New videos from Gamestar

[Modestus]

According to some people in this forum that battle could not have existed. The Romans would never charge Hannibal's center in that way opening themselves up for flanking and ending up in a.... disorganized BLOOB! Impossible!

What has a famous battle got to do with the mechanics of a game?

Anyhow perhaps you can give your expert analysis of what’s happening between 4.21 and 4.35 in this Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjS7CfIdYsc

The AI is bracing itself for an attack and then decides to shift its front line in the face of a charging enemy running back and fourth between units until very quickly the whole thing becomes once again a big blob.

There maybe little structure to what the player is doing but they AI has no structure either, there is nothing mechanical about the Roman attack it is simply a load of sword units charging into the enemy not too dissimilar from a crowd of football hooligans.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

If this is leaked by Gamestar, they wouldn't have a legit version. They'd have the speedy version that's showcased for people to play.

[jamreal18]

What unit size were used in these videos?

I hope those were normal scale....

[=Vastator=]

What unit size were used in these videos?

I hope those were normal scale....

Not. They were large (120 men for infantry, 90 skirmishers). Huge is 160/120

[jamreal18]

Thats a relief, I want bigger size units than these...

[caissus]

Thats a relief, I want bigger size units than these...

I mostly want more units. These armies in the videos look puny.

[the_mango55]

I mostly want more units. These armies in the videos look puny.

Well they are small. He has 15 units in the field battle, and 14 in the siege (2 being siege engines so really only 12)

[Ganossa]

Field Battle News from the video:

- Talking about line of sight which gets you alot of surprises
- Tactic view only used for movement commands but you wont be able to give attack commands
- Raising shields animation
- Per unit unique skills that need to be mastered for making the difference in battles
- General most important in fights!
- Ambush Battle: tries to take out the general first
- Infantry come from one side so AI tries to stop them from getting to the general with their spearmen, putting cavalry on the otherside he has no chance running away
- Fortified Battle: can further be fortified before battle starts (slowns down the enemy movement)
- Good to fortify if you have number disadvantage

Siege Battle News from the video:

- capture most of the capture points and wait until tickets run down will make you win the siege (or take out all enemies)
-> you cant place your army to just defend one point
- line of sight again awesome cause you wont know where the enemy has his units placed inside the city (only see enemy on the walls)
- cavalry cant take a capture point
- lots of choices how to take a city (showing two alternatives in the video)
- showing how they destroy siege weapons as defenders with a storm troop
- first person view with siege (defend) weapons makes no sense in the heat of battle cause it does to less damage
- cities with no walls are easy to take with armies that have better or more soldiers
- cities with no walls have only one capture point
- only problem you will have is the tight streets nothing else to worry about

Sorry for the bad english and hope it helps, campaign game video is an older one so no comment/translation from me about that.

You might want to quote this on the first page, it should cover most of what they have said.

[Lucius Septimius Bassianus]

Yesterday there was a similar post in the official TW forum and the videos disappeared unexpectedly.

Glad I am able to find them here.

Thanks and + rep!

[Am7]

The two main drawbacks is the arcade battles and unrealistic landscape

[Dan113112]

The two main drawbacks is the arcade battles and unrealistic landscape

The only thing arcade is the battle speed. What is so unrealistic about the landscape? Are we talking about the campaign map or the battle map?

[Am7]

The only thing arcade is the battle speed. What is so unrealistic about the landscape? Are we talking about the campaign map or the battle map?

And both. Need more details on the battle MAP. And in the campaign map to reduce the height of the mountains, and to add more cities, with the names, in the background.

[Dan113112]

And both. Need more details on the battle MAP. And in the campaign map to reduce the height of the mountains, and to add more cities, with the names, in the background.

The battle maps are very detailed. Where have you been? Just look at the Let's Play battle Al Bickham played. That map was very detailed. Ever think that the battles in the videos were taking place on a more open plain? Very possible they were and that's the reason for the lack of "detail".

The campaign map is fairly detailed. Campaign maps have never been to scale. CA has never meant for them to be. They are an abstraction. There are more settlements on this map than any before it. Do I need to remind you of vanilla RTW and how empty that map was?

[Am7]

The battle maps are very detailed. Where have you been? Just look at the Let's Play battle Al Bickham played. That map was very detailed. Ever think that the battles in the videos were taking place on a more open plain? Very possible they were and that's the reason for the lack of "detail".

The campaign map is fairly detailed. Campaign maps have never been to scale. CA has never meant for them to be. They are an abstraction. There are more settlements on this map than any before it. Do I need to remind you of vanilla RTW and how empty that map was?

No I do not need to be reminded, and I know what I'm saying. Need more detail landscape. And as the battle does not look realistic because it's animation whole units, not individual soldiers. For example, in Men of War each soldier monitors the enemy and fighting the enemy. Within the field of vision

[Fanest]

what surprises me is that even though AI surrounded his troops in blob with a nice crescent form his troops managed to win, so for that matter i hope he was playing on easy. Another thing is battle speed which i hope they dumbed down a bit (this really looks like a bit old build).

[davieholgate]

Is it me or do these guys release better info than that paranoid company CA and their scripted sequences?

[Captain Clueless]

Is it me or do these guys release better info than that paranoid company CA and their scripted sequences?

thats what i thought too.

about the content:
-battles look rushed arcade style , like in every video so far.
-AI lookes bad: suicide cav vs. fort defence as one out of many examples
-campain game and its options looks great

[Dan113112]

Is it me or do these guys release better info than that paranoid company CA and their scripted sequences?

You'd be wrong. Look at the notice in the corner of the video. It says "work in progress". CA has said repeatedly that they did not want to show us stuff that is unfinished, unpolished, or just plain unstable. Why you may ask? Because it gives the wrong impression. Even with the "work in progress" symbol people will still idiotically think this is the final version. Granted, there will still probably be issues after release. Al Bickham's battle was much slower than these ones and he had two half sized forces fight one another.

No I do not need to be reminded, and I know what I'm saying. Need more detail landscape. And as the battle does not look realistic because it's animation whole units, not individual soldiers. For example, in Men of War each soldier monitors the enemy and fighting the enemy. Within the field of vision

Two different periods in history. Soldiers in WW2 fought an a more squad or individual level. Soldiers in ancient times fought in formations. Actually, people still fought in formation up until the early stages of WW1.

What? You want small hamlets in the middle of the battlefield. Fences everywhere?

[Am7]

You'd be wrong. Look at the notice in the corner of the video. It says "work in progress". CA has said repeatedly that they did not want to show us stuff that is unfinished, unpolished, or just plain unstable. Why you may ask? Because it gives the wrong impression. Even with the "work in progress" symbol people will still idiotically think this is the final version. Granted, there will still probably be issues after release. Al Bickham's battle was much slower than these ones and he had two half sized forces fight one another.

Two different periods in history. Soldiers in WW2 fought an a more squad or individual level. Soldiers in ancient times fought in formations. Actually, people still fought in formation up until the early stages of WW1.

What? You want small hamlets in the middle of the battlefield. Fences everywhere?

Soldiers in ancient times fought in formations but if a phalanx behind galloping cavalry, the back of the phalanx should turn to him. And just when the horse got stuck near the phalanges one phalanx of soldiers should kill him. quickly. And anyway the horse does not have to be stuck. Those soldiers who are close to the horse to turn his head towards him and kill him.

[Rittsy]

Soldiers in ancient times fought in formations but if a phalanx behind galloping cavalry, the back of the phalanx should turn to him. And just when the horse got stuck near the phalanges one phalanx of soldiers should kill him. quickly. And anyway the horse does not have to be stuck. Those soldiers who are close to the horse to turn his head towards him and kill him.

People who do this (pause the videos, zoom-in and highlight small things out of place that you don't actually notice when you're playing the game) remind me of moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. "You can see here, if we move frame-by-frame, the rear of the phalanx collapses early...as if it were a controlled demolition."