The old Rome/M2TW engine vs the warscape engine

[chris10]

RTW1 and M2TW were not multi-processor aware, nor aware of memory above 2GB....simply adding these two bits of code would've VASTLY improved performance and capability.

Yeah..Add multithreading would not be that big of an issue and as for memory adressing its simply changing the header of the .exe and it will use up to 3.1 GB of RAM...thats the maximum as 32 bit app can do but anyway enough for any game on the market for the next couple of years.
Add new shaders and all that new stuff...Dx11 and all that...then add the naval battles pieces of code and voila...

[Barbarian Nobility]

The warscape engine is just fine, its just poor game decisions that make for poor games. NTW, S2 and FotS were great games based upon the warscape engine. ETW and R2 not so much so...

[Pseudolivius]

The warscape engine is just fine, its just poor game decisions that make for poor games. NTW, S2 and FotS were great games based upon the warscape engine. ETW and R2 not so much so...

I`m sorry but they are not great games, just games better than the previous one.

ETW<NTW<S2TW<FOTS>ROMEII>whatever comes next with the curent engine, business practice (false advertising) and CA`s disgusting attitude towards it`s fans.


The engine is a blight to the franchise, and I`m not talking about graphics.



RTW and MIITW are the best total war games out there.All those games after are garbage compared to them, why? Because I still play and enjoy them now.

ETW the only reason I remember this game is that it`s the second worst TW game after Rome 2.
NTW small scale, atrocious siege battles, horrible combat thanks to that engine.
S2TW well the holywood type of combat in the warscape engine worked with the Japanese era.Kind of surprising really.It reminded me of those awsome samurai movies.But from an accurate historical view it is also horrible.NO samurai didn`t jump around like ninjas with 40-50 Kgs or armor on them.
TWRII this game is horrible from every point of view from combat to business practice, attitude, retarded design decisions, graphics and the worst of all the lack of respect to us after all these years.

[Barbarian Nobility]

I`m sorry but they are not great games, just games better than the previous one.

These things are subjective, I happened to think they were great games...at least we can all agree for the most part R2 was very disappointing.

[Slydessertfox]

Total war needs a new engine. The old engine would be inadequate and Warscape is just a joke when it comes to melee combat.

[Hunter Makoy]

Total war needs a new engine. The old engine would be inadequate and Warscape is just a joke when it comes to melee combat.

Thats one of those things that is a problem, but I don't blame it on the engine itself. As far as the engine is concerned (landscape, map, shaders, general graphics) its wonderful

Having bad melee in a game like Rome 2 is terrible, but they should have been able to fix that and still use the Warscape engine. I dont blame the engine, I blame the company.

[Octavius Vatco]

The said improvements on Battle AI behavior have already been achieved in the Rome 1 mods. Nothing that is new to be in Rome II.

[Durnaug]

Having bad melee in a game like Rome 2 is terrible, but they should have been able to fix that and still use the Warscape engine. I dont blame the engine, I blame the company.

Rep for typing truth to the "naked emperor".

[viper37]

I think one of the main reason why so many fans are upset with Rome 2 is mainly because they wanted to see a new Roman era game that is similar to the old Rome Total war.

What they want is an evolution from the old Rome/M2 rather than a massive revolution. A Rome II game that use the old M2 Game engine as its base with updated graphics seems to what fans actually want.

Of course, a game engine is not just about game engine, but also about resource management. While the warscape engine does allow the game to feature more game elements and ensure that the game will run smoother and faster, it seems like the warscape engine introduced too many game features that the fans disliked.

So what do you guys think about the new warscape game engine that is being used for Rome II and the old game engine that was used for Rome I/ Medieval 2? Which one do you prefer?

I prefer the new engine, lots more possibilities. It's their first game with this engine, so there's more bugs and more features missing. Look at NTW vs ETW, Nap was a superior game with the same engine.

I like having meaningful minor settlements, I like that I have to balance food vs army vs city/fort size. I can't just build everything I want.

[Zephyrus]

96 votes and counting for the original game. Wow.

Do you think RTW2 would have been designed better if polls had been conducted for their "revolutionary" features?

[Hunter Makoy]

96 votes and counting for the original game. Wow.

Do you think RTW2 would have been designed better if polls had been conducted for their "revolutionary" features?

Its funny how much better everything is when they actually communicate before hand, and let the answers guide your development. Issues with the victory flags where pretty well taken care of (i've never seen them except for in a town, even at launch), but lots of the other issues were either unknown or not addressed. (by the community)

The fact that the game got 6x the pre orders is even more important given the HUGE amount of backlash about the game, something when terribly wrong, its its much more then just 'building tree is stupid'. It cannot be underscored enough just how much of a disappointment this game is, no matter how much I or anyone else plays it, and its for CA's own good.

The kind of conversation they are looking for about Rome II in the face of its implosion is exact type of conversation they need to have about the next game before it blows up in their faces. I don't give a damn how early in development something is, just coming out and saying "hey, we're thinking about making a province system that will work in this fashion, what do you think?" goes a long way. Hell, the earlier the better, that way you can easily change it when 3/4 of the TWC attacks it for being stupid.

[HunterWolf]

96 votes and counting for the original game. Wow.

Do you think RTW2 would have been designed better if polls had been conducted for their "revolutionary" features?

Yes, but necessary to consider that 92 people out of these 96 have no clue what exactly is a game engine, they consider games themselves, and do not consider these games engines

[Hoplite of Ilis]

Gameplay above all (RTW/M2TW). Warscape was best utilized in Shogun 2, but in Rome 2 I've won battles just because the AI wouldn't move its units . I don't give a about "would/could" technicalities, only results.

[Philadelphos]

I think one of the main reason why so many fans are upset with Rome 2 is mainly because they wanted to see a new Roman era game that is similar to the old Rome Total war.

What they want is an evolution from the old Rome/M2 rather than a massive revolution. A Rome II game that use the old M2 Game engine as its base with updated graphics seems to what fans actually want.

If it's that what players want, there is still considerable potential in the old engine. For example the following mod might be the right choice to make you happy:


http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...l-History-(RTH)

[surg3on]

31 votes and counting for the old RTW engine, over the 9 for Warscape.

How many more polls do we need to make in order to show the CA defenders that RtwII is a terrible bootleg ripoff of its predecessor?

You would probably need a poll with a couple hundred thousand votes.

[Octavius Vatco]

Yes, but necessary to consider that 92 people out of these 96 have no clue what exactly is a game engine, they consider games themselves, and do not consider these games engines

I think four people to really have played the old games is a terrible understatement. I think you have not even played any of the old earlier games...

[wolfshart79]

I can't vote on this to be honest. It is vey dependent on what era each player prefers. Warscape does a decent job of ranged "gunpowder" warfare while it lacks for melee combat. I think it comes down to what each engine was designed for...so the poll is asking the wrong question and weighing the votes toward peoples likes/dislikes of eras depicted rather than the engine used.

[HunterWolf]

I think four people to really have played the old games is a terrible understatement. I think you have not even played any of the old earlier games...

And I think you do not even understand what I wrote. The poll not a single word about the game, in the poll is mentioned engine, and not the game.
If this poll would look like this:
"Which game engine do you prefer:
Rome I/ Medieval 2, game utilize Old engine
game utilize engine Warscape"
Then the outcome of the voting will be close to reality
P.s. Of the 98 posts in this thread only 5 are relevant to the title of the topic and poll in this topic

[Kinjo]

Personally for modding I preferred TW2 (RTW engine), but after attending the modding summit I understand why CA went with TW3 (warscape). Guy Davidson lead programmer from CA gave some pretty interesting insight on some of the challenges they had to overcome as they implemented newer technology. Apparently ETW took close to 22 minutes to load when it used TW2.

[HunterWolf]

For case modding, I definitely prefer the engine Warscape, but the game I would have preferred for modding MTW2.