A plea to CA - please SCRAP the Warscape engine for the next game

[Metallistic]

I have said it before and I will say it again - it is absolutely hilarious how people with ZERO qualification talk about a game engine. Stop blaming thing you do not understand, don't be so ignorant ffs.

I think you don`t.

RTW1 allowed for as many people as possible to slaughter 1 man, if the people were available. So you had 2 v1, 3v1, 4v1, 5 v1.

The problem with warscape is you get 1v1, while the other spare guy (the 3rd man) hangs around doing nothing until the spanking choreography animation is done. Not good for melee battles or realistic.

How do you come up with this kind of stuff? Have you actually paid any attention to combat animations in Rome II and that it follows the very same principle of soldiers being able to kill others with a single animation? It DOES happen that a soldier may fight a 1v1 and then he gets gutted by another. So basically the only real difference is that Rome II also has a set of animations for more dynamic deaths... Just like all of the TW games from Medieval 2 onward.

[SKSlave]

Don't bother, Humble Warrior, I'm fairly sure he's trolling. His response was childish enough to be a troll post anyway.

[SKSlave]

I have said it before and I will say it again - it is absolutely hilarious how people with ZERO qualification talk about a game engine. Stop blaming thing you do not understand, don't be so ignorant ffs.



How do you come up with this kind of stuff? Have you actually paid any attention to combat animations in Rome II and that it follows the very same principle of soldiers being able to kill others with a single animation? It DOES happen that a soldier may fight a 1v1 and then he gets gutted by another. So basically the only real difference is that Rome II also has a set of animations for more dynamic deaths... Just like all of the TW games from Medieval 2 onward.

You're right. Just like how a customer in a restaurant has absolutely no right to comment on the food they've just eaten. They never underwent chef training, so what the hell do they know if it's rotten or not?

[=Vastator=]

Comparing a 2004 very low budget game animations with a big budgeted 2013 game ones it's not the most clever thing of this world.
The "stab in the air" animations of Rome I could have been improve with more resources (it happened a bit with Medieval 2, where we had AWESOME synced finishing moves), but in a strategy game it's not such a big problem....
At least Rome I didn't have sliding soldier, and the "soldiers watching the enemy without attacking because the enemy is doing a 1vs1 animation" problem was not so frequent.

[karamazovmm]

so you want a new engine because of 1vs1 animations? I want a new engine because of cpu optimisations and other technical stuff. 1v1 animations is simply and utterly ridiculous

[BigHairyMelon]

I don't think warscape portrays formation fighting at all, it is all 1v1 fighting. As we can see from rome 2 the hoplite phalanx formation just doesn't work and even some of the Roman fighting styles aren't portrayed in the game. The video CA released with that marine guy showcasing some of the Roman equipment showed something where one soldier blocks with his shield and stabs a different guy, hence fighting as a unit. This is not conveyed at all in with the current engine.

I think all the soldiers learned how to fight in villain school where only one guy is allowed to attack. I do remember CA saying that despite the 1v1 animations the engine takes into account people being surrounded and it is true as soldiers die faster when surrounded, but some visual animation showing this would be nice instead of some internal mechanic that we cant see.

[omzdog]

1v1 animations is simply and utterly ridiculous

Agreed.

"soldiers watching the enemy without attacking because the enemy is doing a 1vs1 animation"

Yes it would be quite rude for them to interrupt.

[Lord Tomyris]

I have to say that, while Rome 2 looks beautiful in terms of detail and unit variation etc, RTW looks vastly superior in terms of the 'bigger picture' - that is to say, massed formations, disciplined fighting etc. Besides, the battles in Rome 2 are over so quick that I don't even have time to look at the 1-on-1 animations...

[Metallistic]

You're right. Just like how a customer in a restaurant has absolutely no right to comment on the food they've just eaten. They never underwent chef training, so what the hell do they know if it's rotten or not?

That is a horrible analogy and just further proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Simply said, a game engine is a software framework. So in your case, that would be the kitchen. Now tell me with a straight face that your scenario does not seem stupid as hell.

[absinthia]

I have said it before and I will say it again - it is absolutely hilarious how people with ZERO qualification talk about a game engine. Stop blaming thing you do not understand, don't be so ignorant ffs.

then please enlighten us with your great wisdom. use your own words and be very detailed about it!

[SKSlave]

That is a horrible analogy and just further proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Simply said, a game engine is a software framework. So in your case, that would be the kitchen. Now tell me with a straight face that your scenario does not seem stupid as hell.

Tell me with a straight face that you haven't just spewed out a load of words and meaningless garble (it's the kitchen!). I'll explain it nice and slowly for you, shall I?

The customer doesn't review the kitchen, they review the meal put in front of them. Much like the customer reviews the GAME put in front of them. The game that comes with a particular engine. The engine is a part of the game and is part of the user's experience and is such able to be scrutinised by the player. If the engine does crap things, like the 1v1 animations in Warscape, then it is fair play to comment on it because it is part of the game and part of the user's experience of the product.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

I want a new engine that allows us to play with 50 000 soldiers in one battle (in the vanilla version). I don't give a damn about fancy animations or shiny armor, I just want HUGE battles. I am aware that we can bump up the unit sizes, but the game is still not designed around these modded unit sizes. I want CA to make it a design priority to have huge battles in the next total war.

[SKSlave]

I want a new engine that allows us to play with 50 000 soldiers in one battle (in the vanilla version). I don't give a damn about fancy animations or shiny armor, I just want HUGE battles. I am aware that we can bump up the unit sizes, but the game is still not designed around these modded unit sizes. I want CA to make it a design priority to have huge battles in the next total war.

Huge soldier numbers won't work well on consoles, so chances are it won't happen.

[omzdog]

Its certainly not the kitchen.
That 'software framework' was teh design of the developers and they also chose to use it.
Thats like cooks making their own kitchen from scratch then getting the choice to use it or not.

[vrgadin]

Why not?
Thats the way RomeI was made.

im really getting tired at everyone looking back with rose colored glasses, or just taking someones word for it (never even playing it) that rome 1 was the end all be all gods gift of a game.

It was just as silly, basic and shallow as alot of TW games. what made r1 good were the mods. so lets get off the bandwagon and remember how derpy vanilla rome 1 was!

[vrgadin]

Huge soldier numbers won't work well on consoles, so chances are it won't happen.

they have games like that. particularly american civil war games that represent that many people on a field. thing is due to limitations of cpus the men render as box like blobs and the effects are stop motion puffs of smoke. so yeh go play that trash .

[SKSlave]

im really getting tired at everyone looking back with rose colored glasses, or just taking someones word for it (never even playing it) that rome 1 was the end all be all gods gift of a game.It was just as silly, basic and shallow as alot of TW games. what made r1 good were the mods. so lets get off the bandwagon and remember how derpy vanilla rome 1 was!

Yep, let's not acknowledge the fact that CA haven't learnt from their mistakes in 10 years! A game released almost a decade ago had problems, so it's perfectly fine for a game now to have pretty much the same problems!

[caratacus]

I want a new engine that allows us to play with 50 000 soldiers in one battle (in the vanilla version). I don't give a damn about fancy animations or shiny armor, I just want HUGE battles. I am aware that we can bump up the unit sizes, but the game is still not designed around these modded unit sizes. I want CA to make it a design priority to have huge battles in the next total war.

I agree you will never get truly epic scale battles with RTW2 the graphics and animations are just too advanced for most computers to handle it. I can see why they stuck with Warscape though, it was the cheapest and safest option and allowed CA to concentrate on developing the Game's graphics, which is its main selling point. Didn't they even have some kind of input from Intel?, that would have been worth a bit of lolly to them. Regrettably this came at a cost and that was a significant downsize of its strategy element. I agree that Warscape is not suited to this period of warfare and given that there was a requirement to downsize the size of battles, a far better option would have been a 19th Century TW. But a Roman based TW was seen as the easiest way to get big sales and they choose RTW2 much to mine and many others regret. Ironically despite fantastic graphics, most battles for me are viewed as point and click blobby engagements with none of the enjoyment of out maneuvering the AI opponent using formations. The units look great but they also look great in Mount and Blade but I wouldn't call it a strategy sim.

[Metallistic]

Tell me with a straight face that you haven't just spewed out a load of words and meaningless garble (it's the kitchen!). I'll explain it nice and slowly for you, shall I?

The customer doesn't review the kitchen, they review the meal put in front of them. Much like the customer reviews the GAME put in front of them. The game that comes with a particular engine. The engine is a part of the game and is part of the user's experience and is such able to be scrutinised by the player. If the engine does crap things, like the 1v1 animations in Warscape, then it is fair play to comment on it because it is part of the game and part of the user's experience of the product.

You still don't get it, do you? The engine is not the end all be all when it comes to video games. Do I have to give you examples of games using prestigious engines and failing miserably? But go on and blame everything that is wrong in the game on the engine.

[SKSlave]

You still don't get it, do you? The engine is not the end all be all when it comes to video games. Do I have to give you examples of games using prestigious engines and failing miserably? But go on and blame everything that is wrong in the game on the engine.

You're the one who doesn't get it, I'm afraid. Ever since Empire, the birth of the Warscape engine, the same old tired complaints have ruined our Total War games, like 1v1 melee attacks. But you can keep denying it all you want, ignorance is obviously bliss in your world.

Another poster invited you to explain, in your infinite wisdom, more about the game's engine. We're still eagerly waiting for you to do so.