RIP Total War ???

[Kassiopeia]

Now I'm pissed that I bought the game last year only a month after it came out

They don't seem to be planning on releasing any new games of the RTW sort for the next few decades if they are so happy with pissing off the fanbase. I guess that's why Spartan: Total Warrior was thought up.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Least Firaxis admit their bugs, and then don't fix them.

CA's patch support makes Firaxis look like gods. Sure it took Firaxis 15 patches to get CIV3 'right'. Then 20 more for PtW. Conquests is still patching I suppose after 30 or so. But at least Firaxis patched their mistakes (and didnt add too many more as they patched). CA's position seems to be stick your head in the sand and hope it blows over.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by SpencerH


CA's patch support makes Firaxis look like gods. Sure it took Firaxis 15 patches to get CIV3 'right'. Then 20 more for PtW. Conquests is still patching I suppose after 30 or so. But at least Firaxis patched their mistakes (and didnt add too many more as they patched). CA's position seems to be stick your head in the sand and hope it blows over.

Even Paradox, although they put out buggy games, at least admits to the bugs and patches them, and patches them, and...

But CA/Activision seem to have this "two patches and no more" rule. Which is odd for a game as complex as the TW games are...

Interesting that about this same time Activison sold CA to Sega (and we will soon be getting the console game "Spartan Total Warrior").

I have seen this happen before: good developer makes great games, then everything seems to take a header off the belltower...

Let's see:

There was Talonsoft, SSI, 3DO, and maybe soon to come... CA...

[Leonidas]

For all the fun and excitement, check out the RTW forums at the Org:

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/

[Kassiopeia]

On the other hand, I have a habit of playing sessions of several hours when I do play, so no loss there, but CA's attitude is just disgusting.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
On the other hand, I have a habit of playing sessions of several hours when I do play, so no loss there, but CA's attitude is just disgusting.

It's only when you need to save, and then later re-load...

It's at this time when the AI seems to take a coffee break...

Try to save only when there are no sieges going on. The save/reload bug seems to have the biggest affect on these (the AI will break-off all sieges and go for a hike in the countryside).

On CA's forums they have been locking and deleting threads left, right and center...

Not a good way to piss off your dedicated fan base, which they seem to be doing with particular finely-honed skill... lol

[child of Thor]

i wonder how much of this attitude is the Activision side of things rather than just CA. Publishers have a way of leaving the developer+fans in the cold.

Keep in mind that Activision is itself under alot of finacial pressures right now(rumours of a buy out have been going around, ruppert murdock was looking at them as a way to get into the computer entertainment sector, and a few others have been interested).

So maybe CA have been gagged and told they will not get anymore support from Activision for the patches? Could be difficult to say, and i've not yet read whats been going on at the TW forums, so i may be completely wrong on this

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by child of Thor
i wonder how much of this attitude is the Activision side of things rather than just CA. Publishers have a way of leaving the developer+fans in the cold.

Keep in mind that Activision is itself under alot of finacial pressures right now(rumours of a buy out have been going around, ruppert murdock was looking at them as a way to get into the computer entertainment sector, and a few others have been interested).

So maybe CA have been gagged and told they will not get anymore support from Activision for the patches? Could be difficult to say, and i've not yet read whats been going on at the TW forums, so i may be completely wrong on this

You may not be far off the mark, since it is usually the publisher who dictates release/patch efforts.

I believe CA was sold by Activision to Sega (the console games maker).

I fear TW's slide is on the way...

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Heraclea, it mentioned it in the article. Elephants were the primary reason the Romans lost. Phyrrus also used them to break the Roman lines at Asculum. Considering his methods, elephants were certainly the deciding factor in these battles.

The point of the game mechanic is that until a certain point, Romans were not able to deal with elephants very effectively. In order to preserve the "realism" of the historical situation, they found it necessary to make the elephants very tough until a certain point in the game.



Why? They did. Usage of elephants in war spread around the world. The Seluecids used elephants all the time, so there's no reason to think the Parthians wouldn't.

http://nabataea.net/elephants.html

"As late as the Roman Empire all known war elephants seem to come from India, via the Parthian / Sassinid Empire."

Actually, I meant after Pyrrhus, because like I said earlier on they had no experience with it. But Pyrrhus was the first and last to use elephants against Rome effectively. After that they never lost a fight because of elephants.

Seleucids used elephants, of course. Nearly all diadochs used elephants. I was talking about the other non-Greek civilisations in the East. Parthians relied on cavalry almost 100%. Their land was perfectly suited for cavalry, whereas Roman terroritory was better for legionaries. That is why both the Romans and Parthians never managed to get a grip on eachothers territory for long. Except the Roman occupation in mesopotamia and the occasional Parthian raid.

Scythians and Parthians and similar peoples never used conventional armies so it would be pointless for them to deploy elephants. They would only be cumbersome for the army and without decent infantry support elephants would be routed immediately. And Scythians were semi-nomadic. How could they support elephants! They lived north of the Alexander/Persian empire and were nearly impossible to conquer due to their mobility. Darius suffered a serious defeat in an attempt to conquer Scythian territory...

Finally: Carthaginian elephants were African elephants. Even that article says so

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Leonidas


You may not be far off the mark, since it is usually the publisher who dictates release/patch efforts.

I believe CA was sold by Activision to Sega (the console games maker).

I fear TW's slide is on the way...

Patches cost money. Sometimes the money comes from the publisher (activision) and sometimes from the developer (CA). Activision contracted to pay for 2 patches which have already been released. Any further patches (and based on a few comments by people who should have a good idea on this, it looks >90% sure that there wont be any further patches) would come from CA's coffers.

Activision did not own CA, they were just the game publisher. SEGA bought CA and so will likely be the publishers of the XP (unless that too is already contracted to Activision).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Leonidas
They are laughingly calling it a "pre-designed feature". lol

No frickin' way. Did they really? Link? I gotta see how they explain this.

[SpencerH]

I cant find the link where they call it a feature but heres the link to their official response.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=24377.topic

Unfortunately, their response shows their total lack of understanding of the problem and has become as big an issue as the problem itself. Numerous experienced gamers/programmers etc have clearly outlined the problem but CA continue to ignore the evidence.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I cant find the link where they call it a feature but heres the link to their official response.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=24377.topic

Unfortunately, their response shows their total lack of understanding of the problem and has become as big an issue as the problem itself. Numerous experienced gamers/programmers etc have clearly outlined the problem but CA continue to ignore the evidence.

As a member of management for over 15 years (In the Ready Mix Concrete Industry) I would have to say the built a response around a company agreed upon non-fixable issue.......

They say the ai uses it best decisions to stop siege it is layin unto someone..

why didnt they simply do it before the save happens?

Ok..I aint no expert at the game so I wont quibble just seems like the answer is a "feelgood" response with little or no substance to it.

Gramps

[Boris Godunov]

That's one of the most pathetic attempts to dodge an issue I've seen in a long, long time.

[Grandpa Troll]

2 votes in