An honest demo, please!

Would it be too much to ask of CA to give us a demo of NTW where the battle isn't scripted?
For as long as I can recall the TW demo battles have been scripted. Now would be a good time to try and restore a bit of trust between CA and the potential customer and show what the AI is really made off.
After ETW, I want to kick the AIs tires before committing to a purchase.

If the AI is once again scripted, I think I'll just draw my conclusions from that.

I remember that demo. Good times - marching over the creek, lining your men out on the plain and having an "OMG its just like the patriot" style battle.
I dont think it was too scripted.
But anyway, we've had no news of a demo yet so who knows what we'll get.
And if I remember right, this time last year we had waaaay more info about E:TW than we currently have about N:TW

Come to think it, did any of the expansions have demos? I don't think Kingdoms had any.

Although, with all that talk about NTW being standalone and everything, maybe we could get an exception.

I bet we do get a demo and it will be scripted all to hell. It does seem that CA is being very stingy with the info this close to release. Makes me nervous.

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

I bet we do get a demo and it will be scripted all to hell. It does seem that CA is being very stingy with the info this close to release. Makes me nervous.

Well they cant be called liars if they dont tell us anything

As George Bush once said:

fool me once, shame on.....eh.... shame on you. Fool me..em....eh.... you can't get fooled again."

Originally Posted by aeoleron9

Come to think it, did any of the expansions have demos? I don't think Kingdoms had any.

Although, with all that talk about NTW being standalone and everything, maybe we could get an exception.

Kingdoms did have a demo.

They'll give us Austerlitz no doubt

Originally Posted by Soveriegn

They'll give us Austerlitz no doubt

No, Waterloo and make you play Wellington since they're a British company.

Originally Posted by EmperorBatman999

No, Waterloo and make you play Wellington since they're a British company.

except Keiran has said, and I'd be a fool not to believe him on this, that Waterloo is an unlock at the end of the Grand Campaignish part of the game, which can either be played then or not.

I bet Austerlitz or the Pyramids. If you remember all other TWs waited until the month before release to release the demo. I actually liked ETW's Brandywine creek-it added a great map for tactics, it was my favorite of the historical battles (Though Fontenoy was pretty good.)

Originally Posted by Elmar

Would it be too much to ask of CA to give us a demo of NTW where the battle isn't scripted?
For as long as I can recall the TW demo battles have been scripted. Now would be a good time to try and restore a bit of trust between CA and the potential customer and show what the AI is really made off.
After ETW, I want to kick the AIs tires before committing to a purchase.

If the AI is once again scripted, I think I'll just draw my conclusions from that.

lolol why would they? Thats like, "hey look we have no AI at all in the game, just some randomly generated ai orders. Oh also while we're honest, there wont be full mod support. Plz buy our game k plz, has to buy catfood "

I dont know...

I thought Empire was ok. I just has some performance issues with the grand campaign map and also felt like the world map may have been a little underdone. Going to war was a pain because you always go bankrupt because a two-man fishing boat it blockading your sea route. Other than the map and economy, empire was ok with me.

If they are looking to make improvements that is cool. If they are just reskinning the old game, like you suggested, i would be a little disappointing. Either way, I will probably buy it.

well they'll have to release a demo soon (release in less then 2 months), I hope that it will have a small campaign to try out most new features, not likely to happen i know

I think the only scripted portion of the ETW demo was the appearance of Pennsylvania long riflemen at the creek. Other than that, the way the main US army moved to counter me in the demo was different each time I played it. One time their cavalry would sally forth, another time they would sit behind a LI wall, etc, etc.

Granted, I only played the demo like 3 times, but a NTW demo similar to the ETW one would be fine with me.

I really hope there will be a demo... Because for the moment we are lacking of screenshots and videos. Beside the last video we saw was not new, because someone filmed it in moscow 2 months before and put it on you tube. It's hard to wait with so few informations...

Would it be too much to ask of CA to give us a demo of NTW where the battle isn't scripted?
For as long as I can recall the TW demo battles have been scripted. Now would be a good time to try and restore a bit of trust between CA and the potential customer and show what the AI is really made off.
After ETW, I want to kick the AIs tires before committing to a purchase.

You are fully aware that most of the demos involved were derived from the historical battles that you can play in the full version of the games?

So yes they are scripted to a certain extent for obvious reasons.

Though in MT2 I do remember someone modding the demo, making it into an actual custom matched battle.

I actually liked the demo for ETW even though I remember being abused. when I mentioned that the AI did not seem too bright.

I think that one of the more appealing aspects of the ETW demo was the terrain, the player had to think about how to even approach the AI, you had to make tactical decisions. The final outcome of the battle may not have been in question but at least you had to think. Unfortunately for the full game you had to make do with largely boring battlefields that asked very little from the player.

Some of the new screens for NTW seem to show interesting terrain but is this only part of the story driven campaign or has Warscape evolved to generate more sophisticated terrain that adds to the players experience on the battlefield.

I have my doubts but it would seem to me that this is what CA should be aiming for.

Originally Posted by nameless

You are fully aware that most of the demos involved were derived from the historical battles that you can play in the full version of the games?

So yes they are scripted to a certain extent for obvious reasons.

Though in MT2 I do remember someone modding the demo, making it into an actual custom matched battle.

My point being that the demo battles were not a fair representation of what the battles were like in the game itself. Have you seen aI do complex moves? In fact, how often did you see terrain as interesting as in the demo battles?
I'm amazed that apparently so many people are accepting of this.

Have a guess what the demo is about

Map 1: Battle of Lodi

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

With Napoleon’s forces chasing the Austrian defenders up along the
south bank of Po River, the time came to make a stand. When the battle
was joined, as you can see, the French units are tightly bunched, while
the Austrians are scattered about the place.

Each side have their own advantages: the French have the ability to
move and fire as one big unit, concentrating fire on a smaller front
and having strength in numbers, while the Austrians will be less
vulnerable to cannon fire while they remain spread out.


The Austrian AI immediately set about strengthening its position in
the centre of the town, moving units in from the west and reinforcing
the eastern bank of the Po, over the Lodi Bridge itself. The objective
for the French, other than killing a load of Austrians, is to prevent
Feldzeugmeister Johann Beaulieu (the enemy general) from retiring from
the battlefield. No mean task, as he’s safely tucked away on the other
side of the bridge with, naturally, the bulk of his army protecting
him. The French, as in me, need to move quickly and decisively in order
to prevent this from happening. French cannons unlimber and begin to
fire on the Austrian positions, while we make the decision to detach a
small chunk of our army to intercept some of the Austrians moving to
reinforce the town. Battle is joined on the western road and two
Austrian cavalry units are driven from the field. The rest of the
French force moves inexorably towards the town.
The detachment that saw off the two Austrian cavalry units remains
poised on the western side of the battlefield. The AI reacts to the
danger and moves a substantial clump of men towards them. As the main
bulk of the French army is now approaching the town, it is easy to
reinforce the western position and battle is properly joined in the
field outside of town. The French fight defensively, holding their
positions while the two cavalry units harass the flanks of the Austrian
infantry, causing them to panic. Sure enough, the Austrians have had
it, dropping arms and pegging it back across the field. Half of the
Austrian army is now running for the hills and we wheel our left flank
around, partially encircling the town. Vicious street fighting begins
and both armies whittle away at each other.


The Austrian commander decides it’s time to leave, but we won’t let
the swine get away. As he meanders along the eastern path to safety,
the cavalry, that have already secured our victory for me, ford the
river to the north and intercept him. Mere seconds before he leaves the
scene, they catch him, slaughtering his unit and claiming victory for
the French.
The rest of the Austrian forces, stranded in the centre of town, fight
on until a handful remain, their morale broken and, eventually, their
bodies strewn around the town streets. A sound ‘defensive attack’
strategy won the day here, with the Australians unable to break
Napoleon’s advance.

Map 2: Battle of the Pyramids

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of Napoleon’s most famous victories was earned against a
combined Ottoman and Mamluk force, which entered the field a few miles
from the Pyramids. Again, both armies had advantages over the other:
the French had superior troops and cannon, while the Mamluks were used
to fighting in deserts. They also had units of fearsome cavalry, which
they’d have to use effectively to win.

This time it would be a human opponent that faced off against us.
His cocky swagger didn’t put us off our game and our men steeled
themselves for his brash onslaught. As you can see on the map, our
initial movements were minor at best, mainly straightening out the line
and allowing ourselves to bring more men forward to fire when
necessary. My thin lines would be easily broken if engaged by cavalry,
but the plan was to make sure the enemy horses didn’t get anywhere near
them.


Sitting in our defensive position, we watched as the Mamluks
advanced, noticing that our small collection of units defending the
nearby village was being approached by Mamluk cavalry. Two infantry
units lined along an impassable slope, meaning the enemy had to funnel
through a narrow gap if they wanted to engage. A volley of musket fire
took out a surprising number and the charge faltered. The unit
defending the gap swiftly reordered itself into a square formation and
the reckless Mamluk charge was easily seen off. This was the key moment
in the battle.
With his left flank broken, we seized the opportunity, sending a
lone cavalry unit around behind the enemy lines. My opponent was too
busy focusing on the joining of battle between our main lines to
notice, and our cavalry came smashing into his limbered cannons, moving
swiftly between each unit and destroying them with minimal casualties
suffered.


Amazingly, we were able to take out every one of our opponent’s
cannons before he noticed. Without their support, our front line,
backed up sufficiently by their own cannons, stood firm. The battle
looked to be going our way for a crushing victory, but the Ottoman’s
and Mamluk’s advantage in terms of troop numbers proved important on
our left flank. Sheer weight of numbers finally destroyed it and some
swift reorganisation was necessary to prevent a disaster.
Anticipating the collapse, we had begun to wheel the rest of our
line around, reorganising them into a smaller, more compact fighting
force. No longer worried about cannon fire, we could reduce the length
of the line and not worry about cannonballs thudding into our packed
ranks.


Fierce fighting on our left flank had weakened his advancing
infantry, who were further disadvantaged by having a number of
melee-only units in their ranks. My muskets whittled their numbers
down, before a final flanking cavalry charge burst through their line
from the side and sent them packing.
In the end, a dominant victory had been prevented by the vast numbers
of the opposing force, but our opponent’s failure to protect his
cannons meant his men were just too beleaguered by the time final
battle was joined to see us off. It just shows: failing to pay
attention to aspects of a battle is a fatal mistake.

Autor
David Brown, PC Zone UK

Originally Posted by Elmar

My point being that the demo battles were not a fair representation of what the battles were like in the game itself. Have you seen aI do complex moves? In fact, how often did you see terrain as interesting as in the demo battles?
I'm amazed that apparently so many people are accepting of this.

I have a similar view, the ETW demo presented you with an interesting landscape the actually game did not.


I find it extremely worrying that CA are supposed to be pushing the game forward but that they developed a game engine that seems to be incapable of generated challenging terrain in fact scratch challenging just interesting would do.

Facts about ETW.

1\ Bridge battles very similar and still a death trap for the AI.
2\ City battles become little towns and the AI is lost and confused.
3\ Forts again death traps for the AI with appalling path finding and behaviour from the AI.

Looking at ETW You have a game engine that could not possibly create an MTW2 or even a RTW.

NTW would really want to be a big leap forward in the capabilities of Warscape.