either.

The other games that I play over and over have been the EU engine based ones (EU2, Crusader Kings - my favorite, and Victoria - yes, I like this game and have played several full campaigns). These games try to force the player to win by balancing territorial gains with diplomacy and intrigue. The more land you conquer the harder the next square mile becomes to take and subjugate. Victory must be had by guile and diplomacy and luck and there are a myriad ways to accomplish this which makes the games fun to play over and over. Based on this, I think that the political aspects that are being added to AACW is exactly the right direction to go to improve replayabilty. Adding “what-if” in game political events, like separate peace by regions in BoA might be a way to expand replayability.

The suggestion posted above regarding selling these kinds of games at historical museums is intriguing. When I visited Gettysburg this past summer I noticed the The History Channel's Civil War game was being sold in the gift shop. I saw several copies sold while I was there and this game has gotten very poor reviews (I do not own it myself but it doesn't look nearly as good to me as MMG's work). Many of the people who visit such places are real history enthusiasts who probably would not consider them selves to be computer game geeks. They are more interested in historically accurate thinker's simulations than they are click-fest arcade games (I'm guessing). I'm no advertising exec. so take this as it is, my humble opinion.

I am planning to visit Ft. Meigs tomorrow and will inquire at the gift shop about selling a title like BoA there. There are at least 100 other such museums scattered about the eastern U.S. just like this, and this only counts the F&I war and 1812. How to reach them all without having to deal with each one separately might be a topic for further discussion.