A Plea to CA for a new engine instead of a soon next Total War game. DX12 may deal the cards anew for Rome 2.

[Ataegina]

would be waste of money and time, doesn't matter how many new engines they make it will be the same as this engine is..... what matters is optimize this engine, thats the big issue of this engine is they somewhat keep ignoring it..... so dont see the point of make a new engine that will have the same flaws....just for the sake of wasting money in a new engine..... they dont need new engine, they need is NEW STAFF THAT CAN DEAL WITH THIS ENGINE LIKE A PROFESSIONAL.....

[alQamar]

would be waste of money and time, doesn't matter how many new engines they make it will be the same as this engine is..... what matters is optimize this engine, thats the big issue of this engine is they somewhat keep ignoring it..... so dont see the point of make a new engine that will have the same flaws....just for the sake of wasting money in a new engine..... they dont need new engine, they need is NEW STAFF THAT CAN DEAL WITH THIS ENGINE LIKE A PROFESSIONAL.....

You points are not invalid but CA stated now several times, and usually they do try to avoid to point out "disadvantages" of their products and work, they are limited on memory. You approach is too simple if you take it from a business view. This is why:

They actually need a new engine first to have platform where it is valueable long term to invest money and manpower, and then in a second stage of course also make the engine working flawless and free it up from flaws which are persistence since Rome 1 or even longer, and those introduced with "Warscape 1" at time of Empire TW.

Even though my programmming skills are aged and useless nowadays, I am pretty sure that the turnover to 64bit, properly done, would even release us on the CPU bottleneck Rome 2 has. If you do certain complex maths calculation with 32bit integers they may be slower than with 64bit as the CPU is limited to do those in a clock time and will need to split up things. So the advantage of 64bit goes beyond memory utilisation, graphical possibilites and readding features to the game.

There are reasons why we have 64bit versions of applications like MS Office, Video editing and picture editing applications, because they deal with lots of memory and are CPU intensive, Rome 2 does technically apply to that very much. Even several current benchmarks perform faster using benefits of 64bit native support compared to the 32bit pendants.

[omzdog]

I remember asking this question months ago and getting kicked out of my own thread.

[krisslanza]

Making a new engine isn't a cheap or quick process either. Typically if you make a new engine, you want to keep it around for several years before making a new one, to get your money's worth.

And while CA is 250 employees, that isn't 250 people working on Rome 2. Like most studios, they are probably already working on the next game. So maybe 100 people worked on Rome 2 - but probably not, they have Warhammer and Aliens also being worked on. So maybe around 50 people per game.

Either way, a new engine is something that is going to have to happen at some point. The real question is when, and for which Total War?

[alQamar]

Making a new engine isn't a cheap or quick process either. Typically if you make a new engine, you want to keep it around for several years before making a new one, to get your money's worth.

And while CA is 250 employees, that isn't 250 people working on Rome 2. Like most studios, they are probably already working on the next game. So maybe 100 people worked on Rome 2 - but probably not, they have Warhammer and Aliens also being worked on. So maybe around 50 people per game.

Either way, a new engine is something that is going to have to happen at some point. The real question is when, and for which Total War?

Never questioned that, and so I picked the polls question very carefully. I am aware that we may wait to a next TW for perhaps 2 years even if they do work on a new engine which is a complex and expensive task. However as said if they do not do they will end up meshed in the web of time, as we currently reached the peak of performance with Shogun 2 and Rome 2 did go downstairs very very much.


Rome 2 in fact was an eye opener that CA shall not go on the old path but needs a break to get over Warscape 1 finally. We cannot expect they do the new engine and work on a new games. That is the complete reason of this thread exists. I am very aware they would not be able to handle this task with their small team Kriss, they actually were overflooded by Rome 2 as we know.

[krisslanza]

Never questioned that, and so I picked the polls question very carefully. I am aware that we may wait to a next TW for perhaps 2 years even if they do work on a new engine which is a complex and expensive task. However as said if they do not do they will end up meshed in the web of time, as we currently reached the peak of performance with Shogun 2 and Rome 2 did go downstairs very very much.


Rome 2 in fact was an eye opener that CA shall not go on the old path but needs a break to get over Warscape 1 finally. We cannot expect they do the new engine and work on a new games. That is the complete reason of this thread exists. I am very aware they would not be able to handle this task with their small team Kriss, they actually were overflooded by Rome 2 as we know.

Actually I feel it's less Rome 2 specifically did anything, but more that Rome 2 revealed that while the Warscape engine worked well in Shogun 2, the issue was simple scale. Shogun 2 ran so well because the gameworld is tiny in comparison. Rome 2's map is so massive, that the engine just can't work well within a 32-bit. This doesn't bode well for a potential Medieval 3, given I think the map is just about the same size.

If the next TW takes place on a smaller scale, the engine probably would hold up much better. However, it is tough to say what direction CA is really going to go next. Without a doubt, we're looking at probably at least 1 Rome 2 expansion - one which I actually hope is smaller and more contained. Rome 2 is massive, and balancing a campaign around that huge world and huge time span isn't easy. There might be a benefit in scaling the game down to a smaller area, or to a specific time period.

[alQamar]

Actually I feel it's less Rome 2 specifically did anything, but more that Rome 2 revealed that while the Warscape engine worked well in Shogun 2, the issue was simple scale. Shogun 2 ran so well because the gameworld is tiny in comparison. Rome 2's map is so massive, that the engine just can't work well within a 32-bit. This doesn't bode well for a potential Medieval 3, given I think the map is just about the same size.

If the next TW takes place on a smaller scale, the engine probably would hold up much better. However, it is tough to say what direction CA is really going to go next. Without a doubt, we're looking at probably at least 1 Rome 2 expansion - one which I actually hope is smaller and more contained. Rome 2 is massive, and balancing a campaign around that huge world and huge time span isn't easy. There might be a benefit in scaling the game down to a smaller area, or to a specific time period.

Kriss, please I beg you stop talking about things when you have clue about them. "Out of the blue presumptions" do not help to generate a positive drive on the topic.


The size of the campaign map size is a quite unrelated issue for the memory limit, why the heck you get me raged so easily
The lack of seasons on the campaign map in the OP is just an example for many other things, which are degraded or limited in Rome 2 (battle animations, unit variety and texture variety, night battles, cities (are very cool now, but could be even better for sure, the textures and buildings are very repetitive (more variety cost more memory) and so on.

The vote you voted possibly with no already, is essential for the FUTURE of this game, even you do not have right now a proper hardware to participate. But with your next upgrade you will understand my valid concerns, which are backed up now twice by CA staff.

It does not matter how big the campaign map is in "Medieval 3", and it would be very sad if memory limits would lead to a smaller one as you expect it to be for geographical reasons or whatever.

[krisslanza]

Kriss, please I beg you stop talking about things when you have clue about them. "Out of the blue presumptions" do not help to generate a positive drive on the topic.


The size of the campaign map size is a quite unrelated issue for the memory limit, why the heck you get me raged so easily
The lack of seasons on the campaign map in the OP is just an example for many other things, which are degraded or limited in Rome 2 (battle animations, unit variety and texture variety, night battles, cities (are very cool now, but could be even better for sure, the textures and buildings are very repetitive (more variety cost more memory) and so on.

The vote you voted possibly with no already, is essential for the FUTURE of this game, even you do not have right now a proper hardware to participate. But with your next upgrade you will understand my valid concerns, which are backed up now twice by CA staff.

It does not matter how big the campaign map is in "Medieval 3", and it would be very sad if memory limits would lead to a smaller one as you expect it to be for geographical reasons or whatever.

Looking at the opening quote, it does seem to be that the sheer size of Rome 2's map is the reason why there isn't any seasons. Having to model all the seasons for that huge landscape - or more accurately, having it switch over smoothly, was a bit beyond that current engine. I say Rome 2 has a pretty fair amount of variety though, as expected of a game that has a lot of cultures in it though. It's about as much as Rome 1, although the Nomads could really do with some yurts and stuff.

And I haven't voted yet. Not sure which one to really pick still.

[jamreal18]

Did you post it in official forum?

[Sherm]

Warscape=Obscure era of the Total War Series (even if I can save Shogun)

So I agree

[omzdog]

Hats off.
I can see the passion for clearly defining what's been handed to us has not died.

[DaVinci]

Reasonable thread.

Voted yes, of course.

[M2TWRocks]

So wait...are you saying you don't want yet another game with the same engine that's been used for the past 4 games? Are you suggesting you want the designers to actually create something worth charging 50 or more dollars for, instead of just selling us what is essentially a slightly more fleshed out mod of the same engine?

Preposterous!

[alQamar]

So wait...are you saying you don't want yet another game with the same engine that's been used for the past 4 games? Are you suggesting you want the designers to actually create something worth charging 50 or more dollars for, instead of just selling us what is essentially a slightly more fleshed out mod of the same engine?

Preposterous!

Exactly this...

[VENNONETES]

It's all true, I believe that CA can make this choice.

[alQamar]

Ok then bro, peace. Make up your mind and choose carefully. As said I am willing to help you with your Steam move if needed.

[a tw player]

Definitely

[Kabs]

signed. better engine is needed.

[General Maximus]

Of course, I am going to wait. Warscape is a of an engine unless it is used for gunpowder theme, and even then it is crap. In my thread I listed the fundamental flaws of this engine, and I am thinking of adding one more major point to it - the TERRIBLE pathfinding.

Although I am going to wait, I have no intention of buying any future TW games, at least not on release if I ever do. I will wait and see how things are. Warscape has to go, and I will be looking at CA if they change and stop using that pathetic piece of they call Warscape. We shall see if the next game is finally getting something new, or just another campaign of dumbing down the game due to 'memory limits' and little RAM left to actually add gameplay.

And why are they dumbing down gameplay? That's obviously because they add up loads of unwanted things like facial animations and such and spend all the memory on those insignificant little things, leaving no memory for actual gameplay. Even their 'huge' campaign map is like it was made by some inexperienced kid. It cannot possibly use up that much amount of memory.

[alQamar]

Of course, I am going to wait. Warscape is a of an engine unless it is used for gunpowder theme, and even then it is crap. In my thread I listed the fundamental flaws of this engine, and I am thinking of adding one more major point to it - the TERRIBLE pathfinding.

Although I am going to wait, I have no intention of buying any future TW games, at least not on release if I ever do. I will wait and see how things are. Warscape has to go, and I will be looking at CA if they change and stop using that pathetic piece of they call Warscape. We shall see if the next game is finally getting something new, or just another campaign of dumbing down the game due to 'memory limits' and little RAM left to actually add gameplay.

And why are they dumbing down gameplay? That's obviously because they add up loads of unwanted things like facial animations and such and spend all the memory on those insignificant little things, leaving no memory for actual gameplay. Even their 'huge' campaign map is like it was made by some inexperienced kid. It cannot possibly use up that much amount of memory.

Porting like described here to consoles in future and Steam OS based "PCs" maybe an additional valid reason for their decisions.



edit: seems TWC has rounding issues

View Poll Results: Are you willing to wait for a next TW for the benefit of a new "Warscape" engine

Voters44. You have already voted on this poll

• Yes I would do wait, rather than having a next TW with the old engine again
  
  40 90.91%
  
• No, I rather like to have a next TW game soon.
  
  4 9.09%