Bad news from CA about Battles

[Little Legioner]

Good news mates

But what about the main topic subject? Just a rememberence...

Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).
A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW."

"Q. Do you plan on having an option of making the battlefields bigger for campaign battles? The option is already available for large custom and historical battles. Quite apart from that, the bits surrounding the current battlefield edge are rendered anyway, so why not let us use them?
A. No.

After the Intrepid Sidekick's comments i was waiting for new information about battles. Sidekick's comments were very optimistic and promising. I'm keeping my hope alive. Please if a CA staff comes here again please fellas give an answer to us that, your answers are still "no" to first two question?

As we have already said, there will be no radical departures from the existing battles and their mechanics in BI. However this does not mean that a large amount of care and attention hasn't been given to tightening up and polishing the battlefield experience.

Blurry but promising or promising and blurry ... What about mechanics and what about non-mechanics? It was the grey area which is stand between white and black. Which points will be mainly "tightening" and "polishing" besides from 80 new units and night battles?

There are many small, and some big, changes in the game, far too many to list here. Development on titles like RTW and the BI expansion is a constant process, full of change.

I hope the big changes were directly battlefield sizes

or selectable battlefield sizes

and longer battles

[SpencerH]

I wish you the best of luck with BI. Please understand that I cannot buy it because of my principles unless a cost free patch to address save / load is made available. If you do that, I will be oh so happy to cross back over from... the dark side.

ditto

I'm also hoping that horses will be considerably faster than routing inf.

[Puzz3D]

I'm also hoping that horses will be considerably faster than routing inf.

I would suggest slowing down the running speed of the infantry to achieve that since horses are already unrealistically fast. Given the design of the engine it's apparently quite a bit of work to change the speed of a unit unless they already made some new skeletons.

[SpencerH]

I would suggest slowing down the running speed of the infantry to achieve that since horses are already unrealistically fast. Given the design of the engine it's apparently quite a bit of work to change the speed of a unit unless they already made some new skeletons.

Ah, that's what I meant; the inf running speeds are indeed WAY too fast (~10mph) and should be specifically slowed. Although I havent looked at the calcs for some while, I didnt think the horse speeds were too outlandish (at least not so far into fantasy land as the inf run speeds).

[screwtype]

These posts which refer to any complaint over RTW as whining and as "kicking CA in the teeth" really make me laugh. Sure it's nice when Intrepid Sidekick comes and says "we think we've improved the game". Yes well, what else would we expect you to think? I'll point out that same rationale applied with the creation of RTW after MTW. Is the game really improved? Depends on who you ask.

Old Celt, you must know that I've been as critical of the game as anyone here. I even gave it another blast earlier in this very thread. You can hardly accuse me of being a fanboy.

Nor do I have any objection to members blasting CA or its employees when appropriate. However when Sidekick dropped in to make what I thought was a very courteous and considerate post, Puzz showed no acknowledgement of that and simply turned it into another opportunity to blast CA which I thought was quite inappropriate.

As Sidekick himself said, he's not part of the PR team (or IIRC of management), so it's quite unrealistic to expect him to start making huge and detailed posts about every change that's been made - especially given that BI is still a work in progress. And how can he know what will be left in the final version anyhow? Remember all the features we were promised for RTW that didn't appear in the actual game? And all those which the data files show were dropped along the way?

And it's not as though we're being told nothing about BI. Shogun is making regular posts about it at the com answering people's queries, which is a welcome development. Sure, it will never be enough for some people, but then some people are never satisfied are they?

What I don't want to see here at the org is a culture taking hold where CA employees start being attacked whenever they post just because they are CA employees. By all means criticize and complain when appropriate, but please, not when they are trying to be helpful and informative and courteous. That would not only be unfair, but also IMO counterproductive to our common desire to see a better product.

[IceTorque]

Don't worry about those C.A. blokes they have a thick skin.

And good to see that they notice what we say and not so much how we say it.

[Little Legioner]

What I don't want to see here at the org is a culture taking hold where CA employees start being attacked whenever they post just because they are CA employees. By all means criticize and complain when appropriate, but please, not when they are trying to be helpful and informative and courteous. That would not only be unfair, but also IMO counterproductive to our common desire to see a better product.

Agreed and granted. I always stand against aggressive behaviors and acts to the CA employees. Mainly there is no reason to do that also they are not our, mine or your enemies. We are not in a bloody war fellas. Surely, I can't be happy with their product (R:TW) at the moment but that situation cannot gives me/us a right for hostile attacks. I do not mean anyone. I speak only generally. If anyone disturbs from my stance it's not my problem.

If we act as a responsible fans of TW series we can get a better position to make constructive dialog with CA staff and they can act more consultative about improvements on the TW; Pathches, expansions or whatever. Not only CA or us WE should act cooperative.

[PseRamesses]

No offense, but why are posting in this forum?
If don't like RTW so much, why are you still here?

So... your rule is "if you don´t play the game you can´t post?" - That´s a bit narrow minded IMHO. JFYI I love certain aspects of RTW but simply can´t stand the sheer stupidity of the AI. Been playing the game since STW came out the TW series is all about (for me) battles and from this perspective RTW is the worst in the series. I´ll prob pick it up again to try out RTR 6.0 and EB but buying BI without any significant changes to the AI - no!

[Old Celt]

@Screwtype:

I certainly didn't mean to imply you were a fanboy. If that was implied, it was unintentional and I apologize. I do not wish for this forum to become a place which is hostile to anyone. Everyone should be entitled to and receive the same respect and protections here on an equal basis. So that means tolerance of other's views, even if we strongly disagree. We should support the right of the people to hold their views. You cannot force people to respect each other internally, but you can enforce a proper decorum for debate. What I was getting at in my earlier post was that some people overreact to criticism and label it as "abuse". Sometimes there are claims of "insults and rudeness", yet when asked to provide examples to substantiate, there is no response because the claim is baseless. So I guess what I really would ask is that people be prepared to back up statements like "kicking someone in the teeth" with a good example when they are questioned about it.

[screwtype]

What I was getting at in my earlier post was that some people overreact to criticism and label it as "abuse"

Yes, but I've never been one of them, in fact much like you I've always found the knee-jerk defence of CA from some posters to be quite irritating. Which is why I don't much like being lumped in with them

However, I am quite prepared to jump to the defence of CA and its employees - indeed to anyone's - if I think they are being flamed unfairly. I thought Sidekick's post deserved a little better than the response it got from Puzz. As it happens Puzz is a senior member who's obviously made a significant contribution to the board, and Sidekick took no offence, so my comments were probably unnecessary

[Little Legioner]

Been playing the game since STW came out the TW series is all about (for me) battles and from this perspective RTW is the worst in the series. I´ll prob pick it up again to try out RTR 6.0 and EB but buying BI without any significant changes to the AI - no!

Salvetes Salutatores!

R: TW battle perspective has weakest strategy among the TW series. IF we generalize the most disturbing thing in R: TW "battles" earns the crown of first. This point must be first place to be corrected.

Sure but how CA will tighten and polish the battles? Anyone tells me? With the swimmable troops? night battles (it's not a NEW feature). Do you satisfy from them? Confess it frankly that do they enough? I don't think so

If they fix only the AI or only the save/load issue. Everything will be ok? We need a reorganization if we want get a better R.TW. A classic... I don't want to push myself again play R.TW. I was forcing myself to play it. Please misunderstand me i am not trying to insult the game or developers. I want to take back strategic approaching of older TW battles again i don't wanna a 3D wargame i wanna 3D strategy game.

Let's create a theatre stage: Stage is too narrow for a mass show and decoration is not enough for a good representation, actors are not so clever (AI). They are playing so fast and we can't understand what is the subject. Clothes are nice, girls good, boys handsome and musics well but did you like the show? If your answer is gonna be "NO" you'll find yourself in our primary subject... R. TW has a wonder potential as a show and it deserves amphitheater like "Aspendos" stages as a magnificent place.

[IceTorque]

PseRamesses hi m8.

The A1 is as frustrated as the rest of us with the 'touch me i die' vanilla unit stats.
Sure it could be tweaked some more (like sometimes just sitting there and being wasted with arrows) but i don't think it's that bad.

Try darths mod the difference is quite noticeable.
(i use vanilla formations txt, with the mod)
e.g. I was attacked by gaul outnumbered 2 to 1, I put my back to the wall(red line) and awaited the onslaught. The A1 formed it's infantry up in front,
concentrated it's cav on it's right flank, waited until it's archers hammered the units on my right and left flank, then attacked en masse.I did'nt stand a chance and it looked so cool.

Alternatively mod some units to have an unusually long life and play a custom battle with them you should see a nice battle line form and should be a challenge to hold that line and guard the flanks.

IMO the problem is one of balance not so much the A1.

[HarunTaiwan]

I will have to try Darth Mod for sure.

[antisocialmunky]

Be nice if the next TW AI could learn by watching you and trying to execute your moves etc etc etc. Be really nice.

[Puzz3D]

Be nice if the next TW AI could learn by watching you and trying to execute your moves etc etc etc. Be really nice.

A learning AI was something CA wanted to have in STW, but it didn't make it into that game or any of the games in the series so far. It will be really exciting if they can manage to do it someday.

[econ21]

A learning AI was something CA wanted to have in STW, but it didn't make it into that game or any of the games in the series so far. It will be really exciting if they can manage to do it someday.

STWs strategic AI (and I guess MTW too) did have a kind of learning that I admired. If you managed to defend a province against the AI, then when the AI next went for it, it would bring a bigger army than it used before. I vividly remember trying to hold on to Shinano against ever larger Hojo armies. It was scarey and exhausting!

[sockerconny]

can you you yourself make changes to the AI like in "darths mod"? How is that possible, is not the AI in the code?

[PseRamesses]

PseRamesses hi m8.
The A1 is as frustrated as the rest of us with the 'touch me i die' vanilla unit stats.
Sure it could be tweaked some more (like sometimes just sitting there and being wasted with arrows) but i don't think it's that bad.
Alternatively mod some units to have an unusually long life and play a custom battle with them you should see a nice battle line form and should be a challenge to hold that line and guard the flanks.
IMO the problem is one of balance not so much the A1.

I both agree and disagree. I did mod units and generals to be more experienced with better weapons etc. This led to a better battle BUT the AI still insists on death charges, charges that stops 5m from your line - pauses - and the rechagres, and during sieges the defenders just run around inside of the walls getting anihalited by my missile troops etc etc no matter how much experience they have an even with a 10* general. So yes the game can be improved. However this behaviour wasn´t as big a problem in STW (I´m currently playing it) where facing a general of that level is a nightmare.
Another ex: In STW I can maybee "lure" one unit out of a def pos but he´ll soon return to his fold when not gaining anything from its actions. In MTW I could lure unit after unit after unit etc until the whole army has disintegrated. In RTW I can lure the WHOLE army and even worse; it actually leaves a good def pos if you manouvre correctly. This is an outrage and a sellout of the TotalWar spirit. The soul and ambiance deerly loved in STW is no more.

[IceTorque]

I agree RTW does'nt compare to STW in terms of challenging/fun gameplay.

I remeber one day i was showing a friend STW. He was watching as i began a battle. I was playng as the shimazu clan and i impetuously sent my no-dachi's off ahead of the main force. I can still hear my friends laughter as my no-dachi's were ambushed by the A1.

Lets just hope that a return to the good old days is not too far off.

[Little Legioner]

Ahhh :embarrassed: good old days. I remembered my first STW experience. I had reed an rewiev from PC Zone UK about STW and i had really impressed it. I played the game and i became a TW fan. I was dying to play it everyday. When i job finished when i came to my home my first job was turning the switch of my pc ON. I was listening the STW music with headphones in job for motivation. I was a freak. When the Mongol invasion came out me and fella went to the store under the harsh snow storm. We were nearly freezing while we go to home. It was one of the coldest Thracian winter climate in Istanbul.

When i went to army for military service. I spent my free time at the weekends i was going to nethouses for check RTW every kind of information. When i've seen the first screens i've totaly shocked. But i had forgotten the base element of every successful game? Gameplay...

I've always been a strategy gamer since Sid Meier's Civ and Dune 2. My first impression about STW. "That's the future of strategy games i hope that it goes well without an accident and leaving from route". Perfectly combination of Turn and Real time basis of the strategy classes.

I always loved with passion this game too much and been grateful to it's developers. Simply i am a military history freak. All TW series was very important for me. My dreams were coming true with this games. When i was a child i was painting my badly painted armies to paper and fighting both of them. Arrows, horses... Do you understand why am i so pushing my opinions so much sometimes same tune, boring. Roots of my reasons... Simply dreams.

Salvetes Salutatores...

[player1]

I agree RTW does'nt compare to STW in terms of challenging/fun gameplay.

I remeber one day i was showing a friend STW. He was watching as i began a battle. I was playng as the shimazu clan and i impetuously sent my no-dachi's off ahead of the main force. I can still hear my friends laughter as my no-dachi's were ambushed by the A1.

Lets just hope that a return to the good old days is not too far off.

And I remeber the day when I first tried direct change with warband gauls agains roman hastati. And my army got slaughtered.

[Red Harvest]

And I remeber the day when I first tried direct change with warband gauls agains roman hastati. And my army got slaughtered.

Was that back when Hastati got +4 for their attack due to the pri-sec bug? The legions were really deadly with the extra points of attack. And you need to use your war cry too...

[sockerconny]

I am a bit puzled about how a strat game AI works. Compare with the game of chess: there are chess AI:s capable of beating the world champion, admitedly, those are custom built progs running on super computers, but even an ordinary chess prog on max difficulty have a rating well above 2000 which is a skill level that a human can normaly only reach after years of training, if at all. Why then can I learn to beat the AI in RTW after just playing a couple of hours?
I wonder would it not be possible to make an AI that works more like a chess prog at least on the strat map? For example when the AI ponders if it should move its 3 unit army within reach of my 10 unit army, it could check all my responses, find the one where I attack its army, run an autocalc of that battle, and conclude that it loses more troops than I do, and thus not move its army within reach of mine.

[Grey_Fox]

The strategies in chess are a whole different kettle of fish compared to the strategy required in RTW, where you have to take into account unit size, weather, terrain, height advantage, morale, fatigue and speed.

Not to mention that it took years for developers to create a chess program capable of beating a human, and even then it was because all it's moves were pre-set. What you are asking for (an AI that can actually beat a human) is decades away from fruition and would require billions in funding.

Also, the computer does run a sort of autocalc of who should win. Ever see an army retreat from battle? That's it. The problem is that the game is not only about numbers, it is also about combined armed and the things that I mentioned above.

[player1]

Was that back when Hastati got +4 for their attack due to the pri-sec bug? The legions were really deadly with the extra points of attack. And you need to use your war cry too...

Not only that but it was higher difficulty level (hard I think), and in those days it gave only bonuses to enemies, not player too.

[IceTorque]

Well i just tried a little experiment, i modded the game so that only elite units can be recruited, and gave all elite units the exact same unit stats.
archers are modded to be not very effective when firing head on. (to be realistic).
The only cav in the mod are the family members (very powerful).

So nice lengthy battles on a level playing field.

Result : The A1 is surprising me, although i still win most battles they are far from being easy and if i make a mistake the A1 is right there to make the most of it.

If i happen to be out numbered by only one unit I lose.

or if i don't have a family member in my stack to counter the A1's family member I lose.

I have never had so much fun losing battles, it's awesome.

compared to vanilla battles it's like chalk and cheese i really believe the battle A1 is pretty good but is ruined by poor stats and overpowered archers
which can hammer the A1 before it has a chance to form up and make it's attack.

[Red Harvest]

I am a bit puzled about how a strat game AI works. Compare with the game of chess: there are chess AI:s capable of beating the world champion, admitedly, those are custom built progs running on super computers, but even an ordinary chess prog on max difficulty have a rating well above 2000 which is a skill level that a human can normaly only reach after years of training, if at all. Why then can I learn to beat the AI in RTW after just playing a couple of hours?
I wonder would it not be possible to make an AI that works more like a chess prog at least on the strat map? For example when the AI ponders if it should move its 3 unit army within reach of my 10 unit army, it could check all my responses, find the one where I attack its army, run an autocalc of that battle, and conclude that it loses more troops than I do, and thus not move its army within reach of mine.

This one has been discussed quite a bit, and I'll give you my take on it. I used to be expert rated and did pretty well. Even my 17+ year old chess computer is rated 2100+ by the USCF. The problem with the comparison of AI's at the present is mainly resources and time. Seventeen to 20 years years ago it was different, equipment was a key limitation for chess computer strength (simply not enough calcs at 1 or 2 MHz on a very early processor with virtually no memory.) However, even at that time quite a few gifted programmers had worked many man years on chess algorithm's. I don't know that the basic approach has changed much in the last 20 years (the PC chess sofware and the dedicated retail chess computers seemed to use the same fundamental algorithm--with various opening books and other nuances.)

What differs? Time invested in building an AI. By the time the average game is complete and shipping, it cannot have but the smallest fraction of the time spent on chess AI. Also consider that "chess theory" is constantly evolving and has for centuries--this results in tweaking of the calculated values of certain positions, and openings in particular as new routes are mapped. Resource wise, the programmers for strategy game AI are only going to have time to write something rudimentary and test it. This means many basic nuances of the game will be beyond the AI's grasp. Ideally it should be more of a repetitive feedback loop with strong players. I don't get the impression that this is done beyond a cursory level. The whole software development process seems far too rushed (not pointing at CA in particular.) This doesn't give sufficient time to refine the AI after the rules of the game have frozen.

As others have said, the new map has far many more possibilities than a chessboard with its discrete positions, even at 1 ply. Also, most of the RTW map is hidden. Most of the possibilities are nonsensical, even at 1 ply, but calculating even a few ply of "best moves" would be tricky. There also seems to be some difficulty in determining relative army weighting in the field for determining battle outcome. I think most of this could be solved by continuing to adjust the AI with player input, particularly by setting the appropriate "stance" based on army composition, leaders and terrain.

Another area that makes PC's play weakly in strategy (and battle scenarios) is that after a few playings the human knows what is in the "hidden areas" and precisely how to play the position after the first time or two. Not to mention the human knows his opponent's strength and weakeness all too well after a few hours of play. So strategically, the human can play the AI opponent nearly perfectly after a few games. One way to fix this would be with a toggle for a position/strength randomizer for campaigns--this would be rather straigthforward to program in RTW, but it would create real "fog of war" on the strategy map for the player. I'm surprised nobody has written a campaign generator already. It isn't hard to make the text files for a new campaign, so reassigning territories and armies would not be too difficult.

[bodidley]

Good AI is something that really takes a lot of dedication, and RTW had a lot of new engines and art that had to be made for it. Perhaps in the future CA will design and AI that uses fuzzy logic.

Fact is though, that there are developers that do a good job making their AI challeging, so it's not out of the question that there is substantial room for RTW's AI to improve. Let's hope for a bright future

[IceTorque]

Good AI is something that really takes a lot of dedication, and RTW had a lot of new engines and art that had to be made for it. Perhaps in the future CA will design and AI that uses fuzzy logic.

Fact is though, that there are developers that do a good job making their AI challeging, so it's not out of the question that there is substantial room for RTW's AI to improve. Let's hope for a bright future

Proof the A1 aint so bad. All it needed was for a level playing field.

Grogs.zip
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rt...ads/RTWupload/

[SigniferOne]

Again, did any of you guys here try DarthMod? It has such AI that you will not complain anymore, nor wish to go back to any 'good old days'. I firmly believe that the AI in RTW is very good, but it was hampered by bugs in other areas, which limited it and made it faulty. By fixing those problems, the AI was finally unleashed, and I am not complaining. In this last game I played, (H/H), it was 230BC and my Julii did not expand anywhere at all, they were barely holding out in the Cisalpine Gaul, barely holding back the barbarian hordes because of the forts in the mountain passes. If not for the forts, I would have been overrun for sure.