CA blog from Mike Simpson

[Basileus]

CA only has them selfs to blame and i dont even care anymore, i´ll see what the future realeses show from now on before i ever buy another of their products.

To even think i bought E:TW SF to support them.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

However overdoing the criticism (For example I think a 67% user score on Metacritic is unfair), has the opposite effect to what is intended. Gamers (and reviewers. retailers, marketeers and publishing execs) will be put off Total War. That could mean fewer sales and less money to spend on adding quality to the games.

and so they should be put off Mr Simpson. Its termed BUSINESS. Blowing smoke, and expecting others to blow for you to cover up shocking quality does not emanate any confidence with the fan base. Nor does finger pointing. I clearly recall how you lot distanced yourselves from M2TW and the aussi team during development of ETW, and now the finger is pointing at SEGA! I somehow detect a sinking ship.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You know, I still can't get over him feeling hard done by at the hands of fans.
If you make a single player game about strategy, tactics and diplomacy, and the AI is incapable of using basic strategy, tactics or diplomacy, a 67% scoring is downright stratospherically high!

[antisocialmunky]

You know, I jsut went to metacritic to check the numbers and do comparisons with other TWs...

The 6.7 isn't what surprises me the most:

RTW: 8.9 @ 132
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...rome total war
RTW-BI 8.2 @ 37
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...rome total war

MIITW: 8.7 @ 130
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...eval total war
MIITW-Kingdoms: 8.8 @ 37
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...eval total war

ETW: 6.7 at 1889: ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...pire total war

Wow, that is a huge jump in exposure period. I don't have the numbers handy but last I heard ETW did better than MIITW and RTW combined in units sold.
(Edit, I found the numbers: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/45...-Sales-Records)
It definitely has had the most mainstream hype of any TW game with the massive Sega ad campaign. And he's complaining about MONEY?!?!

Besides, for better or worse you already have our money this time around. Use it better next time or you might not get any of it.

PS. I guess we can't make that much of a judgement since we don't know how much the game actually cost to produce. The engine is new, naval combat, etc. Still if you go by absolute #'s ETW is the most successful yet. I guess he's jsut trying ot play at our heart strings or something. The whole "If you rate ETW too poorly, SEGA will pull the plug" thing is a little bit much.

[Yun Dog]

whats really funny is East India Company which is complete and utter

got 68%

yeh maybe there was a bit of a negative campaign but the punters felt lied to by the game company and the reviewers

[AussieGiant]

As I mentioned.

You have a massive jump in the player base, AND that player base has expectations.

Their E:TW 1.0 version stunk it up...and the main issue was FIRST stability. There were way too many CTD's and general stability issues were worse than anything they have produced in the last 10 years.

Only after they stabalised the thing could they then really allocate resources to in-game issues as a SECONDARY move. Hence with 1.5 you have a pretty damn good product...9 months after release.

The numbers antisocialmunky mentions are telling.

They have become a victim of their own success in many respects.

Another way of making my point is like this:

CA have total control over two things;

1) What they 'SAY' they will produce.

2) What they 'ACTUALLY' produce. By produce I mean what their "retail version" is in the 1.0 state.

If they make those to things closer together in the next game, then they will really hit it big.

Basically if you match expectations with results you will succeed in business.

E:TW was a clear example of not doing this.

[AussieGiant]

With 65 replies to date I'm sure Mr Simpson has a feeling that he just stuck his helmet up over the trench with the butt of his rifle.

The result...

every weapon the enemy had was just unloaded in his direction.

[TinCow]

ETW breaks my heart. The engine is easily the best TW engine I've ever played. We all thought gunpowder combat wouldn't work very well with the TW system, but I actually find it even more enjoyable than melee. On top of that, the naval battle engine is absolutely superb and they are hugely fun to fight. ETW really has more potential than any other TW game IMO.

And then there's the AI. It's absolutely miserable. Well, the battle AI is finally tolerable (except for sieges, of course), but the campaign AI is as idiotic as ever. The game is rarely challenging, even at the highest difficult levels... and the few times it is challenging it is because of handicaps placed on the player, not because the AI plays well. This is a trend that has existed in every single TW game since RTW, and it's ruined all of them for me.

I bought ETW on faith that this time they had learned their lesson and would do it right. They didn't. I haven't played ETW in months now; it's not even installed on my computer. Unless a future patch significantly improves the campaign AI, I now consider myself done with TW games. If CA think that my complaints are excessive criticism, then they don't need to worry about hearing them again in the future. I certainly won't be complaining about a game I haven't bought.

[Slaists]

ETW breaks my heart. The engine is easily the best TW engine I've ever played. We all thought gunpowder combat wouldn't work very well with the TW system, but I actually find it even more enjoyable than melee. On top of that, the naval battle engine is absolutely superb and they are hugely fun to fight. ETW really has more potential than any other TW game IMO.

And then there's the AI. It's absolutely miserable. Well, the battle AI is finally tolerable (except for sieges, of course), but the campaign AI is as idiotic as ever. The game is rarely challenging, even at the highest difficult levels... and the few times it is challenging it is because of handicaps placed on the player, not because the AI plays well. This is a trend that has existed in every single TW game since RTW, and it's ruined all of them for me.

I bought ETW on faith that this time they had learned their lesson and would do it right. They didn't. I haven't played ETW in months now; it's not even installed on my computer. Unless a future patch significantly improves the campaign AI, I now consider myself done with TW games. If CA think that my complaints are excessive criticism, then they don't need to worry about hearing them again in the future. I certainly won't be complaining about a game I haven't bought.

Amen!

I disagree about the campaign AI being idiotic starting with RTW. It was just as stupid in MTW1. Did you ever try to give a well developed empire to the AI in MTW1 and then take it back after 20 turns? Oh man... The mess the AI could do...

[Fisherking]

Complaints about the AI are subjective and relative to the player by this point in time. There have been huge changes from the past versions.

There are still a few things that could improve but it is doing a much better job.

When they DoW now they usually mean business.

Playing at higher difficulty levels is tougher than any of the other TW games. The only problem with the siege game is it is for the AI a matter of capture the flag and not kill the opponent. It has been that way with all the previous games. It is just more apparent with this one fighting in forts and not in city streets.

The changes in the last two patches just in the last couple of weeks have made the game out of it that it should have been to start.

If anyone has not played since 1.3.1 or before, you should give it another try and see what you think now.

[Durallan]

subjective on probably most things except the economy now, while I haven't played 1.5 yet I'd wager its still woefully inadequate at managing its economy. it is at least less suicidal now which is the biggest difference.

[Fisherking]

In 1.4 I was seeing very few nations that were weak and destitute. Most were at least affluent if not rich or spectacular.

I don’t know if it is due to bonuses or not but most areas I captured were developed as well as their techs allowed it.

Techs though for the AI seemed painfully slow. Some were ahead of me in areas but they were specializing. Most military techs were at the lowest levels.

[Slaists]

subjective on probably most things except the economy now, while I haven't played 1.5 yet I'd wager its still woefully inadequate at managing its economy. it is at least less suicidal now which is the biggest difference.

Dunno about economy, but 4 years into my French campaign the pirates were busy building star-forts around their cities (while my sloops were sitting inside their destroyed ports).

[gollum]

Originally posted by Fisherking

Complaints about the AI are subjective and relative to the player

This is very true and not-so-true at the same time.

It is very true because the objectivity of the AI issues under fire depend on the skill, experience and game understanding of the player who mentions them.

However, there is also an objective layer and more often than not "veteran" players can tell how well the AI plays.

Veterans usually come in two formats, SP veterans and MP veterans, with MP veterans having a slight edge in terms of skill and understanding of the game because both are required and cultivated more intensely if you are to play online.

I'd say that orgahs like Caravel, Martok, Omanes Alexandrapolites and econ21 (and others) have a good SP sense and their opinions have quite some objective weight, at least for me.

On the other hand orgahs like CBR, TosaInu, Celtibero Mordred, Swoosh So, Puzz3D, Sasaki Kojiro, Tomisama (and others) can post opinions about the battlefield part of the game that are very close to objectivity because they know by experience the "working" ranges of the parameters and have a spectrum of batllefield strategies far wider than any SP player against which to judge the performance of the AI.

Originally posted by Slaists

I disagree about the campaign AI being idiotic starting with RTW. It was just as stupid in MTW1. Did you ever try to give a well developed empire to the AI in MTW1 and then take it back after 20 turns? Oh man... The mess the AI could do...

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the choices of the STW/MTW AI and his capacity to build and maintain an empire, bear no comparison to RTW and later. The challenge of the SP game went straight to the gutter progressively past RTW and this is a testimony to, among other things, the AI's skills which weren't spectacular but were adequate.

The "mess" you refer to, happened most often because of low influence and Civil wars - an overdeveloped AI with lots of money would turn predictably and rightly, very aggressive. However the MTW AI was designed around the STW campaign that had no faction leader influence rating, no loyalty and no civil wars. So the fact that he can suffer a civil war because he turns offensive is not a testimony to how bad the AI played, but that the AI, typically of CA, was not tuned to the influence/loyalty/civil war feature/mechanic. The AI in MTW is not aware of which of the generals has high loyalty and who not. He uses high ranking generals as stack leaders by default - when these happen to be disloyal, he doesnt change them, or marry them to doughters or burn them with inquisitors or sentence them in trials using spies or take the ir titles with emmissaries like the player. Neither does he "know" that the loss of regions amounts to influence hits when he calculates his moves.

[caravel]

I disagree about the campaign AI being idiotic starting with RTW. It was just as stupid in MTW1. Did you ever try to give a well developed empire to the AI in MTW1 and then take it back after 20 turns? Oh man... The mess the AI could do...

The AI has never been breathtakingly good in any of the TW series, but it was leaps and bounds better on both the campaign and battles maps in STW/MTW. This is a sad fact that a game several years old still beats the latest title when it comes to AI.

Giving a well developed empire to the AI in MTW would cause a pretty predictable blitz and collapse. This is pretty normal and the same would happen in any game. The player can engineer and develop the most perfect empires that a simple AI cannot hope to maintain. The AI in MTW was a simple beast playing on a simple provincial map. The RTW AI was the same simple beast playing on a tiled map and movement points system. That is why it didn't work properly.

So yes, the problem with the RTW campaign map AI is simple: It is not sophisticated enough to actually handle the map, diplomacy or troop movements that make up the foundations of the campaign. The campaign map AI in RTW simply engages in base building and then moves it's rabble of army stacks towards a target. At the same time it's emissaries are heading to those same settlements to broker peace, alliances, trade rights, etc... M2TW suffered from the same ailments. RTW's AI is actually an "epic fail", precisely because the AI did not progress much from the original STW/MTW campmap AI.

The battles are a totally different matter. It is the deterioation in the quality of battles in the TW series that I find entirely inexcusable. Here you cannot blame the increased complexity of the game and the Ai being unable to handle it - when it comes to battles there are no excuses. There is simply no reason for battles to be actually worse - yet they are absolutely atrocious. The basic model is the same: A 3D real time battle map with men that fight in units vs other units. The units either fight in melee or with ranged weapons. In this respect RTW is no different from it's predecessors, so what went wrong?

IMHO battles went wrong because their entire purpose has altered since the release of the first game in 2000. Battles are no longer about tactical engagements of those that wish to test their wits against a competent AI (or human player), they are a visual killfest aimed at recreating mass slaughter for fairly basic entertainment. Units are no longer balanced against each other and parameters that were fundamental to the old engine, such as weather, terrain and fatigue ceased to be the focus. None of this was even attempted in RTW as it was not the aim.

So from my point of view CA lost the plot long ago and the state of the later TW games does not surprise me at all.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This is almost off-topic, but maybe there's an opportunity for the modding comunity here. If non-seige battles are in the field of "pretty good" and you can make custom battles (you can, right?) then maybe someone can find a way to generate a dynamic set of battles that would simulate playing a campaign (though probably in greatly decreased scope).

If I didn't have class to be late to, I'd expand on that thought here...

[TinCow]

The AI in MTW was a simple beast playing on a simple provincial map. The RTW AI was the same simple beast playing on a tiled map and movement points system. That is why it didn't work properly.

This is exactly the problem. CA simply is incapable of making an AI that can handle their 'improved' campaign map. They've tried to do it now on three games and have failed every single time. I very strongly believe that the game would be significantly improved if they went back to a province-based campaign map like in STW/MTW. But... they'll never do that because the current campaign map looks better, which is apparently all they care about.

[gollum]

Originally posted by TinCow

I very strongly believe that the game would be significantly improved if they went back to a province-based campaign map like in STW/MTW. But... they'll never do that because the current campaign map looks better, which is apparently all they care about.

Precisely; and why they only care about that? Because it makes them lots of $$$$$$ allows them to bring more "quality" in future TW games

[peacemaker]

I personally think you guys are being kind of harsh on the new CAI after patches 1.4 and 1.5. The AI plays nice, actually uses its troops, and sometimes asks for peace if it notices it's losing. This may be one of the first games in a while where the AI is competent enough for the campaign map.

As for the BAI (and to an extent the CAI) I think that people's expectations are too high. OF COURSE it's not going to be like a human. OF COURSE you'll probably win if you've been playing for a while. Let's pretend for just a moment that some of you have never played TW in your life. You shouldn't be able to just set the settings on VH/VH and expect to win by a huge margin (I sure don't). Some of you do manage to do this, but I'm confident that most of the players that buy this game don't spend as much time playing as some of you do. Some of you expect to be able to fight against a human simulator that matches your skill level-which still hasn't really been made yet.

[Monk]

I personally believe we as consumers had every right to have high expectations going into ETW. The PR campaign in the months leading to release needs no introduction and has been mentioned before (in this thread and many others).

Leading up to release I said I would be happy if this AI simply gave a challenge, i didn't care if it was "human" i just wanted to be provided a challenge against I would need to think to overcome. For seven months there was no such AI, and even now it still isn't at that point. Is the Battle AI capable of moments of ingenuity and promise? Oh, of course. Can it win battles on its own merit without resorting to stat cheats and unbalanced situations? Not against me, no. It's certainly come a long way but like so many things in Empire, it has a long way to go.

I will reserve comments on the CAI until after i've played the GC post 1.5 (i've only done the Warpath campaign since, it did not inspire confidence).

[antisocialmunky]

If you're playing as the natives, back stabbing, and constant DOWs aren't that unrealistic...

[Monk]

If you're playing as the natives, back stabbing, and constant DOWs aren't that unrealistic...

Unfortunately that's not good enough for me. This game might be called "Total War" but that doesn't put it above logic or the need for sensible diplomacy.

[Komutan]

I don't agree the AI problems started with Rome. I think some of you simply forgot how it was.

Some AI problems I recall from MTW1:

- AI building masses of low tech units like peasants and archers and almost never building higher tech units.

- AI sending its units one by one when assulting castles. Each time a unit gets annihilated the next one is sent.

- At the start of France campaign, England sends an army consisting of only the king and all his heirs. They would bravely attack the French spearmen/militia waiting in the woods. I remember England losing all its heirs and as a result being defeated at the very start of the game.

- Vikings never attacking England in Viking Invasion.

People did not complain much then, because CA was not a big name yet and expectations were not as high as today.

Of course I am talking about just the AI. None of the former TW games (including Rome and Medieval2) had so many crash issues. All of them at least ran more or less smoothly from the first day I bought them.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Hmmm, I seem to have lost a fairly big post in reply. You will now get my redux version.

Sure, STW and MTW had their faults too. But we are nearly a decade on, and the AI is less capable on all levels.

Also, we weren't complaininmg as much back then? Are you kidding?! The .org used to populated almost exclusively by wargamers and boy, they did their nickname of Grognard credit.

[nafod]

Complaints about the AI are subjective and relative to the player by this point in time. There have been huge changes from the past versions.

There are still a few things that could improve but it is doing a much better job.

When they DoW now they usually mean business.

Playing at higher difficulty levels is tougher than any of the other TW games. The only problem with the siege game is it is for the AI a matter of capture the flag and not kill the opponent. It has been that way with all the previous games. It is just more apparent with this one fighting in forts and not in city streets.

The changes in the last two patches just in the last couple of weeks have made the game out of it that it should have been to start.

If anyone has not played since 1.3.1 or before, you should give it another try and see what you think now.

The only problem is players like me quit playing at 1.3. Actually I never finished a campaign as I started a new one with each patch hoping they would dramatically improve things.

I understand player issues with the AI since RTW. I was actually quite satisfied with RTW and MTW as I was able to play through a few campaigns before their failures became clear. In fact I played RTW + BI for 3 years, MTWII + Kingdoms for 2 years. I was completely sick of Empire after 5 months.

As a somewhat longterm TW fan I guess I had an expectation gap resulting from the expectation that things would get better, comibined with the massive sales campaign + CA comments spouting their endless drivel about how great this game was.

Additionally I feel the release now and finish later approach led to some heartburn among the playerbase regarding their various balancing changes and what-not that had the game been that way at launch, the playerbase wouldn't have either noticed it, or at least the response would have been much more subtle.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't agree the AI problems started with Rome. I think some of you simply forgot how it was.

Some AI problems I recall from MTW1:

- AI building masses of low tech units like peasants and archers and almost never building higher tech units.

- AI sending its units one by one when assulting castles. Each time a unit gets annihilated the next one is sent.

- At the start of France campaign, England sends an army consisting of only the king and all his heirs. They would bravely attack the French spearmen/militia waiting in the woods. I remember England losing all its heirs and as a result being defeated at the very start of the game.

- Vikings never attacking England in Viking Invasion.

People did not complain much then, because CA was not a big name yet and expectations were not as high as today.

Of course I am talking about just the AI. None of the former TW games (including Rome and Medieval2) had so many crash issues. All of them at least ran more or less smoothly from the first day I bought them.

Well, MTW massively improved on STW. You had castle sieges, 100 or so units, general portraits, the trait system, more religions, the pope, crusades etc, glorious achievements.

That's reasonable and it didn't have suicide FMs quite as much, armies that didn't devolve into a massive ball of units like MIITW and RTW, (ETW has fixed some of this actually), the diplo AI was atleast somewhat reasonable. It generally stuck to treaties and would all-in weaker guys.... etc.

RTW was to a lesser degree similar upon release. It was friggin 3D and added the new campaign map and converted everything to 3D. However, RTW also saw the rise of the suicide general charge head-long into phalanxes, and other bad things like poor diplomacy and multiple personality diplo/warfare AIs. Where as the MTW AI actually effectively flanked sometimes and did some other clever-clever things... RTW's AI never did too much. Interestingly enough the strategic AI got a nice upgrade in Alexander where diplomacy became quite better and the AI learned how to properly invade and reinforce invasions as much as an AI can be expected to.

MIITW was a trainwreck plain and simple. The AI was nuts:
-The diplo/warfare problems were still present.
-The idiotic BI naval invasions came back with a vengence.
-Units balled up instead of come at you with any decent formation most of the time.
-We had passive AI if the player fielded too many missiles.
-There were much more errors with unit cohesion and getting units to actually fight.
-Castle pathfinding was and still is borked.
-The AI kept spamming uber peasants.

Also, just incase anyone cares here's my personal play time on each of the games:
-I played about 12 campaigns in STW and finished 3.
-I played about 15 campaigns in MTW and finished 2 due to memory leaks.
-I played about 4 campaigns in Vanilla RTW and finished 1. Found CIV3 for $5 and played a ton of games. Then I discovered EB, XGM, and other things of which I played several campaigns though finished none.
-I played about 9 campaigns in MIITW and finished 2(Milan and Jerusalem in Kingdoms).
-I played 3 campaigns in ETW, got bored with the silly AI and went back to CIV4 and then EB and then Third Age: Total War for MIITW, then I found XCOM.

[Yun Dog]

Well, MTW massively improved on STW. You had castle sieges, 100 or so units, general portraits, the trait system, more religions, the pope, crusades etc, glorious achievements.

That's reasonable and it didn't have suicide FMs quite as much, armies that didn't devolve into a massive ball of units like MIITW and RTW, (ETW has fixed some of this actually), the diplo AI was atleast somewhat reasonable. It generally stuck to treaties and would all-in weaker guys.... etc.

RTW was to a lesser degree similar upon release. It was friggin 3D and added the new campaign map and converted everything to 3D. However, RTW also saw the rise of the suicide general charge head-long into phalanxes, and other bad things like poor diplomacy and multiple personality diplo/warfare AIs. Where as the MTW AI actually effectively flanked sometimes and did some other clever-clever things... RTW's AI never did too much. Interestingly enough the strategic AI got a nice upgrade in Alexander where diplomacy became quite better and the AI learned how to properly invade and reinforce invasions as much as an AI can be expected to.

MIITW was a trainwreck plain and simple. The AI was nuts:
-The diplo/warfare problems were still present.
-The idiotic BI naval invasions came back with a vengence.
-Units balled up instead of come at you with any decent formation most of the time.
-We had passive AI if the player fielded too many missiles.
-There were much more errors with unit cohesion and getting units to actually fight.
-Castle pathfinding was and still is borked.
-The AI kept spamming uber peasants.

Also, just incase anyone cares here's my personal play time on each of the games:
-I played about 12 campaigns in STW and finished 3.
-I played about 15 campaigns in MTW and finished 2 due to memory leaks.
-I played about 4 campaigns in Vanilla RTW and finished 1. Found CIV3 for $5 and played a ton of games. Then I discovered EB, XGM, and other things of which I played several campaigns though finished none.
-I played about 9 campaigns in MIITW and finished 2(Milan and Jerusalem in Kingdoms).
-I played 3 campaigns in ETW, got bored with the silly AI and went back to CIV4 and then EB and then Third Age: Total War for MIITW, then I found XCOM.

I think this is a fairly accurate assesment
I finished and played alot more MTW campaigns
Likewise with RTW I played most of the factions and finished quite a few, and then EB goodness but like you due to the Massive Awsomeness of it, actually finished few if any
gees you managed to finish 2 M2TW camps - I did 1 so that I could be massively let down by the ending - and after all these titles would it kill them to have some end-game stats a score sheet and a ladder.

Really this game is begging to be taken by 2k games and have the battle engine merged with the Civ4 campaign engine - Oh my GOD I think I just made a mess in my pants

[Elmar Bijlsma]

...then I found XCOM.

Eh?
XCOM Enemy Unknown, the old fashioned alien hunting and king of all great games? Or is it something new/different?

[caravel]

I don't agree the AI problems started with Rome. I think some of you simply forgot how it was.

Some AI problems I recall from MTW1:

- AI building masses of low tech units like peasants and archers and almost never building higher tech units.

Not an AI problem. This was caused by poorly balanced unit rosters that were introduced in MTW and have continued to this day. STW did not have this problem as it had the ideal setting, conflict, era and unit rosters for a TW game. RTW also had this problem, for example you often find yourself fighting hordes of crap eastern infantry, hillmen etc. It tends to be a faction/roster specific issue.

- AI sending its units one by one when assulting castles. Each time a unit gets annihilated the next one is sent.

True and this has not improved. The AI has never been competent at handling a siege - either in defence or offence. This is why I autocalced everything to do with sieges in MTW.

This was less of an issue in STW as the castles had an open breach instead of a gate and no siege engines or towers. It suited the simple AI better.

Sieges in MTW are still more difficult than those in RTW however. I have won most siege defences in RTW even when outnumbered ten to one - they are stupidly easy and the AI is hopelessly inept. For offences a ladder rush works in most cases with siege towers being best for the larger walls. The AI on the other hand assaults in the most idiotic fashion, shooting at a single tower for ages before attacking and sometimes hanging back whiloe being shot to pieces. The general often remains ouitside until all his troops are dead before getting involved.

- At the start of France campaign, England sends an army consisting of only the king and all his heirs. They would bravely attack the French spearmen/militia waiting in the woods. I remember England losing all its heirs and as a result being defeated at the very start of the game.

That's just a particular example. I've not often seen the AI sending cavalry to attack infantry in woods but it can happen in certain circumstances. The reason it sends it's royalty in to attack is due to unit rosters and placement. The French attack the province that contains the faction leader and thus the faction leader gets into battle. Not a lot can be done about this. I liken it to the RTW AI sending it's family members out alone, while the armies they should be leading are led by captains.

- Vikings never attacking England in Viking Invasion.

Not entirely true but yes, the Viking Invasion campaign was badly flawed. The Vikings fielded "uber units" (like the Romans in RTW) and in order to rein them in somewhat they were given a poor economy. In essence CA introduced imbalances in an attempt at recreating an historical scenario and this is what ruined the game. They did the same thing with Rome in giving the Romans a huge range of overpowered units that come in two phases and neutering the "barbarian" factions' tech tree.

People did not complain much then, because CA was not a big name yet and expectations were not as high as today.

People did complain then in fact and expectations are always high when it comes to something you actually pay good money for. All I expect from TW is good game play and decent AI - anything else is a bonus. Graphics should not be the focus in a game like ETW, the main focus should be in simulating the warfare of the period accuractely - not just visually but physically.

Of course I am talking about just the AI. None of the former TW games (including Rome and Medieval2) had so many crash issues. All of them at least ran more or less smoothly from the first day I bought them.

STW/MTW never crashed for me until I upgraded my PC. The game does not run well on new hardware. There is only one group of people that can fix this problem - yet they choose to ignore it. As far as CA are concerned when the new title is released the old title simply ceases to exist.

As to general crashes and bugginess. From RTW onwards this got steadily worse. RTW still crashes quite often when you exterminate the populace in a captured settlement. RTW is also prone to crashes and horrific bugs during sieges. M2TW's bugs are well known, ETW's seem endless from what I've read so far. It seems to me that the developer is not interested in releasing a fairly stable product from day one. This may be one of the main reasons as to why the Steam platform was introduced.

[hoom]

Regarding the Battle AI having gotten worse post STW/MTW, I used to think this too.
I did sometimes see glimpses of STW/MTW AI in RTW & RTR 6.0/EB brought it out more often.

Play at least the first battle of RTR VII:TIC.
That is a tough battle.
Its got a big thread about how hard it is & various strategies for getting through it with enough army to not destroy your chances at success for the rest of the campaign. (reminds me of the glory days of the .org)

The AI storms up to you in double line formation, engages across a broad front, feeds in reserves as needed & even double-flanks!

Does much the same in other battles too :)
Its positively frightening to see when you've been so used to seeing AI armies just milling around, not engaging.

The RTR guys swear black & blue that while the Campaign circumstances that give rise to that battle are scripted, the actual battle itself isn't, just good balancing bringing out AI routines that never get triggered normally.

The one time I have beaten that first battle with most of my army intact would be definitely in my top 10 most epic TW battles, quite possibly top 5 & I have played a lot of TW.

It was all I played, many hours every day/evening from Mongol Invasion through MTW & VI until RTW release.
Since RTW came out I've been increasingly playing other games but have still put in probably the majority of time on various iterations of RTR & EB mods.
Haven't played a single turn of Retail version of BI.
Have probably played about 40 turns of M2TW/Kingdoms (mainly waiting on EB2)
Empire, I nearly finished a Maratha campaign but am mostly waiting for patches/mods to mature & make the thing work properly.
(also hoping that RTR team will be able to migrate to E:TW engine within a reasonable time because there are heaps of features that could be awesome for the Rome period)