Regiments marching through each other

[PresbyterJohn]

I won't pretend to know the significance of the sprite ratio but is it significant to the size of the battalion? Some Napoleonic battalions at full strength could have a strength of 1000 men on the field (ten companies of one hundred men), but more likely 800 prior to a period of campaigning. 500-600 might be reasonable for a veteran battalion mid-campaign. Miniatures rules with battalions as the manoeuvre units would have a basing of one figure to 50-60 men and this is visually appealing (to me at least).

[zakblood]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I fully accept the criticism that Total War is unrealistic. In fact, I don't play the game - it annoyed me for that very reason.

BUT, one thing TW really does well is the graphical representation of troops in formation:

- No conga line
- No facing the wrong way
- No regiments passing through each other

And the TW units and terrain just LOOK so much better artistically.

The TW series succeeds because it is 'lucky'? I don't think so. It succeeds because it is visually appealing and accurate enough to satisfy most consumers. There's a marketing and sales lesson to be learned there somewhere, although personally I DO want a historically accurate simulation. That looks realistic. And appealing. And doesn't annoy me with nonsense unit moves.

Too much to ask, probably.

i play all the TW games with plenty of mods, while i agree it's unrealistic, it sure is fun, don't own this one as yet as no time to play as i spend all my time atm testing, but will get it before xmas....

as it's a good game

[aaatoysandmore]

Yeah, Empire and Napoleon Total War are a couple of my favorites.

[Redmarkus5]

So I am still confused. What is it that the Total War devs CAN do, but which the SoW devs apparently CAN'T do that makes the TW units move much more realistically, without the SoW snaking and conga dancing?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

So I am still confused. What is it that the Total War devs CAN do, but which the SoW devs apparently CAN'T do that makes the TW units move much more realistically, without the SoW snaking and conga dancing?

Didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to shut up, accept it, and buy it [:D]

edit: That's the impression one gets from a pair of fanbois.

[RebBugler]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

So I am still confused. What is it that the Total War devs CAN do, but which the SoW devs apparently CAN'T do that makes the TW units move much more realistically, without the SoW snaking and conga dancing?

Instead of being confused, perhaps you could help out some if you would like to see SOW improvements. Maybe compare files with games you like of the same genre and relay some specifics; i.e.: formations, engagement procedures, etc. Other folks in this thread are offering useful, thought out, options to improve the SOW system.

We at SOW are not in denial, we know the game isn't perfect. Short of converting to a modeling type engine, we are constantly seeking ways to improve upon what we do best, epic proportioned 'musket war' simulations.

Many of the things you kvetch about could be fixed immediately, if we slow the game down...halt, reform, move. However, then we open the door to a whole new batch of negative fodder by slowing down what is already a slow genre by nature - musket wars. This is why marketing these type games is always a gamble as they appeal more to a smaller base of intellectual, historically minded folks. You included, friend!

[Gunfreak]

A few points

1. Total war deals with a maximum of 40 units pr side. If sow did that I'm sure each unit would mach and wheel perfectly. Instead it deals with sevral hundred, possibly thousands.
2. Total war units have 1 formation (same formation no mater how deep or wide you make it, so it has very few things to keep track of.
3. Sow uses an engine that traces back to take command 1st bull run. This is a legitimate "complaint" that effects alot of the game in negative fashions (like performance, graphics, unit movement ect. You could argue that it was time to make a new engine before Waterloo, but I'm sure thd team had to make do, hopefully waterloo will sell well, and they can make expansion packs to it, while they build a brand new engine for the 3rd installment of sow.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

So I am still confused. What is it that the Total War devs CAN do, but which the SoW devs apparently CAN'T do that makes the TW units move much more realistically, without the SoW snaking and conga dancing?

Didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to shut up, accept it, and buy it [:D]

Yeah, good point! [:D]

[aaatoysandmore]

while they build a brand new engine for the 3rd installment of sow.

Yeah, like an ancients game an engine. [:'(]

[Gunfreak]

I hope they'll stick to the last 500 years if history.

Tactically speaking medieval snd ancients are simple, while not super6 simple like i used to think. Its still quite basic.

I can see the 30 years war work. All wars from late 1600s to napoleonic period.

I hope if they make a new engine, they either make a new acw game, a game about the 28th century, or a napoleonic game again. Those are the periods scourge of war work best.


Also forgot to mention, total war still uses the warscape engine it has used since empire, which more or less ruined rome 2.

So if a company with over 100 million in the game budget, also keep reusing the same game engine for years, one can see how a small indy dev team must do the sane.

[pjsynnott]

ORIGINAL: RebBugler

Instead of being confused, perhaps you could help out some if you would like to see SOW improvements. Maybe compare files with games you like of the same genre and relay some specifics; i.e.: formations, engagement procedures, etc. Other folks in this thread are offering useful, thought out, options to improve the SOW system.

The problem seems to be less about the formations themselves, than the shapes they make when changing formation, or making drastic facing changes, particularly while moving.

As far as I've noticed, the conga line doesn't happen when units are changing formation while stationary. I'm no programmer, so I don't know what is and isn't possible with the game engine, but one approach that might be worthy of consideration would be to prevent units from changing formation while on the move. If a move involves arriving in a new formation, then have the unit change formation before it begins its move or after it arrives at the new destination (more risky, but very historical for the French!), instead of en route. Whenever a unit needs to relocate, particularly to a location that isn't straight ahead of it, have it sort out its correct formation and correct facing (with a lateral move by-the flank if necessary, or wheeling, obliquing if possible) before it begins the actual move.

Another way to avoid the conga line might be to change the way the sprites are displayed while moving. If the alignment is going to be sufficiently disrupted, then have the sprites form a "clump" from which the new formation or facing will emerge.

[JamesLxx]

ORIGINAL: RebBugler

Many of the things you kvetch about could be fixed immediately, if we slow the game down...halt, reform, move. However, then we open the door to a whole new batch of negative fodder by slowing down what is already a slow genre by nature - musket wars. This is why marketing these type games is always a gamble as they appeal more to a smaller base of intellectual, historically minded folks. You included, friend!

Reb - If formations can be fixed immediately then please make it happen! I for one want formations that halt-reform-move as they did historically. It would look right and tactical combat would play out right. As a consequence yes it would slow down an already slow genre...but I believe your historically minded target audience would prefer this to ahistorical results. Perhaps the slower 'realistic formation combat model' could be made as an option giving players the choice...

[TDefender]

I believe your historically minded target audience would prefer this to ahistorical results.

Absolutely agree

[Tim1966]

We have one programmer (part time), two artists (part time), a couple of designers (part time) and mapmakers (part time), one lead tester (part time) and about 8 regular testers (part time). We have to build on what we have from SOWGB. We can't just build a new engine over night.

If you haven't programmed or built a game you don't really know whats involved - I certainly didn't before I started working on SOWGB. You change one little thing and breaks so many other things, you make compromises and choices to get the game to run better. We don't have a massive full time team.

No one has to shut up, accept and buy the game - we built a game we are justifiably proud of and are constantly on the boards listening to suggestions and helping modders and we constantly debate in the team lots of the suggestions on the boards. We are pleased when people like it and try to improve it all the time and accept and listen to all suggestions. We accept a lot of people won't like it.

I was a massive TW fan - I loved Shogun and Medieval but they made a decision to go down the graphics route - we went for scale and being as historically accurate as we could whilst still keeping the game fun and moving along. Thats the difference between the games - their AI is well know for not being great - they have no formations - just blocks but its does look amazing. Our Ai is pretty good, the scale huge and the maps accurate. Pay you money and take your choice but please don't accuse us of not listening or caring.

[Aurelian]

Oops

[PresbyterJohn]

I'm not strictly a fan of realism. A lot of people who think they know "realism" don't know their arse from their elbow. But if the battle on the screen matches the fun I have on the Napoleonic miniatures battlefield then A+.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I'm not strictly a fan of realism. A lot of people who think they know "realism" don't know their arse from their elbow. But if the battle on the screen matches the fun I have on the Napoleonic miniatures battlefield then A+.

As far as the 'battle', it does. [:)]

[oho_slith]

any of the things you kvetch about could be fixed immediately, if we slow the game down...halt, reform, move. However, then we open the door to a whole new batch of negative fodder by slowing down what is already a slow genre by nature - musket wars. This is why marketing these type games is always a gamble as they appeal more to a smaller base of intellectual, historically minded folks. You included, friend!

Please don't think, a realistic slower game which looks correct would sell worse.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Prester John
A lot of people who think they know "realism" don't know their arse from their elbow.

I might not know "realism", but I know that a conga-line is not it...I'd probably be happy if I could play without getting slapped in the face by visual weirdness. Whenever weird stuff like this happens in tactical games it blows immersion for me.

[PresbyterJohn]

Oh I find the dancing lines very distracting. Very. Can't watch it in fact. I'd much prefer to see the troops in fixed blocks(bases), roughly two figures per company if fighting with battalions. If going up a level then four figures per base representing a battalion for multi corps battles but then you lose the details ie skirmishers. Now for the argument about realism ....

And I want dice.