Monte Carlo

Interestingly, I also find myself rather uninterested in NWN2. I've just realised that I post here out of nothing more than sheer habit rather than interest in any of the current Obs. projects. Hmmm. Cheers MC

This game sounds like TEH WINNA! Where can I find it?

Yeah. People actually got annoyed about the Throne of Bhaal. Er, excuse me? The whole story arc concerns the protagonist's immortal heritage. It's also axiomatic that [A]D&D campaigns usually involved attaining extremely high levels, with rampant munchkinism and Monty Haul levels of loot. Duh. People were annoyed with TOB because it was too accurate; it utterly replicated the pen & paper high level AD&D experience. Cheers MC

Hmmm. So you prefer games where you can solo and just have talking tamagotchis to sustain your interest? Surely you recognise that having a balanced party for tactical reasons is as much a part of CRPGs as the story-telling? Or do you only play Planescape on a loop? Cheers MC

That wasn't what I was saying: I'm completely cool with managing any number of uber-level characters. However, I can see why some people might not be. I enjoy characters developing and getting more powerful. The challenge for the developer is to pace that progression satisfactorily. What happens in your game where everyone is level 12? Where do they go? What do they do? The game ends? I'm not putting an arbitrary limit on it, but at the end of an epic CRPG I want to be able to kick almost everybody's butt... it's fantasy, not a day at the office. Cheers MC

Consider these two quotes from this thread: This is from Jumjalum: And this is from Volourn: (the italics are mine, of course) --- I won't hijack that thread, but Volourn brought up a point there that piqued my interest. Although I agree with him technically, (more than one character of course constitutes a "party") in spirit I cannot. This is because of one simple point which I submit is pretty difficult to rebut: Current technological restrictions cannot possibly create totally satisfactory AI for joinable NPCs. OK, you can have that lame menu system a la NWN ("stay close/ use missile weapons/ use buffing spells" etc) but it really isn't the same, is it? A quick perusal of even the most drooling fanboy forums will find commonality between, say, Fallout fans and NWN fans: that AI-controlled NPCs are a pain in the butt. Especially in combat, which is a big part of CRPGs. OTOH, plenty of people find the utter and complete tactical control of, say, BG2 equally frustrating. Micromanaging the inventory, skills, spells (etc) of one 25th level character is pretty tough, but six? I should come clean here: personally I love to be able to have utter control of the aforementioned issues, but I was originally a wargamer and that's where I'm coming from. If I want, say, Minsc, to suicidally engage the enemy from a cetain direction whilst drinking 'X' potion whilst using 'Y' High Level Ability then I want to unambiguously enjoy that perogative. I don't want some lowest common denominator AI to make that decision for me, thankyou very much. I think that the compromise should come in at another level, which was oft-discussed during the development of Jefferson/ BG3; that of character allegiance/ development and loyalty. In BG2 there were certain crunch points where NPCs would leave your party based on decisions you made; that is fine by me as long as I also got to make the important decisions tactically. What do you all think? Do you reckon that existing implementation of NPC AI is going in the right direction? Is the apparent drift away from full-party control in modern CRPGs evidence of dumbing down or an elegant shift from tiresome micromanagement? Enquiring minds need to know. Cheers MC

I'd be surprised if Bioware decided to get involved with a MMORPG. The market is saturated and they cost a fortune to run. D&D Online is in the works, and I think that's gonna take a caning too. There's no reason why Bioware wouldn't licence a FPS shooter engine to make a RPG whatsoever. I just don't think that they'd go down the Asheron's Call route. Cheers MC

Well, I've tinkered around with it for a bit. It's a very impressive piece of work; a real labour of love. Even the load screens are classy. Firstly, I like the re-skinned character models. The legions look just right with their duller colours and heavier armour. Hastasi look like light infantry now. The way that Rome appears on the map in a fairly vulnerable position is far more satisfying for the player looking for a proper challenge. Even denari needs accounting for and every army needs to be composed just so. Having a formidable Greece and Carthage on your doorstep is not only historically accurate for the period but also (more importantly) feels right, unlike the flaccid twilight empires sitting there awaiting to be swatted in the vanilla version of the game. My first battle was my not inconsiderable legion of 950 or so men versus King Pyrrhus and his hoplites....but guess what? The Greeks actually fielded a balanced army! Phalanxes flanked by light cavalry, backed up by archers and slingers and of course those bloody horrible elephants. My backside was handed to me. Having Roman general units composed of patrician Triarii spearmen as opposed to flexible heavy cavalry is a bit of a culture shock! And, yes, the barbarian horde to the North feels like a barbarian horde, not a crappy, prone-to-routing, easily mopped up by light cavalry bunch of toerags like they were before. The dilemma is, of course, which way to expand first? North or South...it's a real landgrab dilemma with all those rebel settlements. So, as has been pointed out, for me this mod makes R:TW feel much more like Medieval (more brutal AI) and much more like the game I was hoping for. Kudos to the modders; a big thumbs up. I've had no stability issues as yet, just the clean install issue, which was easily sorted out. I recommend the mod heartily to TW fans, and wish the R:TR crew every success with whatever they do next. Cheers MC

I was role-playing too. So we gibbed the whimpering girl, put her head on a pike, giggled a bit and got on with our slavering Chaotic Evil adventures around Amn. Cheers MC

I had one of the more, er, tasteful Rachel Hunter black & white photos from her Playboy shoot until recently. Before that I had the rather groovy/ cartoony NWN2 cityscape image from this site. Currently, I have a cartoon of George W. Bush with the caption "Take that Hippy: Four more years!" It is there purely for childish shock value for when my bed-wetting, free trade coffee-drinking, volvo-driving liberal buddies swing by. Cheers MC

The Germanic tribes apparently often brought their fairly savage womenfolk along to cheer them on in battle. I doubt, however, that they performed a morale-sapping light infantry function akin to the one envisaged by the Creative Assembly! I agree with Aaron C. Chariots are very frustrating. The British version are just pointless and a waste of a General's heavy cavalry unit. The Seleucid "Mad Max" version is just plain annoying. The Egyptian archer version is OK. Just about. Phalanxes are doubly frustrating. Their "fast move" function doesn't allow for a fast deployment of the actual phalanx that I'm sure the extremely seasoned veteran spearmen would have been able to accomplish. I'm sure the phalanx was unwieldy, but this unwieldy? I'm an either/ or person on realism. I like realism if the combat engine supports it (pace close combat series) but the lateset TW for me swaps out some of that for a more cinematic feel. Therefore, the "fun" units like Head Hurlers and Arcanii don't unduly bother me. The combat engine tweaks on Total Realism, if they make the combat more authentic/ crunchy will be enough fun for me not to notice that the novelty units aren't there. Cheers MC

Hello. A friend has burnt this mod onto disc for me, and by the look of the Total Realism website it should be bags of fun for someone like me who has thrashed the original game to death. I'm a bit busy with work to install it and get stuck in, I'll be doing that next week. However, I do have time to read the comments and observations of the small band of TW fans on this forum who might have some experience of it. What should I look out for? Is it stable? How much fun is it? I've got the core mod and the 5.3 patch. When I get round to it I'll post some observations for further discussion, until the equally excellent-looking Europa Barbarorum is released. Who needs an official XP that costs money? Cheers MC

Yeah, BG2 (and especially ToB) revolve very much around understanding some key concepts, mainly the use of mage spells/ buffing/ de-buffing. IWD will, in the later stages, introduce you to a few of these. Saying that, IWD remains a pretty melee-heavy game where a mage is not completely essential (I completed it with a Fineous Fingers* themed party of two fighters and a thief (Fred, Charlie and Fineous). In BG2, you are entering a world of pain without one, unless you are a bit of a savant. Like myself, of course. Cheers MC * If you can remember who Fineous Fingers was then you win extra gold stars for being a very old grognard, indeed.

As long as you are prepared for the fact that PS:T plays like part adventure game, part interactive novel. In a very, very small font. I vote for IWD. Old-skool dungeoneering goodness with an interesting backstory, exciting combat and much homage to the classic pen-and-paper D&D modules. Cheers MC

That's ruined my f*****g day. I just hope they see it as a profitable spin-off and don't abandon the TW franchise. I can handle most things being dumbed down for console kiddies, but not TW. Cheers MC

I quite like it; it reminds me of Diablo 2 meets Divine Divinity. I haven't played it on my new uber-rig yet, and on my old system I had some lag when zooming the camera out. I'm sure that won't be a problem now. My plan is to re-install when the expansion comes out and start a new game. If that developer used the engine to create more of a traditional RPG then it would be excellent. As it is, it's still a solid, fun action CRPG. Cheers MC

Ha ha ha, why would I post over at the Codex anymore, when I enjoy Troika-baiting as much as I do? Or get flamed for not agreeing, utterly, with one of the resident uber-trolls? Cheers MC

Congrats to Mr & Mrs U on the new arrival. I don't see why a community manager is vital here. Maybe it's because these forums are too sleepy and it's something else to be compartmentalized and shipped off to Stalag Luft Bioware :: Stands to attention and salutes Von Greg & Ray :: Keep the forums open for god's sake; I thought it was a given that a web presence seldom harms a games developer given the nominal outlay. Cheers MC

Those rebellions in Medieval invariably happened when you had conquered 60% plus of the map and, also, when your King died and a lower influence heir took his place. This was a pain as in Medieval your faction heir was fixed (unless you killed the sucka off). It takes a lot of planning, tax management and troop dispersal but surviving that late game wobble is possible. But I agree that it is a pain. Cheers MC

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?ac...ounce&f=41&id=1 Here we go again. Cheers MC

You see, these differences of opinion (which are perfectly fair) illustrate my point about the original topic. Now, about BG2: I always play very small (four or under) parties, seldom with more than one mage (sometimes Edwin, sometimes gimped Imoen). It is always heavily modded, and I mean heavily (I even use the esoteric mod that restores all the BG1 inventory and paperdoll art) .This means that my BG2/SoA is really very different from anybody else's, which is all part of the beauty of such an enduring game. It's interesting to see consensus (a rare commodity in this community) over IWD1's (excellent) combat. Developers please note. Cheers MC

Well, point 1 (Less "Wargame-ish") is for two reasons: Firstly, the Medieval combat was more challenging. It was more difficult in that the use of terrain, wooded areas and so required forward planning on a level not really equitable with Rome. Units were better balanced; look at archers for example (good at supression but not the scythe that even entry-level archer units are in Rome...let's not even enter a Longbowmen versus Cretan Archer debate!). Enemy AI was more agressive, enemy army composition was more challenging (don't get me wrong, some of the AI in army composition was utterly broken, for example the French would send an army of two peasant units and fifteen archer units agianst your elite force but hey). Secondly, in Medieval the strategy element of the game was far more aggressive; enemy factions would use assassins, crusades and exploit your weaknesses at a level you simply don't see in Rome. If you left a garrison with two units of peasants and a general next door to a stronger faction in Medieval you can bet that you'd be asking for trouble; the oft-dormant AI in Rome means you can. To be fair, in Rome bribery via enemy diplomats is more prevalent and the V1.2 patch has resolved some of these issues. --- Secondly, I think that CA got feedback that altho' the TW concept was really good, casual gamers were frustrated that they couldn't jump straight in AND KONKA TEH WURLD!!! Medieval really required a lot of thought every turn which is great for a grognard like me, but not so great for the more casual gamer. And, respect to Creative Assembly, I think they did a good job of pitching a product that made that compromise: casual gamers want something reasonably challenging and fun, NOT the maelstrom of difficulty that playing, say, France or Germany was in Medieval. Looking at the general feedback, Rome has won over multi-players, casual gamers, wargamers, modders and grognards. No small achievement. But have I re-installed Medieval and Viking Invasion on my new rig? You bet I have. Hope that answers the question. Always nice to chat with a fellow fan. Cheers MC

Sorry, ladies, but the combat in BG2 was pretty good as far as the IE games went. The high-level abilities and general over-the-top uber-ness of it might not be to everybody's taste, but there are some genuinely memorable battles that required a bit of a think (unless, of course, you are one of those people who play every IE game with a hacked dual class Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt or something). I had hours of fun with the munchkin battles in Throne of Bhaal, especially solo-ing the fire giant lair with a fighter/ thief. Modded BG2 just gets better. Improved twisted rune? Improved Mae'Var/ Aran Linvail? Improved Sahuagin city? They're all pretty cool. Especially with a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt. Or something. Now, where I agree on IWD1 is the tactical element. You could see that the BIS designers had sat down and tried to bring in a "DM-designed map" feel to the game, pushing the engine to create genuinely tactical challenges that required a bit of thought and understanding of the rules as much as the ability to use a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt (not that you could have a Kensai/ Mage in IWD1, but I digress). Look at the battle in Dorn's Deep where you have to cross that bridge faced with orc archers, infantry and drow wizards, spiders (etc). I played that battle three or four different ways and really enjoyed it. To be fair, IWD2 carried on this tradition. So I'd put IWD1 on a par with BG2, for different reasons. I loved 'em both. Cheers MC

On elephants: They are one of the few things that make combat against the AI a bit more challenging, but yes, post-V1.1 they are easier to deal with. Libyan javelinmen in ambush are pretty useful, as are mercenary hoplites to soak them up whilst Roman infantry hurl their pila at them. On comparisons with Medieval: Well, when you think about it there is more micromanagement in Rome with settlements and governors. There is no doubt, however, that on default difficulty settings that the AI of Medieval was far more brutal in the non-combat mode of the game. The sheer beauty of Rome, as has been pointed out, sort of carries it through (no matter how rewarding decimating the French from a hill with English longbowmen was, the sheer visceral kick of ramming a wedge of Cataphracts into the back of a phalanx and watching the enemy hurled into the air is much, much better). Do you think that the suits at Activision leaned on CA to make the game a bit less, well, wargame-ish than Medieval to increase it's marketability? I do. As I said, let's hope that the CA adapt M:TW using the Rome engine. Imagine lining up your cannon on the hills overlooking Constantinople.... Cheers MC

You are a level 1 Collector-Savant. If you don't play pen & paper RPGs then you'll possibly progress no further, but it ain't a biggie, is it? Perhaps you have created a new hybrid I was hitherto unaware of, the Computer D&D Crossover Guy. This player loves D&D on the computer. The computer allows you to enjoy P&P without the inconvenience of actually having to mix with real-life D&D players! Extended interest might lead you into the foothills of collector-savantdom (qv), as your pixellated escapades leads you into perusing the source material. Fair enough? I think so, as like many people too busy to schedule pen & paper gaming, I'm verring off into this category myself (albeit with a few levels of the Grognard PrC). Cheers MC