The old Rome/M2TW engine vs the warscape engine

[GussieFinkNottle]

This is a little off-topic, but battleships in the traditional sense don't exist in the 21st century. There are carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. I would like to see where these cost to build figures are being dredged up from, because the last time I checked, these things were worth a lot more than $100 million.

some here: http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/
and here: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/ind...pital-warship/

[chris10]

This is a little off-topic, but battleships in the traditional sense don't exist in the 21st century. There are carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. I would like to see where these cost to build figures are being dredged up from, because the last time I checked, these things were worth a lot more than $100 million.

oh,son ...he said battleship and not cruiser or carrier and made a comparison...and I said 1943 cause its the last US battleship comissioned and finished and it was about $100 million back then, that figure is not bad...my point was that comparing money values from back then with today is nonsense as the real value of that battleship was $2,3 billion when it comes to purchase power of the money

no rocket science involved

edit: bad memory last Iowa class battleship (USS Missouri) commissioned in June 1944. The other three were 1943 though

[Destin Faroda]

I prefer the old engine. Reasons:
- better modability
- more building slots per city
- population happiness, hygiene, corruption
- proper melee battles
- melees instead of skirmishes
- different climates and heat values
etc.

[Nordmann]

oh,son ...he said battleship and not cruiser or carrier and made a comparison...and I said 1943 cause its the last US battleship comissioned and finished and it was about $100 million back then, that figure is not bad...my point was that comparing money values from back then with today is nonsense as the real value of that battleship was $2,3 billion when it comes to purchase power of the money

no rocket science involved

edit: bad memory last Iowa class battleship (USS Missouri) commissioned in June 1944. The other three were 1943 though

I was agreeing with you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Well lets be fair here:

I prefer the old engine. Reasons:
- better modability Yes
- more building slots per city No slot system used, but yes
- population happiness, hygiene, corruption Is in Rome 2 too
- proper melee battles Define proper
- melees instead of skirmishes If you mean battle speed then battles were even faster in unmodded Rome 1, they were about the same in Medieval 2 depending on if the infantry bugged or not
- different climates and heat values Is in Rome 2 too
etc.

[High Fist]

Obviously guys, obviously guys, he means a Battleship like Galactica.
I prefer pre-warscape (what's that engine called?) 'cause it handles the time period that I prefer better. That said, it does look good. But with the same amount of resources directed at it, I'm sure pre-warscape engine could pretty amazing too. Probably to par with warscape, but then again it's pretty old so idk.

[krisslanza]

Obviously guys, obviously guys, he means a Battleship like Galactica.
I prefer pre-warscape (what's that engine called?) 'cause it handles the time period that I prefer better. That said, it does look good. But with the same amount of resources directed at it, I'm sure pre-warscape engine could pretty amazing too. Probably to par with warscape, but then again it's pretty old so idk.

I actually misread my source. It wasn't saying developing a AAA game cost as much as a battleship, launching a space vehicle, or filming a movie - rather that AAA games are comparable to the cost of those three things, to develop. They cost about that much to develop - hundreds of millions of dollars.

Anyway, back on topic. Warscape isn't a bad engine per se, it's just ill-suited to the time period they tried to do. They did their best with what they had, but hopefully they'll have a new engine before a say, Medieval 3 or some such. I would imagine the upcoming Warhammer is still on Warscape, but that should be alright as I believe Warhammer has a fair amount of guns in it...

[Hunter Makoy]

I preferred modding the old engine, it was amazing how fast I could set up a new army with characters in the old engine.

character    Jacktus Lustus, named character, leader, age 25, , x 89, y 82 
traits GoodCommander 1 , NaturalMilitarySkill 1 , GoodDefender 1 , PoliticsSkill 1 , GoodAdministrator 2 , Austere 3 
ancillaries aged_retainer
army
unit        roman generals guard cavalry early                exp 3 armour 3 weapon_lvl 3
unit        roman hastati                exp 1 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit        roman hastati                exp 1 armour 1 weapon_lvl 0
unit        roman triarii                exp 2 armour 2 weapon_lvl 2
unit        roman archer                exp 1 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0

That little piece of code I could set up a character, traits, retainers, location, units, experience, weapons and armor upgrades, and unique character models and portraits. Trying to do this in Warscape is a nightmare in comparison and nearly impossible with the current mod tools.

I really hated Warscape when it was released, modding was virtually wiped out at first and all the great missing features that was lost. For example city view, custom tiles, and battle maps that resembled the campaign map with things like visible wonders and fleets visible off the coast. Warscape or whatever CA is calling it internally now has come a long way since ETW, but is it time for a new engine? That is debatable, new engines bring new problems. I hope if they do a new engine it's M3TW that gets it, the medieval brand has always gotten the sloppy seconds when it comes to the engine.

Everyone keeps on bringing up 'city view' like that was the old standard, that wasn't in M2TW, so can't really blame the engine on that. . .

[Kinjo]

When I wrote that I was referring to the engine when it was released with RTW, what we got with M2TW was sloppy seconds as far as the engine goes plus it was developed by a different team.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

I prefer the old engine. Reasons:
1. better modability
2. population happiness, hygiene, corruption

1. IIRC modders have said you can do a lot with the new engine, yet modding is more complex and time consuming than on the old engine. It's easier, at least, to apply a lot of mods at the same time with the Steam workshop than it was in the old days.
2. Population and happiness were broken mechanics in R1 and to a lesser extent in M2 (this is without regarding mods, as such things are moddable/fixable on both engines).

[Taskeen]

Yeah an aircraft carrier today costs between 1 and 4 billion dollars.
And a destroyer about $1bn

I'm betting Empire, including the creation of Warscape, cost well under $100m

Aaaand, Modern Western Imperialism Empires are in more debt up to their eyeballs and beyond from wars like the Ancient Roman Empire, with similar austerity and social class inequalities :-D. Ah, Humans, so fail.

[Hunter Makoy]

When I wrote that I was referring to the engine when it was released with RTW, what we got with M2TW was sloppy seconds as far as the engine goes plus it was developed by a different team.

Sloppy seconds? are you sure you know what that means? or have played M2TW?

EDIT: nvm, read your post about battleships, i give up.

[LordInvictus]

I prefer the old engine. Reasons:
1. better modability
2. more building slots per city
3. population happiness, hygiene, corruption
4. proper melee battles
5. melees instead of skirmishes
6. different climates and heat values
etc.

1. The old engine was easier, but the Warscape engine allows a modder to change much more.
2. True
3. Population happiness and hygiene are still in Rome 2.
4. Rome 2's battles aren't proper melees?
5. If by skirmish you mean the amount of men, I would like to point out the 40-unit armies. You can also mod the men-per-unit to your heart's content (not possible in the old engine). If you mean the time it takes to resolve a battle, battles in the old engine were too fast also.
6. Still in Rome 2 also.

[Kinjo]

Haha ... The battleship post was a poor joke, you guys play too rough. As for M2TW yes I played and modded the crap out of that game to include a full conversion along with dozens of contributions. About the sloppy thing I was reffering to the fact that engine was created by the UK team then picked up by the Australian team for medieval 2. The Australian team did a great job with Med 2, but they left some of the features out/disabled.

[Zephyrus]

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?

[krisslanza]

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?

Forum polls? I dunno. A billion? Forum polls are basically biased anyway, you're never going to get accurate information from them. Not unless you make the poll mandatory for everyone to answer - and they can't see the results in anyway before voting.

[Vardeus]

I couldn't bear to play with the old replenishment system now...It's the main reason i rarely play all the amazing mods for kingdoms. With that said rome 2's replenishment system could use some work, it's far from perfect.

[krisslanza]

I couldn't bear to play with the old replenishment system now...It's the main reason i rarely play all the amazing mods for kingdoms. With that said rome 2's replenishment system could use some work, it's far from perfect.

If I may inquire, what are the issues with it exactly?
I know some people say the replenishment is a little too fast, but given each turn is 1 year... though, I can see it might seem far too fast if you use mods that influence the TPY.

[HunterWolf]

Read two pages of topics and understood that none message do not match title topics. All messages correspond: "What game is better ROME or MTW2 or ROME 2", and absolutely there are no reasonings on engines of these games, only about these games, and games on different engine and themselves engines it is different things.
"Do not know how", "I do not have the skills" and "get these skills worth more effort and time" does not say modding Warscape worse. It is more closed, but it only talks about wanting to open or not the game developer.
Various gameplay (it worse or better in this regard at all different views) speaks only how to make the game itself, but not about the engine on which it is made.
But if you consider it is the engine, the engine Warscape definitely much more advanced and gives more opportunities for quality and interesting modding, as well as the all resources are playable on this engine

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Spastic battles
Poor optimization
Hard to Mod.
Warscape sucks.

They need to make an engine similar to the old one for the next game. If I see one mention of the Warscape engine being used on the Warhammer TW I will not buy it.