Updated Manual?

Sarconix · #1 December 17th, 2009, 10:34 AM

Hey folks,

A few quick questions from a prospective buyer...

Has the manual been updated since the original release? In other words, am I getting the same manual if I order direct from Shrapnel vs. somewhere else like Amazon? If the manual has not been updated, is it still sufficiently accurate now that several patches have been made?

Thanks!

Stavis_L · #2 December 17th, 2009, 10:59 AM

It has not been updated, so it does not document all of the changes made via patches since the initial release (e.g. new nations.) Also, there are a number of technical inaccuracies (see other threads, including the FAQ at the top of this forum, and the "Lies my manual told me" thread.)

That said, it still gives a good overall "feel" for the game and in most cases it will be generally correct, even if the details differ slightly. I would say that for a game of this complexity, it does a great job.

Even if it was totally accurate, a lot of what's there really won't make sense until you try it; this game is one of those that take a few runs through before it "sinks in." The reward is worth it, however, IMO.

Sombre · #3 December 17th, 2009, 01:26 PM

It's like 80% accurate, so it's still useful unless you want to be absolutely sure of something, in which case it's basically useless.

The same could be said for most sources of information like responses on this forum or anecdotal observations though.

Gandalf Parker · #4 December 17th, 2009, 04:36 PM

As a Manual, I think its still excellent and above average as far as game manuals go. It will definetly get you started in the game and has an excellent tutorial in it. I would recommend getting Edi's Database and using the tables in it for information on units and equipment. Much more up to date.

As a strategy guide it might be getting old. But even that is pretty amazing considering its been years since it was created. For many games I have paid as much money for, any strategy advice was dead within a couple of months at most.

Trumanator · #5 December 17th, 2009, 05:29 PM

There are certainly parts of the manual that are useful. There are also parts that I wouldn't touch w/a ten foot pole. Among these are: the mini-strats (90% of them would never work in MP), any explanation of mechanics (Nearly all of them are wrong to one degree or another), and to a lesser extent the spell Grimoire (Since CBM is used in nearly all MP games.)

Gandalf Parker · #6 December 17th, 2009, 06:03 PM

That would be the difference between a manual and a strategy guide. Personally, Ive never preferred games that came with a strategy guide that was any good but that might just be a personal preference for finding things out for myself.

As for CBM, well anytime that is said and disputed there is a rush of new CBm games. But I still wouldnt say "nearly all". Other than in IRC of course. Any mod would tend to need its own documentation rather than rely on the manual. Particularly one that modifies the game as much as CBm does.

Trumanator · #7 December 17th, 2009, 06:10 PM

I looked at every one of the games on the first page of the MP forum, which is not necessarily all those in progress. Total of games with CBM- 29. Total of vanilla games- 6. Seriously, its not just the IRC that's aware of how superior CBM is.

As for the strategies, what's the point of putting them in if they're known to be bad? Just to screw around w/the newbs? I'm aware its not a strategy guide, but that doesn't mean you throw in boneheaded strategies for filler.

Micah · #8 December 17th, 2009, 06:28 PM

It should be noted that most of the CBM changes are "documented" very handily through the game UI, since spell effects/levels and unit costs (which make up the bulk of the changes) are clearly displayed. Items are a bit harder to determine since you can't call up a list of them as easily, but a simple test game solves that. The demand that there be out-of-game documentation in addition seems more like an excuse not to use CBM than a reason, but that's just my take on it.

Personally, I find out about most of the CBM changes that I COULD find out about by looking at the documentation (in or out of game) when I get stung by it in a game, not by actually looking at the docs. Which is pretty much the same process that I learned a good 85% of the vanilla game though, so it just pays to be able to roll with the punches.

Gandalf Parker · #9 December 17th, 2009, 06:47 PM

Well keep telling everyone that nearly all MP games are CBM. It does seem to make a difference. And rally the troops for a new rush of cbm games now.

but on the servers the numbers arent quite so clear. You could get away with saying "most" or maybe even "double" but lets not give the impression that its now the whole game.

Actually it would probably be clearer to say most of the competitive games. There are certainly few MP games anymore that have no mods at all but there seems to be a split between the competition games using balance mods, and the rpg games using mods such as single age (

), worthy, mytheology, sites, semirand, etc.

And I wasnt saying people should not use CBM because its not in the manual. Just that its not realistic to say the manual is no good for learning the game because it doesnt support a mod. That seems extreme.

Illuminated One · #10 December 17th, 2009, 06:55 PM

Eh, I personally would like a CBM documentation, since I don't go through every spell (not even the description (!)) and item in a test game. When you get stung by it in a game it can be too late. Not that it would kill you but it would be nice to have something to search through without a long effort.

Also, sorry to ask, but what is the reason to go against non-CBM games every time? I'm in a non-CBM game atm and it has been quite enjoyable. Not that I think CBM is bad but with CBM already used so often there is certainly no need to badmouth the other games in every fifth thread.