Enhanced game options would make Attila enjoyable for all. Discuss.

[Fredrin]

Though a fan of the series from the very beginning, I have been fairly active on the forums since feeling the need to speak out after Rome 2 came along.

As I'm sure we're all aware, community forums (and pretty much any place where the game can be discussed) have been plagued by fractious disputes that can often be boiled down into the "hater vs fanboy" paradigm. These are frequently fuelled by smaller disagreements over design decisions as - inevitably - every player has their own particular notion of what constitutes the best balance of realism/arcade/deep strategy gameplay. So much discussion seems to be dedicated to these that little is reserved for the more fun/interesting aspects which a game like this should inspire its players to talk about!

So, I have a recurring question that I'd like to throw open to you all, particularly those who have some insight into the design process as I have little idea of the cost/feasibility of its implementation. Basically:

Wouldn't it be a whole load better for this game if CA were to release it with a variety of different options that allowed players to tailor how they experience it according to their own personal preferences?

The benefits seem obvious to me. Think of how much outrage Rome 2's arcade style combat was met with. Plenty of fans - long-standing or otherwise - can't stand the style which CA decided to go for in the last game, but none had the option to play it any other way. Asked a few months after release only 1% of over 4,000 people said they would favour arcade gameplay over historical accuracy, yet that was what we were given so until a decent mod came along, we just had to suck it up.

My point is, couldn't all of this have been avoided if the game had different modes which people could select either at the beginning of the battle or campaign which allowed greater focus on tactics vs strategy, realism vs fast-paced battles, gamified abilities vs historical authenticity etc.

What is everybody's thoughts on this? From a design point of view, I imagine the easiest way of implementing would be a selection of predefined settings such as:

- Multiplayer
- Arcade
- Normal
- Hardcore
- Realism

Certain things (like special abilities, capture points etc) could be included in some but omitted from others, while new features and mechanics could appear exclusively in more hardcore/realistic setting to keep players with more mature or history-oriented tastes happy. The same principle could also be applied to the Campaign side, by handing over more complex/depth-giving features to the AI to manage on the easier settings.

This approach would avoid alienating the casual/young gamers that CA seemed so happy to satisfy with the last game but it would also keep the really dedicated fans hooked to the series and spending loads on DLC etc. No doubt it would be hard work and expensive to implement more customizable options but the return would surely be worth it, no?

[reliablePersian]

+ rep i agree it would suit the consumers much more

[RGA]

Isn't that what mods basically are? You have several versions of the game, some with fantasy unit such as bare-chested Spartans some with great historical authenticity such as DeI. The variability is far greater than anything a team, however professional, could deliver.

[Fredrin]

Isn't that what mods basically are? You have several versions of the game, some with fantasy unit such as bare-chested Spartans some with great historical authenticity such as DeI. The variability is far greater than anything a team, however professional, could deliver.

Yes, mods are great for this but the majority of players don't play the game with mods so it would be helpful to have options available as a feature out of the box... especially for those people who have to twiddle their thumbs until a good mod does come along. Also, if regular patching is becoming the status quo, it's good to have these kind of features built into the game to avoid interruption.

The other issue is that, while mods like DeI are great in my opinion, they come with a lot of alterations that some people may not appreciate. In terms of both combat and campaign gameplay, a more advanced system of customization could let people tweak the game according to how they best like to play it.

Ie - One person might like a really stripped down and simple campaign gameplay with certain things such as family tree, city governorship and politics auto-managed for them. But, they may also like highly involved and historically authentic battles with higher hitpoints/morale values to increase battle times, more formation options and certain features (like flaming torches) disabled.

All the above could be achieved within a fairly advanced suite of customizable options or fall within certain preset "modes".

[RGA]

Yes, mods are great for this but the majority of players don't play the game with mods so it would be helpful to have options available as a feature out of the box, even for those people who have to twiddle their thumbs until a good mod does come along. Also, if regular patching is becoming the status quo, it's good to have these kind of features built into the game to avoid interruption.

The other issue is that, while mods like DeI are great in my opinion, they come with a lot of alterations that some people may not appreciate. In terms of both combat and campaign gameplay, a more advanced system of customization could let people tweak the game according to how they best like to play it.

Ie - One person might like a really stripped down and simple campaign gameplay with certain things such as family tree, city governorship and politics auto-managed for them. But, they may also like highly involved and historically authentic battles with higher hitpoints/morale values to increase battle times, more formation options and certain features (like flaming torches) disabled.

All the above could be achieved within a fairly advanced suite of customizable options or fall within certain preset "modes".

First point: it's true that some mods take forever to be released. But on the other hand, making a game with so many preset modes will also severely prolong the development time, which could lead to disasterous results. I myself would be very disappointed if Total war games are released every five years instead of yearly as they are now.

Second point: you don't have to use big mods such as DeI. You can also customize your own games to your liking with many small mods. Sure, incompability is an issue here, but it would be equally problematic for CA to incorporate so many game opitons.

My point: even with the great level of freedom we have with mods, we players always have to live with some features we don't like. Even customization won't help completely, as you cannot customize each and every features in games. Won't it be better if they (CA and modders alike) use their limited resources more wisely on actually new features?

[Architect of Doom]

I myself would be very disappointed if Total war games are released every five years instead of yearly as they are now.

You would be disappointed, but I would be happy if that delay made the game fundamentally better. I myself would prefer a good game that took long to produce, rather than a streamlined recicled game that took only a year to make.

As for Tiberius Crackus, I completely agree with him. I am still waiting for a realistic game that makes my alternate history moves look plausible.

[WarriorPrince]

You would be disappointed, but I would be happy if that delay made the game fundamentally better. I myself would prefer a good game that took long to produce, rather than a streamlined recicled game that took only a year to make.

As for Tiberius Crackus, I completely agree with him. I am still waiting for a realistic game that makes my alternate history moves look plausible.

As a business model releasing a game every 5 years could not be as good for CA. They would spend more money in the process of making the game and over the 5 year period would have less copies of their games sold (given that they would only have 1 total war game out instead of 4 or 5). I would like more time to be spent on the games for the same reasons you yourself have mentioned. I just feel that an extra 4 years is a completely unrealistic time frame for CA to move to, especially considering their most recent schedule.

[Fredrin]

First point: it's true that some mods take forever to be released. But on the other hand, making a game with so many preset modes will also severely prolong the development time, which could lead to disastrous results. I myself would be very disappointed if Total war games are released every five years instead of yearly as they are now.

I take your point about development time. I imagine that, in terms of preset modes at least, it would require someone on the UI team to add some options in a format not that different to the graphics setting screen. Then it would need some people to tweak the way the game balances at the end of the development cycle. No doubt it would require time (as do all added features of the game). However, I severely doubt it represents the kind of Herculean effort you suggest, adding years on to the development cycle!

Second point: you don't have to use big mods such as DeI. You can also customize your own games to your liking with many small mods. Sure, incompability is an issue here, but it would be equally problematic for CA to incorporate so many game options.

Also true, but then you have to consider how many players are aware of and use mods, particularly to the level of customization you are talking about. Even as a veteran of the series I find this degree of cherry-picking tiresome, before the issue of incompatibility comes up.

Furthermore, even if I were to be extremely fastidious in selecting the right combination of compatible mods, I doubt it would be as close to the kind of playstyle I could achieve with a nice array of options dedicated specifically to this.

My point: even with the great level of freedom we have with mods, we players always have to live with some features we don't like. Even customization won't help completely, as you cannot customize each and every features in games. Won't it be better if they (CA and modders alike) use their limited resources more wisely on actually new features?

New features are great but I'm sure many would agree that overall playability is the number one goal. I would happily sacrifice the entire politics feature of Rome 2 to have this degree of customization and I could say the same about the slight improvements to graphics in Attila.

My overall point is why cater for one segment of gamers when you can cater for all? When you're excluding nobody with your design decisions, you stand to attract a much wider audience. In turn, you will keep hardcore and casual gamers happy, profiting from both of their support and reducing the PR damage that comes from all the hate on forums and elsewhere.

Just break it down:

-> Wider audience
-> Greater customer satisfaction
-> More dedicated fans
-> Positive community

There is a substantial financial incentive to hit each and every one of those; one that is big enough to justify hiring a couple more bods if necessary... or tacking a month or two more onto the dev cycle to achieve. It pains me to think of all the potential customers that Attila has lost because of "CA's vision" for Rome 2. That was one vision that could be supplemented by one or two other visions which weren't so fixated on the casual market's needs and wants! Or the same vision but with a few basic parameters that are a bit more flexible.

[Huberto]

Isn't that what mods basically are? You have several versions of the game, some with fantasy unit such as bare-chested Spartans some with great historical authenticity such as DeI. The variability is far greater than anything a team, however professional, could deliver.

DeI is a noble attempt to salvage some realism out of TWR2 but DeI can't begin to cope with all the crap that's locked down by CA. Tiberius Crackus once again is spot on. The first thing CA should do is establish two modes of combat, one that is arcade and focused on MP the other that is "realistic" and is focused on SP. Then plan for bigger SP battles that are less about Micro and more about historically authentic tactics.

If in its commerical judgement there is no significant audience for realism -- the opposite of the poll results, by the way -- then we all should just move on.

[Humble Warrior]

Though a fan of the series from the very beginning, I have been fairly active on the forums since feeling the need to speak out after Rome 2 came along.

As I'm sure we're all aware, community forums (and pretty much any any place where the game can be discussed) have been plagued by fractious disputes that can often be boiled down into the "hater vs fanboy" paradigm. These are frequently fuelled by smaller disagreements over design decisions as - inevitably - every player has their own particular notion of what constitutes the best balance of realism/arcade/deep strategy gameplay. So much discussion seems to be dedicated to these that little is reserved for the more fun/interesting aspects which a game like this should inspire its players to talk about!

So, I have a recurring question that I'd like to throw open to you all, particularly those who have some insight into the design process as I have little idea of the cost/feasibility of its implemetation. Basically:

Wouldn't it be a whole load better for this game if CA were to release it with a variety of different options that allowed players to tailor how they experience it according to their own personal preferences?

The benefits seem obvious to me. Think of how much outrage and disgust Rome 2's arcade style combat was met with even after problems with its malfunctioning AI were remedied. Plenty of fans - long-standing or otherwise - can't stand the style which CA decided to go for in the their last game, but none had the option to play it any other way. Asked a few months after release only 1% of over 4,000 people said they would favour arcade gameplay over historical accuracy, yet that was what we were given so until a decent mod came along, we just had to suck it up.

My point is, couldn't all of this have been avoided if the game had different modes which people could select either at the beginning of the battle or campaign which allowed greater focus on tactics/strategy, realism/fast-paced battles, gamified abilities/historical authenticity.

What is everybody's thoughts on this? From a design point of view, I imagine the easiest way of implementing would be a selection of predefined settings such as:

- Multiplayer
- Arcade
- Normal
- Hardcore
- Realism

Certain things (like special abilities, capture points etc) could be included in some but omitted from others, while new features and mechanics could feature exclusively in more hardcore/realistic setting to keep players with more mature or history-oriented tastes happy. The same principle could also be applied to the Campaign side, by handing over more complex/depth-giving features to the AI to manage on the easier settings.

This approach would avoid alienating the casual/young gamers that CA seemed so happy to satisfy with the last game but it would also keep the really dedicated fans hooked to the series and spending loads on DLC etc. No doubt it would be hard work and expensive to implement more customizable options but the return would surely be worth it, no?

Agree. CA had a realism mode in Rome 1. MTW2 had a more realistic difficulty setting the higher you put the difficulty.

They know. But they don`t care about that. However, you can read their realistic book and realistic scribbles though...

[sdjenkyn]

While it would be fantastic to have a variety of modes to play with we are speaking about a franchise that is simply incapable of producing a game where all the core mechanics actually function as they should. The only games that were produced that did manage that were shogun1 and medieval1. After that they have continually produced one bugged out mess after another, some better then others but still mechanically flawed.

I just don't see the point any longer of requesting or wishing for things from this company when after 10 odd years they are still incapable of delivering much more then eye candy and broken mechanics.

[Fredrin]

While it would be fantastic to have a variety of modes to play with we are speaking about a franchise that is simply incapable of producing a game where all the core mechanics actually function as they should. The only games that were produced that did manage that were shogun1 and medieval1. After that they have continually produced one bugged out mess after another, some better then others but still mechanically flawed.

I just don't see the point any longer of requesting or wishing for things from this company when after 10 odd years they are still incapable of delivering much more then eye candy and broken mechanics.

Quite a defeatist mentality but one that I can partly empathize with.

It's definitely worth at least requesting these things of CA. They are far responsive than many developers and proof of that is in the attention to new and returning features we can see in Attila's campaign mode.

More importantly, this is not one of those highly subjective requests that just indulges one person's historical fantasies, like helmet design for a particular faction...

A good system of game options has the potential of greatly improving everyone's experience of the game. Competitive players prefer frantic clickfests (no disresepect): they can choose that. Hardcore players prefer battles that are epic in length and scale: they can choose that. History buffs prefer orders to be issued from generals to officers by runners: they can choose that.

If it's well implemented well, everyone stands to benefit. Particularly CA as their whole fanbase will feel as though the game was designed with them in mind, instead of the wide scale hate that R2 precipitated.

[Aenima]

Along with OP's suggestions I'd also like to be king of China and wear a fancy hat.

Sorry, but this kind of thing is just wishful thinking. Should the BF and CoD series also completely change the mechanics of their game to allow for casual vs realistic gameplay? You're basically saying that you expect game developers not to make one game, but to make a multitude of games, with differing mechanics and gameplay styles being released all at once. Knowing how difficult it is for developers to make a fully-working game on a single engine and with a single play-style in mind, they'd never be able to do what's suggested in the OP. You're asking them to essentially release multiple games all at once, and it's just not going to happen. Mods exist to do what the OP wants.


As for RTW having "arcade mode" available, I have to admit I never played with it, what did it actually do? The battles were and still are lightning fast, so I can't imagine what they'd be like if they were even more arcade-y.

[Fredrin]

Along with OP's suggestions I'd also like to be king of China and wear a fancy hat.

Sorry, but this kind of thing is just wishful thinking. Should the BF and CoD series also completely change the mechanics of their game to allow for casual vs realistic gameplay? You're basically saying that you expect game developers not to make one game, but to make a multitude of games, with differing mechanics and gameplay styles being released all at once. Knowing how difficult it is for developers to make a fully-working game on a single engine and with a single play-style in mind, they'd never be able to do what's suggested in the OP. You're asking them to essentially release multiple games all at once, and it's just not going to happen. Mods exist to do what the OP wants.


As for RTW having "arcade mode" available, I have to admit I never played with it, what did it actually do? The battles were and still are lightning fast, so I can't imagine what they'd be like if they were even more arcade-y.

It sounds like you're choosing quite an extreme interpretation of what I'm proposing, but I suppose that's a natural consequence of suggesting something without supporting it with a fleshed out alternative.

What I am definitely NOT proposing is what you're suggesting. It's still possible to keep 99% of the game intact but apply different values to various multipliers and all the various things that CA do an a regular basis when patching the game to make one or other unit more or less powerful.

Campaign and battle map functionality and features could remain largely unchanged with just the way they interact being tweaked to accommodate a different play style.

Now, if CA wanted to go the extra mile by introducing features such as a more intricate politics and intrigue system (which players would have the option of being managed by AI), that is another question. Completely separate battle mechanics for different modes (ie more realistic commands to replace special abilities), that is also a question for whoever carries out the cost/benefit analysis. But overall, some degree of customization - like you see at the beginning of countless other strategy games such as Civ - would be inordinately useful for all categories of player.

[craziii]

why must the options be limited to arcade and realism? why not whatever constitutes good gameplay instead?

[Fredrin]

why must the options be limited to arcade and realism? why not whatever constitutes good gameplay instead?

"Arcade", "realism" - both placeholder names as far as I'm concerned, but used in this context to describe opposing play styles. Each come with their own unfortunate connotations (arcade->casual clickfest, realism -> niche history sim) but if we can ignore those for a second they encapsulate pretty well the different ends of the spectrum.

"Why not whatever constitutes good gameplay?" - A good question, but perhaps not the right one. Who gets to decide what is good or bad when it comes to gameplay? That is exactly the reason why options are so important; there is no "better" or "worse" required when players are afforded a degree of control - only preference.

Some people would have regarded the capture points and lightning fast battles of Rome 2's release "good gameplay" but not many would agree. The problem is when there are no options at all and every design decision is automatically enshrined as "the right one" because there is no alternative. That's when people start getting annoyed and rag on CA/each other, because most players have very different notions of what qualifies as better or worse.

[prithupaul]

"Arcade", "realism" - both placeholder names as far as I'm concerned, but used in this context to describe opposing play styles. Each come with their own unfortunate connotations (arcade->casual clickfest, realism -> niche history sim) but if we can ignore those for a second they encapsulate pretty well the different ends of the spectrum.

"arcade->casual clickfest, realism -> niche history sim"


Its evident which one is the better style even from the connotation Historicity FTW.

But yes, I fully endorse this idea. It is basically an accessible streamlined and somewhat limited db editor inside the game. Should not be very difficult to implement.

[Skowdey]

"Arcade", "realism" - both placeholder names as far as I'm concerned, but used in this context to describe opposing play styles. Each come with their own unfortunate connotations (arcade->casual clickfest, realism -> niche history sim) but if we can ignore those for a second they encapsulate pretty well the different ends of the spectrum.

"Why not whatever constitutes good gameplay?" - A good question, but perhaps not the right one. Who gets to decide what is good or bad when it comes to gameplay? That is exactly the reason why options are so important; there is no "better" or "worse" required when players are afforded a degree of control - only preference.

Some people would have regarded the capture points and lightning fast battles of Rome 2's release "good gameplay" but not many would agree. The problem is when there are no options at all and every design decision is automatically enshrined as "the right one" because there is no alternative. That's when people start getting annoyed and rag on CA/each other, because most players have very different notions of what qualifies as better or worse.

Why do people keep saying this like it's new to the series? The original rome total war was on par in terms of battle speed, if not faster.
Mods are what everyone in this thread is looking for.

[Fredrin]

Why do people keep saying this like it's new to the series? The original rome total war was on par in terms of battle speed, if not faster.
Mods are what everyone in this thread is looking for.

That's definitely not my recollection of events. Remember I'm talking about just after release, when there was widespread outcry so CA fairly quickly patched in slower battles. At this point, I seem to recall thinking the speed was quite similar to the original Rome but definitely no slower.

Blah blah.... Why does this even need to be a bone of contention when there could be a simple battle speed slider designed into the game somewhere?! That's the thrust of my point.

[Skowdey]

That's definitely not my recollection of events. Remember I'm talking about just after release, when there was widespread outcry so CA fairly quickly patched in slower battles. At this point, I seem to recall thinking the speed was quite similar to the original Rome but definitely no slower.

Blah blah.... Why does this even need to be a bone of contention when there could be a simple battle speed slider designed into the game somewhere?! That's the thrust of my point.

When you say to have a slider, what exactly do you mean by that. What would that slider do specifically to the units.