The old Rome/M2TW engine vs the warscape engine

[ray243]

I think one of the main reason why so many fans are upset with Rome 2 is mainly because they wanted to see a new Roman era game that is similar to the old Rome Total war.

What they want is an evolution from the old Rome/M2 rather than a massive revolution. A Rome II game that use the old M2 Game engine as its base with updated graphics seems to what fans actually want.

Of course, a game engine is not just about game engine, but also about resource management. While the warscape engine does allow the game to feature more game elements and ensure that the game will run smoother and faster, it seems like the warscape engine introduced too many game features that the fans disliked.

So what do you guys think about the new warscape game engine that is being used for Rome II and the old game engine that was used for Rome I/ Medieval 2? Which one do you prefer?

[FNF]

I think the main issues with the warscape engine are the no/semi-collision system and the whole 'we'll stand still while that one guy attacks that one guy' system which make the combat feel so artificial. Without a doubt I prefer the old engine. It makes the combat feel so much more tactile.

[Emperor Domitianus]

I prefer Warscape. The problem is not the engine but the rigs. Some are capable of running it some Others no.

[GoTW Kubee]

The RTW engine was by no means perfect, but its gameplay was far superior to warscape's. The only real improvements in warscape imho are the changes to missile combat, the more responsive UI and the ability to enable unrestricted camera.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I think the old engine handled melee combat much better, no doubt. The campaigns are much better with Warscape, along with the inclusion of naval battles and better graphics, but for it's time, the old engine was much more revolutionary and enjoyable, in my opinion.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

I Prefer a new engine, both engine,s are crap.

[krisslanza]

Warscape is a fine engine, but as it was created for Empire and Napoleon, by extension, it is ill-suited to a heavily melee-focused game like Rome 2 I think. Many of the things it was designed for, either don't work or work against how the engine was designed.

Going back to the old engine isn't possible, and even if it was, it would likely perform incredibly poorly given its age at this point. CA is going to need to consider a new engine for another melee-centric title, I think, because Warscape just struggles with it.

[stevehoos]

As I have said before, CA was aware that this engine would not suffice for this type of game. This game was nothing but the last monetary gasps of an antiquated engine, this "siege warfare" game should have never been built on this engine to begin with. CA has now earned the true $ grabbing corporation mantra: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto CA the things that are CA's. Which are bogus promotions and fat bottom lines.

[GussieFinkNottle]

By Med2 the old engine was showing its age, it could only run on 1 core and needed to be replaced. However, Warscape is not the one to do it as it was designed for gun combat. With Warscape you can't have range increase at the top of a hill or good unit combat mechanics, because units aren't weighted the way they were in the older games. So this makes it not great for the combat infantry, archers and slingers that make up ancient armies. What the series really needs is an entirely new engine that is modern and updated, but good for complexity (e.g. tax in every province) and melee combat.

[Kinjo]

I preferred modding the old engine, it was amazing how fast I could set up a new army with characters in the old engine.

character	Jacktus Lustus, named character, leader, age 25, , x 89, y 82 
traits GoodCommander 1 , NaturalMilitarySkill 1 , GoodDefender 1 , PoliticsSkill 1 , GoodAdministrator 2 , Austere 3 
ancillaries aged_retainer
army
unit		roman generals guard cavalry early				exp 3 armour 3 weapon_lvl 3
unit		roman hastati				exp 1 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit		roman hastati				exp 1 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit		roman triarii				exp 2 armour 2 weapon_lvl 2
unit		roman archer				exp 1 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0

That little piece of code I could set up a character, traits, retainers, location, units, experience, weapons and armor upgrades, and unique character models and portraits. Trying to do this in Warscape is a nightmare in comparison and nearly impossible with the current mod tools.

I really hated Warscape when it was released, modding was virtually wiped out at first and all the great missing features that was lost. For example city view, custom tiles, and battle maps that resembled the campaign map with things like visible wonders and fleets visible off the coast. Warscape or whatever CA is calling it internally now has come a long way since ETW, but is it time for a new engine? That is debatable, new engines bring new problems. I hope if they do a new engine it's M3TW that gets it, the medieval brand has always gotten the sloppy seconds when it comes to the engine.

[krisslanza]

As I have said before, CA was aware that this engine would not suffice for this type of game. This game was nothing but the last monetary gasps of an antiquated engine, this "siege warfare" game should have never been built on this engine to begin with. CA has now earned the true $ grabbing corporation mantra: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto CA the things that are CA's. Which are bogus promotions and fat bottom lines.

Because it's totally cheap to make a new engine. Developing Rome 2, a AAA game title, is already on par with building a battleship. It's no small feat to just say, "Let's make a new engine."
They tried to work with they had, and that's a smart business decision.

By Med2 the old engine was showing its age, it could only run on 1 core and needed to be replaced. However, Warscape is not the one to do it as it was designed for gun combat. With Warscape you can't have range increase at the top of a hill or good unit combat mechanics, because units aren't weighted the way they were in the older games. So this makes it not great for the combat infantry, archers and slingers that make up ancient armies. What the series really needs is an entirely new engine that is modern and updated, but good for complexity (e.g. tax in every province) and melee combat.

To touch on the complexity part there, that wasn't an engine limitation. They just realized it was kind of pointless - most people would constantly be tweaking the taxes to squeeze as much out of every single settlement anyway, so they just made it empire-wide to get rid of having to check your expanding empire for maximum tax efficiency.

[GussieFinkNottle]

To touch on the complexity part there, that wasn't an engine limitation. They just realized it was kind of pointless - most people would constantly be tweaking the taxes to squeeze as much out of every single settlement anyway, so they just made it empire-wide to get rid of having to check your expanding empire for maximum tax efficiency.

And minimum immersion/player freedom

[Kinjo]

Lol ...

US battleship cost $100 million
GTA V production $265 million

[Nordmann]

Old and new have their fair share of issues, so if the poll option were present, then I would have to say neither.

[Modestus]

Because it's totally cheap to make a new engine. Developing Rome 2, a AAA game title, is already on par with building a battleship. It's no small feat to just say, "Let's make a new engine."
They tried to work with they had, and that's a smart business decision.

I agree that making a game is expensive and that is exactly the reason why Warscape is what it is, an engine that was designed to make the creation of a Total War game more cost effective however a price has been paid and RTW2 is the end result, it will be interesting to see how smart CA really have been.

[chris10]

Lol ...

US battleship cost $100 million
GTA V production $265 million

You mean US battleship 1943 for $100 million ?
That would be $2,3 billion in todays money...
Or do you mean GTA V 2013 for $265 million ?
That would be $4.1 million in 1943 money

Interesting,tell me more how these figures compare

[GussieFinkNottle]

Yeah an aircraft carrier today costs between 1 and 4 billion dollars.
And a destroyer about $1bn

I'm betting Empire, including the creation of Warscape, cost well under $100m

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I'd have to go with making a completely new engine. Old engine for example had strict limitations on CPU usage, apperently no motion capture compatiblity and also had a terrible AI prone to freezing as usual. How about going back to the M1TW engine instead? It was flawless.

[Nordmann]

You mean US battleship 1943 for $100 million ?
That would be $2,3 billion in todays money...
Or do you mean GTA V 2013 for $265 million ?
That would be $4.1 million in 1943 money

Interesting,tell me more how these figures compare

This is a little off-topic, but battleships in the traditional sense don't exist in the 21st century. There are carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. I would like to see where these cost to build figures are being dredged up from, because the last time I checked, these things were worth a lot more than $100 million.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

You mean US battleship 1943 for $100 million ?
That would be $2,3 billion in todays money...
Or do you mean GTA V 2013 for $265 million ?
That would be $4.1 million in 1943 money

Interesting,tell me more how these figures compare

You can however buy your own tank brigade of 31 M1A2 Abrams tanks for 265 million dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

US$6.21 million (M1A2 / FY99)^[3] Estimated in 2012 as US$8.58 million (with inflation adjustment)