|
Chomp8645 posted:You know I don't really think I like the idea of 40 units per side becoming the norm. It could be cool for single player (although I worry about it becoming tedious), but in multi player a human being cannot be expected to manage 40 units simultaneously without pausing. It's just too much poo poo all over the place and I feel like it would either force people to constantly pause (except in multi player) or just not know what the gently caress half their guys are doing until the 4th consecutive archer group has routed to the same unnoticed heavy cav. Either that or in an attempt to keep some God drat have control over your army you just make it four groups of ten identical units or something. StarCraft players do it all the time. I imagine that TW players rarely get over 50 apm whereas the amateur SC players are getting over 200. 40, I'm relatively sure, will just lengthen the skill gap between players. Which is always a good thing for competitive gaming.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Doubling the amount of units on screen like that might make having a reserve a thing now
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Ahahaha they actually sent an email to CA asking for technical/gameplay information that hasn't been released yet. Why have the put the development team details in spoiler tags? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Why have the put the development team details in spoiler tags? I imagine just because it's a long list of names.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Because half of them will die off before the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:It's already "going through development", and it's exactly as spergy as you'd think it would be. Roma 2: Imperia Antiquitatis Not only did they start up a mod because Rome was "showing signs of Creative Assembly sacrificing historical accuracy for gameplay" (at THIS stage in development?!), they've got this whole ranking system laid out for all their contributors based on Roman ranks. Kinda amazing how almost nobody in the thread seems to be saying "Are you guys kidding me," it's all highly supportive "Good luck, guys, you can never start too early!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
I really like these kind of things, you just know they're not going to exist by the time the game comes out, much less actually mod the game.quote:We thought it would be easier to do all the general research now, get it out of the way, then when the game comes out we start working out how to implement our concepts.  quote:Our research has expanded a lot recently, these are all the research discussions for the different armies in our group: The 3rd century B.C. was filled with Trotskist movements! But anyway, here's a rich bibliography that you can read to truly understand what these guys are basing their game on  http://imperiaantiquitatis.weebly.com/links--research.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
There aren't enough frills on that Boeotian helmet, game ruined! CA can kiss my wallet goodbye unless you put a million different factions in the game.  Got to stop browsing TWC
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Xenixx posted:StarCraft players do it all the time. I imagine that TW players rarely get over 50 apm whereas the amateur SC players are getting over 200. 40, I'm relatively sure, will just lengthen the skill gap between players. Which is always a good thing for competitive gaming. There's one hell of a difference between the units in Total War and Starcraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:There's one hell of a difference between the units in Total War and Starcraft. How's that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
I just realised it's going to be impossible to fit in the massive variations in units and factions in the Warhammer game in a single release. I think one of the reasons CA probably got the job was thanks to their DLC fuckery skills. This game (if it ever happens like we hope) is going to be a behemoth with $15-30 DLC every fortnight/month  Unless they make it empire/chaos which would be boring, who would play that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Xenixx posted:How's that? Have you ever played TW? The units control completely differently. And I don't just mean in the "there are three hundred guys per unit" kind of way; it's meant to, in a lot of ways, simulate being a general. The dudes you command in TW are not as responsive, intentionally, as your SC dudes. Of course it doesn't come close to what it'd actually be like commanding an army, but it is still such a different kind of experience that a comparison between the two is pretty stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Xenixx posted:StarCraft players do it all the time. I imagine that TW players rarely get over 50 apm whereas the amateur SC players are getting over 200. 40, I'm relatively sure, will just lengthen the skill gap between players. Which is always a good thing for competitive gaming. If you think that Starcraft units and Total War units handle in an even remotely similar fashion then I can only imagine you haven't played both games. You also have some funny ideas about APM if you think an amateur player in any game is averaging 200. This might sound rude but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
I really hate it when my Terrans rout and leave the battle or when my Principes suffer 120 damage before i can react!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Xenixx posted:StarCraft players do it all the time. I imagine that TW players rarely get over 50 apm whereas the amateur SC players are getting over 200. 40, I'm relatively sure, will just lengthen the skill gap between players. Which is always a good thing for competitive gaming. Hahahaha, wow. The two are absolutely nothing alike in terms on control style of actions needed, let alone related to APM being "skill". You can issue a dozen orders to 20 units and fight competently over a 5 minute battle, yet with intelligent formations and groupings you would be lucky to break 25-30 APM. This is ignoring the fact that any amateur Starcraft player who has 200 APM needs to stop right clicking 25 times for a single move order to inflate his e-penis. APM is a meaningless measure for basically everything, let alone skill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
There is an argument to be made in that by being given an unwieldy, massive army, a player's skill at preplanning and focusing during battle is tested in a way which MIGHT be interesting. Of course, that argument would also need to deal with how a lot of players will throw their monitors out of their windows on a regular basis if they keep getting beaten because some dudes flanked them out of nowhere and how the hell are they supposed to keep track of all this stuff and graaaaaaah. Besides, doesn't Total War rest chiefly on its single-player?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:That sounds pretty much like a blend of a character-driven Paradox game (CK2 or EU:Rome) and Total War. Which means it'll probably never happen in our lifetimes, or if it does, it'll be a glorious trainwreck because it's too good to be true. I also kinda hope you can just buy generals (or legates or whatever) but you'd have to handle their loyalties and stuff. I didn't play much EU: Rome but those concepts were cool (I assume the same carries a bit over to CK2). That or the army general stuff they added in Barbarian Invasion where generals (and their armies?) could just defect if you didn't keep lavishing them gifts and titles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Tomn posted:There is an argument to be made in that by being given an unwieldy, massive army, a player's skill at preplanning and focusing during battle is tested in a way which MIGHT be interesting. Of course, that argument would also need to deal with how a lot of players will throw their monitors out of their windows on a regular basis if they keep getting beaten because some dudes flanked them out of nowhere and how the hell are they supposed to keep track of all this stuff and graaaaaaah. Better AI would go a long way into making giant battles more manageable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken you can already group units and put them under AI control. I've never done it though, so I have no idea what happens if you do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:If I'm not mistaken you can already group units and put them under AI control. I've never done it though, so I have no idea what happens if you do that. Putting your units under AI control depresses them because they think it means you don't love them anymore. They often commit suicide shortly after.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Know what my biggest wish for this game is? loving peace. It would be great if the AI made peace in order to start rebuilding, getting ready to go war again in the next few years. Instead the AI insist on sending stacks of peasants and retarded armies, something like war exhaustion and peasant revolts would be great.
Tiger Crazy fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Why would anyone want this series to become more like Starcraft? I specifically enjoy the real time combat in these games because it's not the simplistic 'who can click the button faster check my apm bro' Starcraft stuff. I like units that suffer from moral, flank weakness, terrain bonus/disadvantages and the actual strategy that is required to succeed. I want battles to be more than right clicking on your unit and left clicking on the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Someguy posted:Why would anyone want this series to become more like Starcraft? I specifically enjoy the real time combat in these games because it's not the simplistic 'who can click the button faster check my apm bro' Starcraft stuff. I like units that suffer from moral, flank weakness, terrain bonus/disadvantages and the actual strategy that is required to succeed. I want battles to be more than right clicking on your unit and left clicking on the enemy. It's nice to see how even a genre as "intellectual" as strategy games has its own version of "casual vs hardcore".  I can see why people would prefer the degree of control you get in Starcraft because units move snappily in that game. Good feedback from your interaction with a game is a good thing, and being able to take advantage of how fast you can move and react to changing battlefield conditions is even more so. SC may not have distinct bonuses for flanking or morale mechanics, but saying that it has less "strategy" than Total War is comparing apples and oranges at best. Fine motor control may not be as big as a requirement for Total War games, but having your units respond to your orders promptly makes the difference between "strategy" and "watching your units fumble into each other and get murdered". Otherwise, units that require actual positioning and movement like skirmishers or matchlocks become worthless in comparison to blobs of units like S2's Katana Samurai/Cavalry that, ironically, work best through attack-move. Hell, vanilla Shogun 2 has way faster battles than older games in the series due to units routing earlier and melees being way more lethal, and being quick on your feet is even more vital if you want to win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
A delay in response is something I want to see in these games. There's just something unappealing about seeing a large group of people respond quickly and smoothly to your orders since that would never happen in real life. What I personally want is a unit delay in relation to how far your units are from your general(s).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Same here. I personally think the Multiplayer should have a realism mode where things are slower and your orders get a delay timer. Anywho, It isn't like your forced to roll with a full stack in these games. In the newer ones is adds to the challenge if your rolling with an efficient half stack as rushing you with the numbers if the only handful of things the AI can manage. Also I was thinking about the Foreign Invasion mod for FOTS, one of the things they clearly are going to have to change is the Agents. For obvious reasons I can't really see patriotic extremeists like the Shengungumi or the Ishihishin working with Imperialist foreigners. I had a think about it and some sort of Modern western educuated Japanese Republican Mercenary makes the most sense (A Western Weaboo or whatever it is spelt). Foreign Veteran would be the easiest to do though, drop Veteran with the word Imperialist heh.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:It's nice to see how even a genre as "intellectual" as strategy games has its own version of "casual vs hardcore". If anything units need to react slower. In Shogun 2 MP you used to be able to "dance" units in and out of arrow range to waste your opponents arrows, which is, of course, stupid. They increased arrow speeds so I think its not as common anymore, but my point is, even if every unit magically had radios they wouldnt be able to turn around and perform complex maneuvers on a dime so being able to expect instant reactions from your entire army is ridiculous. Obviously units shouldn't be too unresponsive, but knowing that if you gently caress up and place your units in the wrong place that you can't micro your way out of it adds a whole new layer to the battle. It means you have to plan ahead and plot your actions carefully instead of just clicking widly. Especially when you consider the usual form of giving out orders pre-WW1 was: -General gives order -Staffer writes down order -Runner takes written order, runs it over to the unit in question -Unit commander reads order, gives commands to his subordinates -Subordinates order the men into action Class Warcraft fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:If anything units need to react slower. I know I can still kite arrows in singleplayer as of a couple of days ago, but maybe they just changed it in multiplayer? While I don't advocate having units as responsive as in Starcraft, I do think slowing them down might be a little much. In a real battle your dudes wouldn't just stand around dying waiting for orders from the general (okay well at least not usually); there would be guys lower in the chain of command telling them to do things, maybe they would even be drilled to perform certain manoeuvrings like the Japanese flying arrow dance. Of course commands lower down can't be simulated (or rather would be incredibly annoying), so we have things like a column of spearmen standing in a line facing nothing while getting hacked at for 5 minutes in the rear by a group of 10 samurai because we forgot about them. That would never happen in real life either, and the faster reaction times do something to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I know I can still kite arrows in singleplayer as of a couple of days ago, but maybe they just changed it in multiplayer? I agree that unless there's an interesting command and control system ala Legion II, units should be fairly responsive to your clicks, since this is a strategy game that needs to be a good game first. Just slowing down the response time on unit orders is a lame hack. Go all the way and make an interesting system, or don't. The reason for reserves in pre-modern battle has a lot more to do with command and control than simple questions of mass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
I was thinking something more in-line with Scourge of War - Gettysburg where your units have a semblance of AI and would turn to face an enemy and return fire, ect. If indeed we are going to have 40 unit battles the basic troop AI will have to be brought up to task otherwise, yeah, it'll be a mess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
My support for faster unit reaction times stems mainly from pessimism, honestly. CA may have gotten their groove back thanks to Shogun 2 and its expansions, but it's not all perfect. The last time they tried to change how the games usually worked resulted in the mess that was Empire, and it could potentially happen in Rome 2 because they're changing not only the scale of battles, but also how the very units themselves work. I'm not advocating being able to perfectly micro-dance your unit out of arrow fire, but I would like to be able to rely on skirmishers falling back in time or gunlines firing off that crucial barrage right before a charge hits even if not everyone's good to go. If that's not possible, and judging from how CA does struggle with finer aspects of their games it might not be yet, then I suppose faster unit reaction would work as a decent bandaid to that problem. toasterwarrior fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
If you slow everything down then you can manage larger forces with ease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
I'd actually like to see a change in the economic system to be more like Supreme Commander. Instead of a flat amount of currency from which you buy stuff, it uses your economic potential instead. For instance you can buy up to and over your potential for a while, until your reserve currency is gone. This would let you buy a massive army in a time of emergency, used it until the crisis is over and then disband without going into the red and ruining the rest of your economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I'd actually like to see a change in the economic system to be more like Supreme Commander. Instead of a flat amount of currency from which you buy stuff, it uses your economic potential instead. For instance you can buy up to and over your potential for a while, until your reserve currency is gone. This would let you buy a massive army in a time of emergency, used it until the crisis is over and then disband without going into the red and ruining the rest of your economy. Also the giant spider bots with laser death beams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I'd actually like to see a change in the economic system to be more like Supreme Commander. Instead of a flat amount of currency from which you buy stuff, it uses your economic potential instead. For instance you can buy up to and over your potential for a while, until your reserve currency is gone. This would let you buy a massive army in a time of emergency, used it until the crisis is over and then disband without going into the red and ruining the rest of your economy. I would actually prefer something akin to a really light manpower and wealth meter, with you being able to raise armies of certain size and quality based on those resources. Actually push the player to have armies of a particular quality/quantity balance based on the resources they have available, rather than what they want to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
As far as battle tactics I always wanted to lay out a plan of attack and sit back to watch some glorious death. The current tools CA gives us doesn't accommodate for this unless you're in a defense position, receiving an attack. I haven't played more of that new Jagged Alliance remake than the demo but I think it has some great ideas that would make these total war games better. Synchronizing movement and attacks like that game is able to do would make great strides in the feel of being an omnipotent general laying out plans and watching your mans execute orders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I would actually prefer something akin to a really light manpower and wealth meter, with you being able to raise armies of certain size and quality based on those resources. Didn't the first Rome have that option? Pulling your soldiers directly out of your settlement populations, I mean. I seem to recall getting frustrated playing as the Gauls because I was literally running out of people and was having trouble maintaining a proper defensive army while at the same time improving my cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Yeah troops have always been taken from settlement populations until Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Maybe they could have some sort of system where you make up a battle plan for you units right before the battle and if you follow that battle plan through your units react quicker and has a slightly higher morale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Aren't they implementing a Supreme Commander-style camera anyway? That should solve a lot of command problems. Zoom out, give orders, zoom in to trouble areas for fine-tuning. Job's a gud 'un!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
MadJackMcJack posted:Aren't they implementing a Supreme Commander-style camera anyway? That should solve a lot of command problems. Zoom out, give orders, zoom in to trouble areas for fine-tuning. Job's a gud 'un! I vaguely recall the devs saying something about how the zoomed-out camera is specifically NOT designed to give orders in, because they don't want to turn the whole game into staring at symbols instead of mans stabbing other mans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 01:19
|
|