do you like this 225 turn thing with no years and each turn representing like 3 years?
yes or no?
yes
no
Senator
The years vs. turns fiasco
do you like this 225 turn thing with no years and each turn representing like 3 years?
yes or no?
[BIG MTW2 SIG]
Skyhigh - can't go out at night because he'd bump his head on the stars.
Civitate
no no no no! at the very LEAST turns should be editable easily by modders!
Civitate
Hell no.
Adnan
Power breeds Arrogance
Originally Posted by MasterAdnin
My thoughts exactly.
tBP knows how to handle a sword. -Last Crusader
Under the Honorable Patronage of Belisarius
Formerly Under the Patronage of Simetrical
Proud Patron of Lusted, Rome AC, Solid, and Dirty Peasant
Apperently I protect
Since there is no "I don't care" option, I voted yes.
I can see the advantages it will bring to mods.
Libertus
the way the have it now years are better. If they made the turns make sense it would be better.
The turns should be far shorter. It simply ruins the effect of a game if it takes several years to walk from one side of Italy to the other. You could walk from one side of Eurpoe to the other in the time. Well, maybe you could. But my point is made.
I do not spell check my posts. Please do not point out spelling errors. I am literate but I am also lazy.
He who fights and runs away lives to die another day.
rez
Yes Lord Snibb is mostly right
Dude I don't see why everyone thinks its so bad when it takes 4 turns (2 years) to walk from england to spain. Sure its not realy realistic, but who the hell cares? We call it gameplay and if we could just walk around the map like in real life nothing could be done on a turn based game.
Libertus
the thing is there is 225 turns and people age every 2 turns.
Senator
the thing is is that you could go from england to spain in well under a year
[BIG MTW2 SIG]
Skyhigh - can't go out at night because he'd bump his head on the stars.
Non scholae sed vitae
I agree. Besides, I don't understand why people are making such a fuzz about it.
"Tempus edax rerum." Ovid, Metamorphoses
Under the patronage of Virgil.
Miles
I voted no. I think this would take a lot of realism out of the game.
But i can see why CA did this. The game takes place during all of middle ages and for us not to complete it to fast they made one turn last 3 years.
I don like the idea of my armies marching so long from one point on the map to the other. So much for my medival lightning war.
Voted no.
My initial excitement about this game has gone down hill fast. However, I suppose I can be comforted in the knowledge that, while the game may not offer much of anything a serious strategy gamer would want, at least my units have finishing moves.
Because that's what medieval warfare simulations should really be all about: finishing moves.
Probably because it is actually shaping up WORSE than RTW on the campaign front. Compressing 3 campaigns and era's into one...something that CA already failed with in RTW. And the logic behind having 2 or 3 faction leaders in 450 years??? It makes re-arming head hurlers seem reasonable.
Positively positive
Nothing to add. Are you my twin?
CAVE CANEM
"CA forced me to buy RTW2. CA made my buy all DLC's. Even the free ones. CA made me push the button."
This isn't the crisis!
Undecided, i'm gonna wait and see how CA's new approach works out when I play the game before I make my jugement.
Under the patronage of Basileos Leandros I
Former Chief Technician
Precisely my judgment. I think most people tend to have a natural reactionary tendency; they oppose changes before they properly know what they are and what their implications are. Best to wait and see what it's like.
True, but I do believe most people that post on these and the official forums would not like to see turns instead of years. (Based on polls)
While none of us really know how it's going to work, unless you work for CA,, I kinda get what they're trying to do but IMO it's just not good.
I like to know what year i'm in because if I don't it just doesn't feel right.
And if we wait till it comes out then there is 0% chance that it will be changed.
I just hope CA will give us more info on it, then we all can make our informed judgements on the matter.
Biarchus
I dislike the idea, but not to the point where it's going to be a game breaker. From a historical standpoint (i.e. sticking to historical events) the idea sucks, of course the fact that they aren't doing the era system is another aggravating hang up for me.
I kind of wish they would have changed back to the seasonal approach...
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
Civitate
If this is definatley going to be implemented, it will make the game a bit worse. One reason I have come up with is that movement points are going to be increased, this means that there are going to be more seige battles since armies can move more a turn and can therefore take a city, and then exterminate it's populace and continue on to the next city in the same turn. This is one of the many reasons why I am against it, but if CA are able to implement it properly, and by properly meaning accurate, and in a fun way, I will have no problem with it.
Adnan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
