A Plea to CA for a new engine instead of a soon next Total War game. DX12 may deal the cards anew for Rome 2.

[BroskiDerpman]

Gen.Maximus sums up most of my thoughts on Warscape. Heck it can't even authentically display gunpowder warfare.


There's no denying the plebs love Rome 2 though...

I think CA is going to keep Warscape for a while, they can still sell games off it so why not save some effort.

[TheCenturion24]

Agreed, agreed again and triple agreed. The engine, in my opinion, is what really brought down Rome II. It worked in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun. People are complaining about optimization, again I really don't understand where this is coming from, and people posting images of the low end LOD models is getting old. The bare mechanics need rebuilding, not the little things.

[Rittsy]

The way they talk about Rome II, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a long-term supported game (3 years-ish) until the next new Total War is released. By the time of the next potential release the engine would be around about 5-6 years old, so would either require a significant update or to be re-written completely. There's a good chance Rome II will be the last Warscape game, but I don't think we'll see another Total War for 3-4 years.

[General Maximus]

The thing is, they are lazy. Creating a new engine, even though it is REALLY needed now, requires enormous amount of time (maybe years), money and skilled employees. CA and SEGA are with that quick cash-cow tendency. They won't develop a new engine until they have squeezed every last bag of coin they can with this engine.

[krisslanza]

The thing is, they are lazy. Creating a new engine, even though it is REALLY needed now, requires enormous amount of time (maybe years), money and skilled employees. CA and SEGA are with that quick cash-cow tendency. They won't develop a new engine until they have squeezed every last bag of coin they can with this engine.

Well that's just good business sense. Why make a new engine if the old one is still usable? It's better to make a new one when you just flat out can't make a new/better game without making a new engine. Engines aren't cheap to make. There's a reason a lot of companies just buy the license to use someone else's engine, rather then make their own.

[Rittsy]

The thing is, they are lazy. Creating a new engine, even though it is REALLY needed now, requires enormous amount of time (maybe years), money and skilled employees. CA and SEGA are with that quick cash-cow tendency. They won't develop a new engine until they have squeezed every last bag of coin they can with this engine.

Lazy? Very few game developers are lazy. Engines are expensive to develop and time consuming. There's a reason why you see so many developers licencing them rather than build there own. Chances are the major failures of this game are due to project management (ie. time) and publisher demands rather than the engine. Wasn't the game originally slated for an October release which is Q4 (fiscal quarter 4)? But then brought forward to September (Q3)? Seems more likely they ran short on time so Sega could have a better looking Q3 to investors.

[perifanosEllinas]

Agreed.A new functional engine is needed for the next title.Warscape has proved dysfunctional so far,even for the game it was designed for,Empire.

...The engine, in my opinion, is what really brought down Rome II. ...The bare mechanics need rebuilding, not the little things.

Deep inside we all knew that this engine was wrong for Rome 2,but most of us tried to stay positive until release.I totally agree that the bare mechanics need rebuilding and that the engine brought down TWR2.The bad news is that I also agree with this

The thing is, they are lazy. Creating a new engine, even though it is REALLY needed now, requires enormous amount of time (maybe years), money and skilled employees. CA and SEGA are with that quick cash-cow tendency. They won't develop a new engine until they have squeezed every last bag of coin they can with this engine.

That's also my impression mate.They don't seem willing to move from this engine until they have squeezed every last bag of coin they can.

[krisslanza]

Lazy? Very few game developers are lazy. Engines are expensive to develop and time consuming. There's a reason why you see so many developers licencing them rather than build there own. Chances are the major failures of this game are due to project management (ie. time) and publisher demands rather than the engine. Wasn't the game originally slated for an October release which is Q4 (fiscal quarter 4)? But then brought forward to September (Q3)? Seems more likely they ran short on time so Sega could have a better looking Q3 to investors.

Actually they may have aimed for Q3 release because Q4 is also Christmas. There's a LOT of competition around that time. They probably figured it'd be better to release a quarter early and fix the problems between then and there, then risk releasing in Q4 and having those same issues. KOTOR2 was practically killed for being rushed a Q4 release and no one has ever forgiven them for that.

[Rittsy]

Also possible. Either way, same outcome for Total War.

[jamreal18]

Did you post it in official forum?

[Dago Red]

You should include a 3rd option Al Q. "Neither, after Rome II's disaster I only want them to fix the current game." Or something to that effect.


I dont want either. Rome II was the game I waited 10 years for. They need to FIX THIS game, before I even think about buying another CA game again. Rome was the real deal, there is nothing left of interest. If they spend a major expansion revamping this dullard of a game and get the AI working, then I would consider buying another CA game if something about it truly interested me, but I'm long past just buying them to try them.

In fact, I feel like protesting threads of this nature, because we shouldn't even spend 1 minute considering taking a next step when we're still trying to pull ourselves back up with what we have, bloody, after this bludgeoning.

[retarded_strong]

Well that's just good business sense. Why make a new engine if the old one is still usable? It's better to make a new one when you just flat out can't make a new/better game without making a new engine. Engines aren't cheap to make. There's a reason a lot of companies just buy the license to use someone else's engine, rather then make their own.

Well, if Sega and CA aren't at least THINKING about developing or licensing a new 64-bit engine for their next major release they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Especially now when we got the Xbone One and PS4 just around the corner - I think 64-bit gaming will start to heat up (ex: Battlefield 4 will be 64 bit only). Anyway, I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, but I would think it takes a fair amount of time to simply LEARN how to develop on a fancy new engine. If that's the case and Rome II is the extent of Warscape's capabilities... it might be time for a 64-bit engine. I mean, think about it, the only thing the Total War series has going for it is graphics - it sure as hell isn't (LOL) gameplay.

[Riekopo]

I don't believe that excuse at all. CA really need to build a brand new graphics engine specifically for Total War that can do everything they need it to do. It's unbelievable they're still using a 32 bit engine. It should also be easily moddable.

[panzerschreck]

Yes, they definitly need a new engine to be able to give us back the epic battles we liked, in rome 2, most of the players can play with 4000 or 6000 men on the battlefield at all, that's ridiculous, that's not the total war I like.

GIVE US BACK THE UNIT MULTIPLIER TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alQamar]

"Now"? It's ALWAYS been about money. Only indie devs can really afford to make games "for fun". Any corporation of CA's size is making games for the money. They all have families to feed and bills to pay. It's always about making a profit. You make a good game, and you get fans. You make a good SERIES, and you get more fans.

But then all it takes is for them to make one game that some people don't like, and now apparently they're as bad as EA.

Good morning Kriss. You are very right with that, but what happens when you have only one cow and overmilk it for cash till the udder is purulent. This is what CA does. They are clearly and visibly to cut off the tree they are sitting on and once they dropped and people are distracted to buy an technically aged game which works utterly bad on current hardware there is no cash to get. Then their families should be concerned about the situation.

[krisslanza]

Good morning Kriss. You are very right with that, but what happens when you have only one cow and overmilk it for cash till the udder is purulent. This is what CA does. They are clearly and visibly to cut off the tree they are sitting on and once they dropped and people are distracted to buy an technically aged game which works utterly bad on current hardware there is no cash to get. Then their families should be concerned about the situation.

I think it's been pointed out many times that Rome 2 was a pretty huge commercial success. Long-time fans may have disliked it, but money is money.

Anyway, as I said earlier, with a new console generation around the corner, it is likely they are considering a new engine at this point. The original engine that Rome 1 used was used in Rome 1, Shogun 1, Medieval 1 and Medieval 2, right? Warscape is on Empire, Napolean, Shogun 2/Rise of the Samurai/Fall of the Samurai, and now Rome 2. It's probably reached the end of its expected usage so I would expect another engine for the next Total War, and if not, the next one after that.

Rome 2 has kind of shown they are really reaching the limits of a 32-bit engine, if they want the game to be as large as Rome 2. If they keep it smaller though, it can keep up.

[alQamar]

Hi I extended my OP with a Q&A section and will of course bring in frequently or important questions you give me in this thread.


Well kriss all that you said, yes but honestly it is an abnomination to see a successor of a game having plenty less features than the predecessor because of a legacy reason (and some design decisions). A game needs evolution. TW evolution is limited if with the current engine.

[krisslanza]

Hi I extended my OP with a Q&A section and will of course bring in frequently or important questions you give me in this thread.


Well kriss all that you said, yes but honestly it is an abnomination to see a successor of a game having plenty less features than the predecessor because of a legacy reason (and some design decisions). A game needs evolution. TW evolution is limited if with the current engine.

I actually don't think there's really that many missing "features". Just many of them have been changed into something else entirely. Family trees are gone, but that was explained on why it's not in.

[SKSlave]

I made a thread like this before when there were still hordes of dunderheaded fan boys on the forums. Needless to say my request didn't go down well. I think our plea for a new engine will fall on deaf ears; they have attracted a larger crowd now and all they have to do is recycle some assets and animations and ship out the next game. I think TW is dead guys.

[wangrin]

I think the biggest problem with warscape engine are tied now to performance issue, eg. memory and multiprocessor.
It seems that CA is limited in memory budget due to warscape engine architecture (32 bits I suppose).
This is a very big problem because TW focuse a lot on visual aspect, something that is "RAM consuming".

If using warscape for new game means to cut or limit even more features, they really should begin to work on a new engine.


Warscape was not a bad engine, it has proved to be quite modular, allowing to change parts of it, like new battlemap system from two different maps (land and sea) to a new combined one working for land as well as sea battles (but with some pathfinding issues as well as strange behaviours such as "land ship"...).


Porting warscape engine to a 64 bits architecture is not necessarily worth, mostly because it was probably optimize for 32 bits and porting it probably means the "new" engine would not be optimize for 64 bits architecture.
On the other hand, creating a new engine from scratch need a lot of money, time and good programmers.

But CA speaking about "memory budget" limits "ring" like a warning for warscape engine future.
And it's a warning too for modders, because we could have very big problems when it will be time to create overhaul mods, adding new models and even new animations... we could hit a wall here.

It look like warscape is reaching the end of its cycle.
CA is in the "cash cow" stage... somthing that could be eventually compare to a BCG matrix.

Growth-share matrix

1. Stars (=high growth, high market share)
   
   • use large amounts of cash and are leaders in the business so they should also generate large amounts of cash.
   • frequently roughly in balance on net cash flow. However if needed any attempt should be made to hold share, because the rewards will be a cash cow if market share is kept.
   
   
2. Cash Cows (=low growth, high market share)
   
   • profits and cash generation should be high , and because of the low growth, investments needed should be low. Keep profits high
   • Foundation of a company
   
   
3. Dogs (=low growth, low market share)
   
   • avoid and minimize the number of dogs in a company.
   • beware of expensive ‘turn around plans’.
   • deliver cash, otherwise liquidate
   
   
4. Question Marks (= high growth, low market share)
   
   • have the worst cash characteristics of all, because high demands and low returns due to low market share
   • if nothing is done to change the market share, question marks will simply absorb great amounts of cash and later, as the growth stops, a dog.
   • either invest heavily or sell off or invest nothing and generate whatever cash it can. Increase market share or deliver cash
   
   

BCG matrix