why arent they talking at all about the AI?

[Mooks]

Im 14 and I read books in class. Im not considered the most social person but im not a nerd. And well, most of the people in my grade say books are for idiots and "who cares about history". My english teacher told the class about the romans and it was genuinely their first time ever hearing about them. Hell, 90% of them have NEVER read a book just for fun.

I think the problem is, is that people dont know history. They cant really tell if a game is historically accurate or fiction. They dont know that cannons were too heavy to mount on elephants or where russia is (seriosly, alot of people in my classes cant even find britian on a map, I doubt they could find russia if they tried) and who the mongols were and what they did. If someone says its accurate, then they will beleive them.

[Gaulgath]

they were also big for RTW, and look what we got - certainly not something the overall TW vet appreciated

From the first things I heard and saw of MTW2 I had a good feeling about the game, but after noticing they didn't even fix those rediculous run speeds I just lost all hope. This will be "RTW: The Middle Ages", not MTW with awesome graphics.

If there is one thing I hate, it's bashers. The game hasn't even come out yet, and everybody is butchering the game! Why don't I sit you down in a chair and watch you program this? TW is MASSIVE, and not every little detail is going to be perfect. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that.

[Cowhead418]

If there is one thing I hate, it's bashers. The game hasn't even come out yet, and everybody is butchering the game! Why don't I sit you down in a chair and watch you program this? TW is MASSIVE, and not every little detail is going to be perfect. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that.

THANK YOU. I can understand wanting the game to be as historically accurate as possible, but all the nitpicking that goes in is absolutely ridiculous. Every time there is a picture of a new unit, I read a post that complains about the color of a patch of clothing or something else that shouldn't really matter. These are little details and it should be OK if all of them aren't 100% accurate.

As for the AI, it isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be, especially in mods such as RTR in RTW and XL mod in MTW. It would be a hell of a lot more challenging if the AI would just stop sending their units to the slaughter, especially the general suicide charges. Sure, the army composition could use work as well as a lot of other less than stellar tactics the AI uses, but I think that if the AI would stop letting its units get isolated or if it would have its general live through the first clash of the battle, then there would be a lot less whining. Just my .02.

[Callahan9119]

If there is one thing I hate, it's bashers. The game hasn't even come out yet, and everybody is butchering the game! Why don't I sit you down in a chair and watch you program this? TW is MASSIVE, and not every little detail is going to be perfect. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that.

how long have you played tw? the simple fact is they have not addressed problems and design flaws that have been around since the first release of STW. i also dont give a #$^* about historical accuracy, they do a good enough job of balance between whats real and what sells...the same AI from 4 years ago is a laugh...if anything it gets worse.

remember all the RTW hype? remember how the history channel used the rtw graphics engine when it produced a series of shows? remember how groundbreaking it was supposed to be? it wasnt, MTW had sooo much more depth...they fluffed up the graphics at the expense of everything else

if i was a person who started playing at rtw i could understand you being bright eyed and bushy tailed, those of us who have played this series for 4 years seem to be a bit jaded by ca's neglecting its fan base and its rude bahavior on the official forums

with every release and expansion i couldnt wait to get my hands on it, now this time its more "eh i guess i'll get it" its like dragonlance novels...didnt like the way it was going but i bought em anyway...and thats all they want you to do, buy it...who cares if you like it

maybe you like a shallow game thats just pretty to look at, if so i expect you will get just this....i could be wrong...but i wont hold my breath, even if you might want me to :)

[Count Dracul]

Well,
I hope they do reveal some details about the AI because this was one of the major problems in RTW: bad diplomacy system, bad campaign AI, horrible battlefield AI...
I have my doubts if they will look into it. The old fanbase that is asking for better AI is just a small consumergroup; That means we are of little importance for their sales...

But maybe there is hope. I've searched on the internet and discovered a game ' XIII Century: Sword & Honor' and it looks very promising. I have send a mail to the publisher to ask for more details and here is what they said about it:
Hello Pieter-



Sorry for the delay with the answer, but I was out of the office and unfortunately had no access to my e-mails.

I’ve asked the developers and they have provided me with the following information:



1. No. The campaigns in the game will be battle oriented. There will be only battles.

2. Battle AI is complicated and pretty hard to beat and we are currently working on it and making it possible for a human player to win a battle :) There is no diplomacy in the game except for the sword.

3. This game does not have any unit construction because we are oriented on historical accuracy and historically accurate battles. Castles are map objects and are not constructed during the game. But we plan to supply the game with an editor to allow players build their own battles and castles.


4. We plan to release the game in Q4 2006.







Sincerely yours,

Anatoly Subbotin

PR Manager

1C Company


suba@1c.ru, http://int.games.1c.ru/

I mean there is no campaign map but the AI sounds very promising and that is the most important part of the game for me. + maybe this could be a competitor for Activision in the future. I'm going to check this game out when it is released. Don't know about you?

[Dooz]

Might as well plug this game too.

http://www.madminutegames.com/

The absolute best battle AI currently available. Take Command 2nd Manassas is the newest game from the site (set during the American Civil War), you can check out the demo and be blown away. AI is great, battles are great. You just need to try it to believe it basically. Huge maps, huge armies, couriers relaying messages between commanders, tactical battles and strategies, man it's amazing. Oh and a great community to boot. This recent discovery has made me a hell of a happy gamer, with some new found optimism and encouragement from the gaming world.


-edit-
Oh sweet Moses, that game Count Dracul mentioned looks spectacular. Those screens especially tickled me in ways I ought not be touched...

[Lord Adherbal]

Why don't I sit you down in a chair and watch you program this? TW is MASSIVE, and not every little detail is going to be perfect.

if the problems with RTW were caused by programming difficulties then they should fire a lot of people and get the old STW/MTW programmers back.
But no, it's the new design approach that alienates the old fanbase.

And what do you want us to do, whine AFTER the game is released, when the 1% chance we have in having an influence on the gameplay has turned into 0% ?

[Count Dracul]

If forgot to post the link to some screenshots of XIII Century: Sword & Honor

http://www.3dgamers.com/screenshots/games/xiiicentury/

I have also seen some screenshots where the lances (carried under the armpit: correct way) actually break off after a charge and they change to sword. But unfortunately I don't remember where I've seen it... If you look good It can be seen in this pic

[doc_bean]

That is what they are supposed to be "getting around". As far as incentives go, well I would have thought the opportunity to make even more money licencing the engine to other studios would be an ample incentive. In the FPS development business it is commonplace. Of course it's entirely up to them. But the fact is that their engine will not maintain a virtual monopoly in this field forever, unless they licence it. If they don't eventually someone will develop a credible rival.

Hmm, i seem to have missed this discussion last time I checked the thread

So far CA is the ONLY company that has access to an engine like Rome's. In the fps scene there have been rival engines from the start, sure most weren't as impressive as ID's, but there was always a competition. Even so licenses don't happen that easily, ID almost always licenses to raven first, and probably makes a whole lot of money from those games to. Every company seems to make sure that no other games with 'their' tech are released around the same time. VTM: Bloodlines might be the big exception but then it was an entirely different game.
Which brings us to another point: fps engines are (considered) more versatile than an engine like the TW one, they make shooters RPGs, third person action games, MMO games and even strategy games with those engines. A TW engine is more limited in scope, although it could probably be expanded upon more to make it more versatile, that would require a serious investment however. The main point of the tw engine is that it can draw lots of people on screen, that isn't always what's needed in other games. CA tried to see what their tech could in other genres with Spartan i think (was it the rome engine ?) but that wasn't the most (commercially) successful attempt afaik.
These days it's all about making pretty close up screen shots, and the TW engine (certainly before MTW2) wasn't really up to that.

So in conclusion: they have a monopoly in a niche market right now, no need to share.

[econ21]

Just a note: mentioning other games in passing is ok, but extended discussion belongs in the Arena. There's already a fair bit there on Take Command 2nd Manassas recently. Not sure about XIII Century: Sword & Honour.

[Dooz]

Just a note: mentioning other games in passing is ok, but extended discussion belongs in the Arena. There's already a fair bit there on Take Command 2nd Manassas recently. Not sure about XIII Century: Sword & Honour.

Sorry econ21, I knew it might be pushing it, but considering the nature of this thread and the people who post in it I really thought it'd be something of great value. Plus, I guess I'm still way too over excited about having discovered the damn game. I shall subdue my urges to introduce war gaming pleasure to the desiring masses.

[econ21]

No worries, you make a relevant point - to identify other games that have realistic and/or challenging battlefield AI.

I haven't tried Take Command 2nd Manassa myself. Most computer wargames I've played (1990s vintage) did not have noticeably better AI than TW games. An exception may be Sid Meier's Gettysburg. But that game lacked the excitement of Total War battles, as well the strategic layer, and so never grabbed me.

I'm just saying the Arena exists if people want to discuss other titles in detail.

[Ignoramus]

I doubt that we can expect a better AI for Medieval Total War II. If they are using Rome's engine, then I would say that they can only do as much as the Mods have done.

[Callahan9119]

its not so difficult, we have amazing recourses with todays systems. its about priority, mtw had a far better AI than rtw, to say it cant be done is nonsense, it was better and it could be amazing if they actually made it anything but an afterthought...spare me the stuff about how hard it is and precedent...ca has failed the LOYAL fanbase that has supported it it for 4 years, it has forsaken it to sales....but hey thats capitalism

rtw is fun and i'm sure mtw will be too, but they have regressed instead of looking forward and separating themselves from the rest of games, conformity over progress, any dope company can make a pretty game

[Ludens]

ca has failed the LOYAL fanbase that has supported it it for 4 years, it has forsaken it to sales....but hey thats capitalism

rtw is fun and i'm sure mtw will be too, but they have regressed instead of looking forward and separating themselves from the rest of games, conformity over progress, any dope company can make a pretty game

Though I share your dissappointment over R:TW, I think you are being unfair to CA here. They did make an effort to improve things. They released five patches which all improved the A.I. (except for 1.1) and, what is more, they kept R:TW supported after they released BI. This is more than they did for either M:TW or S:TW. Failed? Perhaps, but not forsaken.

[sunsmountain]

We should indeed give the CA a little more credit. It just turns out that the AI is the heart of a game. Making a game beautiful, and giving it 20 extra dimensions and ideas, also complicates the game. So writing a good AI will take even more time than before.

Time is something you have lots of when you are unknown & small, like before Shogun:TW. But then all of sudden, the marketing people start barging in, the managers want to have a say and make sure this product is sold in the way they want to. These people don't listen to "what about the AI?". These people don't care. I doubt they even know what a game is. The CA does know what a game is, but it's hard to keep everybody pleased.

I just hope the people of the CA have the strength to ignore marketing goals and simply focus on what's right: making a good and intelligent game.

[Callahan9119]

look, i understand it isnt easy to make a game, but the ai needs to build up and get good units...facing scrubs every battle gets old, secondly it needs to form a cohesive battle line...it has been sending units 1 at a time to die since stw...mtw was better slightly. maybe a prioritized unit selection for ranged to fucus fire on units

and on a side note dispose of gamespy, its horrible and has been for 4 years, we deserve better than the mp we have

[Puzz3D]

I just hope the people of the CA have the strength to ignore marketing goals and simply focus on what's right: making a good and intelligent game.

That group of people has already lost. They didn't have the strength to resist the gameplay damaging ideas.

[sunsmountain]

That group of people has already lost. They didn't have the strength to resist the gameplay damaging ideas.

That was because they were new. They're not new this time, in fact a lot less "New Ideas" have to be implemented in MTW2, leaving more time for AI. Remember how CA treated new ideas? They wined them, dined them, took them back home and then jumped them? Remember those developer diaries? It's not as black & white as you think. They simply may not yet have had the time to do things you would like them to. They sure can. They hooked you to Shogun, didn't they? They can hook you to MTW2.

[Odin]

the fact that it is more common in FPS games is essentially immaterial. Your reasoning seems to be "they don't do it therefore they shouldn't do it". Interesting.

Its immaterial? Wasnt that the point of reference you made initially as a justification for lisceneing the engine, and further in this post when you state its been

immensely succesful in FPS games

? Your talking in circles then.

My justification is rather simple, why would they change something if they dont need to? I've heard all the arguments for better AI a thousand times on multiple games, but it rarely gets addressed, and why is that? Because gamers still buy the games. While your ideas have merit and seem logical, there is no expliantion as to why they would do it.

"no need to change the current formula based on a few hundred complaints about AI, of which about half of those people will buy the game anyway." First of all, I said, I think, more than twice even, that it is not just about the AI. Second of all, it's also not about "changing the formula" or "need". It is simply an obvious way to make cash by capitalising on the existence of old engines.

What old engine? Please be specific, because it seems to me your talking about a what if scenario. And again, why give technology to someone else to develop? You think its lucrative? Well okay, maybe it is, I dont know but other then the FPS games (which you reference, but claim is immaterial) I havent seen a precendent for this. I own an avarage amount of strat/wargames and have had an avarage amount of expirence with them and I havent seen many liscenses go out to others, if you have, then I defer to your expirence.

Another would be to expand the possibilities for modders and subcontract prominent mods to make retail add-ons, which has proved to be immensely successful in FPS games. The very fact that it has been under-exploited in the strategy genre means that it is big fat opportunity screaming to be seized. Yet another would be to expand the number of ancillary studios which are responsible for expansions, which eliminates the issue of competition completely

Perhaps your right, I honestly dont know, however there is one very simple and direct way to inpact the development of games. That is the power of consumption, if CA thought that thier AI, graphics, or whatever were not good enough for the consumer they would change the formula.

I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that is the case. Gamers will buy this title and justify its development with thier purchase. No matter how its developed, or by whom, if it sells these companies will put it on the shelf.

Suppose for a minute MTW2 does crap for sales, what do you think will happen? The process by which the game was developed will be reviewed and enhanced. Who knows, maybe you're prediction of ancillary studios will be the solution, but up till now, that isnt a reality because MTW2 looks to be on course like every other game in the total war series.

[sunsmountain]

Who knows, maybe you're prediction of ancillary studios will be the solution, but up till now, that isnt a reality because MTW2 looks to be on course like every other game in the total war series.

We could of course, under a democracy, start a smear campaign against SEGA/CA demanding better AI and drop our support for the game if they don't. But it's easier to give them one more chance... I didn't buy Shogun because i had Medieval. I probably won't buy MTW2 because i have Rome... if the engine doesn't change, why buy it? No copies in my collection...

ie if the AI remains the same there is not a single reason for me to buy MTW2, and it's cheaper for me to download a mod for Rome and play it.

[Odin]

We could of course, under a democracy, start a smear campaign against SEGA/CA demanding better AI and drop our support for the game if they don't. But it's easier to give them one more chance... I didn't buy Shogun because i had Medieval. I probably won't buy MTW2 because i have Rome... if the engine doesn't change, why buy it? No copies in my collection...

ie if the AI remains the same there is not a single reason for me to buy MTW2, and it's cheaper for me to download a mod for Rome and play it.

Its been my expirence that the best way to make a good game purchase these days is to wait for the game to be out, the masses report bugs, AI inefficencies. Then comes the enevitable patch or two, a price reduction then you buy it.

I would love nothing more then to support gaming companies at release of a game, I know thats how they get the most value out of my purchase. Sadly the state of affairs for game releases is poor now, maybe technology has made it harder to make a solid game at release, I dont know.

I do know there is one absolute slam dunk way to get companies to change thier habits, and that is not purchasing thier products until it is to your liking.

I bought MTW right at release because STW was an excellent game (still is) MTW needed some work still, but I never bought RTW. I waited, read the boards and came to the conclusion it wasnt much better then what I already had.

[Callahan9119]

i like the concept, so i'm a fan, though i feel i have been let down. FOR SURE in the MP, the fact that it looks to be in line with previous mtw games is a blessing and a curse. still fairly original gameplay, yet for its updates and graphics it hasnt evolved besides minor failed design features.

i really liked glorious achievements, added a new aspect to the usual 'destroy all' campaign and the ai really needs to develop for any progress to really be mentioned, as in my opinion, its not at all uncommon to have beautiful games

and as ca grows more brainless corporate entities control it, thus the obvious dumbing down of the game.

[sunsmountain]

Well, I'll save my pitch forks for now, but when MTW2 is:
- more beautiful
- more nice ideas
- more concepts implemented

without
- a significantly better AI than RomeTW AI

Then my fury or anger will probably result in some negative comments which I will refresh during the first 3 months of sales. "To kick 'em in the nuts where it hurts". Har, har, You're warned, CA

[doc_bean]

We could of course, under a democracy, start a smear campaign against SEGA/CA demanding better AI and drop our support for the game if they don't.

pff we would be a few hundred people, perhaps a thousand or so, but nothing that should register with CA, Rome was by far the best selling PC game when it was released. There were shortages where I live. A certain week it sold sold twice as much copies as the next best selling game in the UK iirc.

People complained about Rome, a lot. Here and on TWCenter en probably in a few other places, we'll see whether our complaints have been heard by CA. I don't think so, the best we can hope for is that reviewers come to our side, once a game loses critical acclaim, it can lose a lot of sales.

But then again, recent reviews about Rome (gold) all said what a great game it was...

[Odin]

I don't think so, the best we can hope for is that reviewers come to our side, once a game loses critical acclaim, it can lose a lot of sales.

This is a decent point and one I used to believe in firmly. However I have had expirences with some online gaming sites that do reviews for games and it is my opinion that there is a degree of an incestual relationship going on.

Reviewers normally work for sites or mags that review games that provide advertising capital for said publication. Here in lies the incest, you would be hard pressed to find a company who gives a negative review that gets income from the company producing the game.

I understand this, and its reasonable business, but, in my observations the gaming industry (reviewers included) have a vested intrest in plugging games and increased game sales. More sales of games equates to more readership for the reviewer, incestual if you ask me.

There are some decent sites out there that do reviews of games, but I have yet to read anything unflattering on any release in the total war series. Most of the reviews I saw on RTW were glowing, it wasnt until I read what end users like me had to say until I could form a much clearer picture of the game.

[Puzz3D]

Reviewers normally work for sites or mags that review games that provide advertising capital for said publication.

That's why the potential customer shouldn't bother reading those reviews or watch the History Channel's Decisive Battles or the Time Commanders TV programs. Even the videos and still pictures that the company releases are designed to conceal flaws in the game. RTW had a massive number of problems when released and yet got a 92% rating. The rating is meaningless.

[econ21]

That's why the potential customer shouldn't bother reading those reviews or watch the History Channel's Decisive Battles or the Time Commanders TV programs.

I agree the reviews did not catch stuff they should have done. But their tilt was not that of the grognard - I am not sure the reviewers care about the "too fast" complaint that seems one of the most common here. Plus, there was also the time factor - I thought the vanilla game was great on my first campaign. I'm not sure this is complaint is unique to TW though - reviews are generally useless (at least for top name games); reading dedicated forums often gives a much better idea of a games strengths and weaknesses.

I disagree about the TV programmes. I found them fun and they showed a lot of potential with the engine. At their best, the videos in the TV programmes showcased a combination of epic scale, great visuals, historical detail and dramatic action. I agree you might feel let down coming to the vanilla game after that. But things have picked up since then with BI and especially with mods RTR and EB. I personally am satisfied that the potential shown by the TV programmes has been realised. I'm playing a RTR Platinum PBM right now in the Throne Room and it represents one of the best historical gaming experiences the TW series has ever provided me. The WRE PBM we just finished was also excellent. And we haven't even started on EB yet.

[sunsmountain]

About those TV programmes, in particular Time Commanders seemed to be using an old (but pretty good) version of the AI while using the new battlemap engine. ... maybe it was using MTW AI !! what we wouldn't give to play with that, eh?
What also strikes me as strange is that the maps on TC seemed to be bigger than they are now, like they have been limited to allow playing on the low-end pc's as well. Not saying that is bad or anything, but combined with the faster battle speeds and the quicker morale breaking routing effect, the experience of Rome:TW was totally new, and not in any particular pleasant way for most MTW players.

Mods in particular address two things which enhance play: physical parameters, ie unit mass effecting charge effects, unit marching & charging speeds & morale, and the other is often modifying battle_formations.txt, to increase AI effectiveness in defining and forcing starting formations to be used in some way.

It's strange though, that almost all the MTW players need a mod before they can start to enjoy RTW. Especially if you prefer to play a game like it's intended to be, like me, ie vanilla.


ps.: I was wondering.. if i create custom battles that are exact copies of the Time Commander battles, and i share them online, am I infringing any copyright issues here? Not saying i have the time, but..

[Odin]

That's why the potential customer shouldn't bother reading those reviews or watch the History Channel's Decisive Battles or the Time Commanders TV programs. Even the videos and still pictures that the company releases are designed to conceal flaws in the game. RTW had a massive number of problems when released and yet got a 92% rating. The rating is meaningless.

To be honest, I dont think the rating is meanigless at all. On the contrary, it is indictive of the incest situation I spoke of. There in lies the problem for the gamer, this is an industry problem, not CA exclusively.

Your post is spot on, until the end. RTW had problems and a 92% rating is clear evidence that the reviewers (a part of the gaming industry) either didnt have the expertise to find the issues, or had another adjenda in not revealing them.

Eitherway the end user (you, me and every other gamer) is left to hope it will improve with the next release, or slog through message boards and provide examples of bugs for developers to correct.

And thus my initial point in this thread, its an ideal situation for a developer, why change the current process when units sell, reviewers give positive reviews, and endusers provide the specific details of what is wrong with the product.

Why would any company change that? Its ideal