View Full Version : Creative Assembly superior tactics video
most of you have seen this but will post it anyway new video on the official page
http://www.totalwar.com/empire/gallery/videos.php
Sir Beane
02-12-2009, 21:50
I hadn't seen this before actually. Nice find! :2thumbsup:
Emperor of Graal
02-12-2009, 22:17
Neither have I.
Cool Vid!:crowngrin:
Greyblades
02-12-2009, 22:36
Anyone else notice the Green-coats about 3/4ths into the video?
Sir Beane
02-12-2009, 22:37
Anyone else notice the Green-coats about 3/4ths into the video?
Probably a specific regiment, or a different unit type such as skirmishers. Not every unit seems to follow the faction colour scheme now.
The link takes me to "road to independence". What are you guys on about? :wall:
Sir Beane
02-12-2009, 22:47
The link takes me to "road to independence". What are you guys on about? :wall:
Empire Total War - Superior Tactics Trailer 1. It's in the video section on the main site, just scroll around until you find it. :2thumbsup:
It's a video of a CA developed playing a game against the A.I and attempting to beat its formation. A formation apparently inspired by Napoleon.
Discoman
02-12-2009, 22:50
The link takes me to "road to independence". What are you guys on about? :wall:
Make sure you're on the UK site. I guess they didn't upload it to the other ones yet.
Belgolas
02-12-2009, 23:07
They haven't uploaded like half the videos the UK site has on the US site.
I declair this as the SLOwest video download ever.
Incongruous
02-13-2009, 00:33
I feel that my worst fears may have just been confirmed by that awful peformance on the AI's part, that battle was pathetically easy and quick. He was able to smash the enemy army with his cavalry alone it seemed, and when he did use infantry it was enough to have them in, what was it? eight ranks deep? Troops also seem to have returned to using rockets to propell themselves across the battlefield and we once again have candy colours! Yay!!!:no:
Improved AI? Where?
If this is all CA have to offer, and I hope they impress me with their next video, then Empire will become the biggest gaming dissapointment ever...:wall:
Empire Total War - Superior Tactics Trailer 1. It's in the video section on the main site, just scroll around until you find it. :2thumbsup:
It's a video of a CA developed playing a game against the A.I and attempting to beat its formation. A formation apparently inspired by Napoleon.
I found it, had to switch the site over to the UK one. (the buttons at the top!)
But I was really impressed with the AI's behavior. After it's initial formation was broken up by cavalry skirmishing, it appeared to reform a cohesive line and coordinated an effective attack against the player's position on the high ground. Although the programmer won, it looked like he had suffered quite a bit of casualties.
I found hi-res on the Sega FTP (ftp://segapr.segaamerica.com/SEGA_GAMES/EmpireTotalWar/Empire%20Total%20War%20Superior%20Tactics%20Trailer%20-%20February%2012th/Empire%20Superior%20Tactics%20Trailer%20Hi.mov)but its 1.2GB & I have a data cap so I ain't downloading it.
I found hi-res on the Sega FTP (ftp://segapr.segaamerica.com/SEGA_GAMES/EmpireTotalWar/Empire%20Total%20War%20Superior%20Tactics%20Trailer%20-%20February%2012th/Empire%20Superior%20Tactics%20Trailer%20Hi.mov)but its 1.2GB & I have a data cap so I ain't downloading it.
1.2gb for a 2 minute video? That must be some eye-melting high def. :skull:
1. Great Video!
2. He took heavy losses.
3. I like the style and uniforms of the dutch.
4. And i like to see the uncut version of the vid.
Nice way to slaughter your own cavalry. I fear i will have some difficulties to get used to the distance between fighting units.
Belgolas
02-13-2009, 01:39
I found it, had to switch the site over to the UK one. (the buttons at the top!)
But I was really impressed with the AI's behavior. After it's initial formation was broken up by cavalry skirmishing, it appeared to reform a cohesive line and coordinated an effective attack against the player's position on the high ground. Although the programmer won, it looked like he had suffered quite a bit of casualties.
I agree it seems like the AI is a lot better and marches in formation now. The battle was short but they cut out parts.
My only fear is that this was a scripted battle and not the real deal.
Belgolas
02-13-2009, 01:42
1.2gb for a 2 minute video? That must be some eye-melting high def. :skull:
Yeah HD takes up a huge amount of space. But it is well worth it.
I found it, had to switch the site over to the UK one. (the buttons at the top!)
But I was really impressed with the AI's behavior. After it's initial formation was broken up by cavalry skirmishing, it appeared to reform a cohesive line and coordinated an effective attack against the player's position on the high ground. Although the programmer won, it looked like he had suffered quite a bit of casualties.
It was somewhat difficult to tell what happened though. As I usually rely greatly on sound to orient myself in the total war games, this felt a bit too jumbled to gather any useful info on the AI - I wish he could have kept his mouth shut :yes:
That said, I agree that the AI forces do seemed to cohesively launch a counterattack on the player's main line on the hill, that's good.
Maybe the best thing would have been a loss for the AI programmer....? What could better send a message about the quality of the AI than having him lose the battle in the end?
Me wants campaign gameplay next! And no talking :beam:
I agree it seems like the AI is a lot better and marches in formation now. The battle was short but they cut out parts.
My only fear is that this was a scripted battle and not the real deal.
Same. However, CA knows that what we are craving is a better AI. This video seems to confirm that they have been doing a lot of work (good work at that) in implementing it. I would hope they wouldn't go out of their way to tease us with a set of scripts instead of showing off the real thing. :no:
Lusitani
02-13-2009, 02:28
Hmmm I didnt really see anything new....other than someone else having fun playing a ETW battle :P.
I found everything too quick (I really hope they slow down naval battles) and hmmm those cannon shot tracers look annoying. ...all IMHO
V.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-13-2009, 02:31
It was hard to tell, but it looked more to me like the human zerged the AI with his cav, the AI counter zerged with cav, and then the human zerged with infantry for the win.
I don't see why a double line wouldn't have been more effective - infantry in front and cav behind in reserve to fill gaps or guard the flanks.
Hm cavalry managing to charge frontally into infantry. Some of the infantry seemed to move pretty quickly. Does not look that promising.
CBR
1.2gb for a 2 minute video? That must be some eye-melting high def. More that its been encoded with a bad codec/bad settings.
Anyway, just looked again & there is a 173MB version (ftp://segapr.segaamerica.com/SEGA_GAMES/EmpireTotalWar/Empire%20Total%20War%20Superior%20Tactics%20Trailer%20-%20February%2012th/Empire%20Superior%20Tactics%20Trailer%20MED.mov) there now :)
More that its been encoded with a bad codec/bad settings.
Anyway, just looked again & there is a 173MB version there now :)
Thanks hoom! ... 40 kb/s ....???
After watching second and third time: Don't want to be "overcritical" - but whereabouts was the divisional square?
As he charges the dutch light infantry, the behaviour of the cavalry reminds me of something ... :embarassed:
I would like to see a vid where the human player is doing nothing (as defender) and an really aggressive AI is attacking him.
And i want to see the whole story from deploying to the end.
Hm cavalry managing to charge frontally into infantry. Some of the infantry seemed to move pretty quickly. Does not look that promising.
CBR
I just downloded the med quality. Sega has a speed cap clearly, i was only able to get 90kb/s.
But if you can get it i highly suggest it. You can see things MUCH clearer. While it seems that cavalry are super effective in the normal def, with Med def we can see his army composition by the end of the battle. The result? His cavalry forces have been mauled. His highest cav unit only has 16 troops in it. His infantry forces have taken serious losses and at least 7 units were destroyed or are routing
I wish it wasn't so heavily edited so we could get more battle shots and see exactly what happened. It is clear that his army took a beating but we're unsure how they ended up that way. ~:(
CountArach
02-13-2009, 04:13
I feel that my worst fears may have just been confirmed by that awful peformance on the AI's part, that battle was pathetically easy and quick. He was able to smash the enemy army with his cavalry alone it seemed, and when he did use infantry it was enough to have them in, what was it? eight ranks deep? Troops also seem to have returned to using rockets to propell themselves across the battlefield and we once again have candy colours! Yay!!!:no:
Improved AI? Where?
If this is all CA have to offer, and I hope they impress me with their next video, then Empire will become the biggest gaming dissapointment ever...:wall:
Yeah I'm seriously considering not buying it now - that was shocking.
Also I found the bunched-up combat with 10 or so units on each side just on top of a hill a huge turn-off. Seriously, there is no way that any 18th Century battle would end up with that type of situation.
Belgolas
02-13-2009, 04:37
Yeah I'm seriously considering not buying it now - that was shocking.
Also I found the bunched-up combat with 10 or so units on each side just on top of a hill a huge turn-off. Seriously, there is no way that any 18th Century battle would end up with that type of situation.
Um check again. The enemy AI had units in 3 ranks deep. Also they have a full battalion square and used it pretty well IMO. If this is what the AI will be like in the final version then it will definitely be the best TW AI I have ever seen. Watch the 720p version. You can actually see what is going on.
This is gonna be the best TW.
Um check again. The enemy AI had units in 3 ranks deep. Also they have a full battalion square and used it pretty well IMO. If this is what the AI will be like in the final version then it will definitely be the best TW AI I have ever seen. Watch the 720p version. You can actually see what is going on.
Hmm, maybe I should download the HD version and have a look. When I saw the standard one there was no way to tell if the AI actually formed anything at all. But as long as the infantry uses proper line tactics with no huge clumps of units 6 ranks deep, I'll be happy.
Anyone identify exactly what kind of units were involved in the battle?
This is gonna be the best TW.
O RLY?
:bow:
Belgolas
02-13-2009, 05:00
He started out with 1035 men and ended with 377 men left. He lost 4 units completely and 4 units routed. He almost lost all his cavalry. He started out with 519 including general for cavalry and only had 78 left at the end.
He took heavy losses losing 64% of his army. He had 2 cannon units and each cannon unit only had 18 men! That is much better then the last total wars where you had 80 guys for one artilery unit.
I forgot to mention it was 18 units and 3 cannons. So that is a large improvement.
He started out with 1035 men and ended with 377 men left. He lost 4 units completely and 4 units routed. He almost lost all his cavalry. He started out with 519 including general for cavalry and only had 78 left at the end.
He took heavy losses losing 64% of his army. He had 2 cannon units and each cannon unit only had 18 men! That is much better then the last total wars where you had 80 guys for one artilery unit.
I forgot to mention it was 18 units and 3 cannons. So that is a large improvement.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked what they saw! :sweatdrop:
You can definitely see the AI form its army into a big square.
Strangely with gaps you could just about squeeze a cav unit through though...
There is a special effect 'spark' sort of thing when steel meets steel. I thought it might have been just for the one shot but then I saw it again & again.
(Could this be the mystical 'glints' effect that never did anything in the RTW engine?)
I don't think our AI programmer guy is that great a TW player (or playing dumb for effect?)
He does some rather odd things with his units :inquisitive:
Draw distance is looking way sweet, though I have to suspect that there is a battlemap edge hidden somewhere within the mini-map border.
After the initial cavalry charge, when his troops had formed on the hill, the AI is still in/has reformed a partial square :)
While it seems like it was an easy win in low quality, he started with a full 20 unit stack:
519 Horse
480 Infantry
36 Gun crew
Total 1035
But finished (last frame where you can see unit numbers) with only 11 units in combat:
71 Horse
269 Infantry
12 Gun crew
Total 352
Lost his general & 2/3rds of his force.
Edit: beaten to the numbers...
Belgolas
02-13-2009, 05:35
While it seems like it was an easy win in low quality, he started with a full 20 unit stack:
519 Horse
480 Infantry
36 Gun crew
Total 1035
But finished (last frame where you can see unit numbers) with only 11 units in combat:
71 Horse
269 Infantry
12 Gun crew
Total 352
Lost his general & 2/3rds of his force.
Edit: beaten to the numbers...
Only if you don't count the men retreating.
One thing I don't like is at the very end it has a thing that says "plays best on Alienware". Come one they had to accept money from them :no:. Some of the most expensive pieces of garbage ever. There so called water cooling sucks and are way over expensive. Just build your own and save a few thousand bucks. end rant.
Although I like that it says runs great on Core i7 :beam: So hopefully they will optimize it for 8 threads:whip:.
Incongruous
02-13-2009, 05:44
Um check again. The enemy AI had units in 3 ranks deep. Also they have a full battalion square and used it pretty well IMO. If this is what the AI will be like in the final version then it will definitely be the best TW AI I have ever seen. Watch the 720p version. You can actually see what is going on.
This is gonna be the best TW.
I saw a poorly executed battlefield manouvre, I was not impressed, if the AI finds it that hard to move around, it will prove no challenge. I mean I saw units of cavalry mulling around when they could have affected the outcome of the first phase of battle. This was highlighted even more by the insane movement speeds of all units, I knew that we would have to slow them for ourselves, but that was dire indeed.
The demonstrator has proved beyond a doubt that cavalry can dominate infantry, no matter the situation, it does not matter that they take heavy losses, they should not be able to do it full stop. Remeber RTW cav spamming? Players would take massive casualties but it did not matter because their all cav army could win, and that is what matters.
CA was reffering to the demonstrator's own formation, which was to deploy his infantry in very deep formations while on defence, which allowed him to beat back a counter attack:wall:
Anyone else notice the Green-coats about 3/4ths into the video?
Skirmishers. Look like 60th american rifles. Going by the forrest green jackets with red facings.
CountArach
02-13-2009, 06:23
Um check again. The enemy AI had units in 3 ranks deep. Also they have a full battalion square and used it pretty well IMO.
You misunderstand me completely. I don't have a problem with ranking 3 deep - that's fine. What I care about is there being 10 units stacked on top of each other on 1 hill that are in a bunched-up fight. That is completely ahistorical and not at all 18th Century.
If this is what the AI will be like in the final version then it will definitely be the best TW AI I have ever seen.
[...]
This is gonna be the best TW.
That's what depresses me.
CA was reffering to the demonstrator's own formation, which was to deploy his infantry in very deep formations while on defence, which allowed him to beat back a counter attack :wall:
No, actually, but I hated that as well.
The only reason that the Programmer took such high casualties was because he was using his army completely poorly. Charging cavalry headlong into teh enemy apparently does win battles - but you will pay in blood.
Belgolas
02-13-2009, 06:24
I saw a poorly executed battlefield manouvre, I was not impressed, if the AI finds it that hard to move around, it will prove no challenge. I mean I saw units of cavalry mulling around when they could have affected the outcome of the first phase of battle. This was highlighted even more by the insane movement speeds of all units, I knew that we would have to slow them for ourselves, but that was dire indeed.
The demonstrator has proved beyond a doubt that cavalry can dominate infantry, no matter the situation, it does not matter that they take heavy losses, they should not be able to do it full stop. Remeber RTW cav spamming? Players would take massive casualties but it did not matter because their all cav army could win, and that is what matters.
CA was reffering to the demonstrator's own formation, which was to deploy his infantry in very deep formations while on defence, which allowed him to beat back a counter attack:wall:
Well men can run pretty fast you know. I thought they were a little bit fast but not nearly as fast as RTW's infantry guys that could almost out run a horse:inquisitive:. over half his army was cavalry and the majority of the enemy was infantry. The cavalry charged into men that were 3 ranks deep. Obviously they would win that.
Anyways in RTW a full army of praetorian cavalry would own a full army of whatever and maybe loose 100 men. This time he nearly lost all of his men. Although I do agree this guy didn't do too well but you have to remember that most people play at about his level. So the AI is still not as good as a human. Name one game where the AI is as good as a human without using cheats.
CountArach
02-13-2009, 06:29
So the AI is still not as good as a human. Name one game where the AI is as good as a human without using cheats.
You would be surprised what some games can achieve. For example Take Command: 2nd Manassas (http://www.madminutegames.com/) had a very tough AI that was capable of putting in place a good battle plan. You would be fighting one part of the enemy only to have the other wing loop around behind you and strike you in the rear. I had some nasty battles on that game engine.
This is the *improved tactics*?
The AI was rushed at the begining with the cavalry and responded by setting his infantry out and the cavalry in - that wasnt all that bad initself - altough it is debatable if he would be better off rearranging his musket infantry on a line formation (ready eventually to let deadly volleys out) while the Dutch cavalry bought them time instead of letting his musket infantry being charged by the British cavalry and then let his own cavalry in.
This is actually a typical mistake newbies do in mp - they let their gunners be *crunched* between the enemy line that charges them and their own melee line that goes to engage the enemy s. In this way they *lose* their gunners for nothing.
One of the signs to distinguish noobs and decent players in mp is the ability to readily protect your gun troops that become very important at the end phase of the battle because their powerful shots can rout depleted units. Protecting them can take place with fast cavalry (if the enemy attacks with fast cavalry) and with the gunners themselves firing in support OR if the enemy advances his melee line by advancing your own and engage in front of the gunners all the while having your gnners fire into the advancing enemy mass to tear apart their morale before engagement.
In the battle shown we had the first case - a massive cavalry raid - that succeded because the AI presented his msuket infantry instead of protecting it and having it fire while he engaged with his cavalry.
But the worst of it all comes after the *square* demonstration - the AI, like in previous games, ignores the fact that the enemy has the high ground and charges up hill let alone that he does that while being outnumbered. This is very familiar and there is nothing improved about it - its good old incompetent RTW/M2TW AI marching to his doom.
It seems CA programmers find the obvious enthrilling with the enthusiasm of a myops detective nowdays - so much for their *expertise*.
gah!
!it burnsus!
Your entire analysis is very flawed. One, in the 18th centry 90% of the time your shooting and melee infantry are the same unit. And it takes time to switch. Two, his army was heavy on the cavalry so he could take out the AI fast. He zipped in his light cavalry to pounce on the enemy infantry before they could fix bayonettes and form a square. Which is what they are for, and you'll note he took some heavy losses in the light horse units. Three, firing through your own lines with muskets is, simply put, not possible.
He saw that the AI was going to assume a defesive posture, as he had the high ground. He used his light cavalry to delay that until his infantry were in range. Then it was all over.
Your entire analysis is very flawed. One, in the 18th centry 90% of the time your shooting and melee infantry are the same unit. And it takes time to switch. Two, his army was heavy on the cavalry so he could take out the AI fast. He zipped in his light cavalry to pounce on the enemy infantry before they could fix bayonettes and form a square. Which is what they are for, and you'll note he took some heavy losses in the light horse units. Three, firing through your own lines with muskets is, simply put, not possible.
He saw that the AI was going to assume a defesive posture, as he had the high ground. He used his light cavalry to delay that until his infantry were in range. Then it was all over.
Gollum did make one correct observation though, the AI's suicidal tendecies. During this time period most armies lost no more than 20% of their men in a losing engagement. Most battles were not decisive, and if faced with such a situtation, the enemy army would not have charged up hill at him, but pulled its army together and either waited for him to attack again, or make an ordered retreat. He fights and and runs away, lives to win the next battle he fights. That is what people did back then. They were not such fanatics.
Your entire analysis is very flawed. One, in the 18th centry 90% of the time your shooting and melee infantry are the same unit. And it takes time to switch. Two, his army was heavy on the cavalry so he could take out the AI fast. He zipped in his light cavalry to pounce on the enemy infantry before they could fix bayonettes and form a square. Which is what they are for, and you'll note he took some heavy losses in the light horse units. Three, firing through your own lines with muskets is, simply put, not possible.
He saw that the AI was going to assume a defesive posture, as he had the high ground. He used his light cavalry to delay that until his infantry were in range. Then it was all over.
Thank you for your comment Mr lars - out of curiosity how many mp battles have you fought in TW games and in which ones?
!it burnsus!
Gollum did make one correct observation though, the AI's suicidal tendecies. During this time period most armies lost no more than 20% of their men in a losing engagement. Most battles were not decisive, and if faced with such a situtation, the enemy army would not have charged up hill at him, but pulled its army together and either waited for him to attack again, or make an ordered retreat. He fights and and runs away, lives to win the next battle he fights. That is what people did back then. They were not such fanatics.
That doesn't sound like a very fun game if you ask me.
That doesn't sound like a very fun game if you ask me.
I guess you got what you wanted in ETW then Mr Monk - have *fun* beating outnumbered counterattacks uphill.
!it burnsus!
That doesn't sound like a very fun game if you ask me.
lol, I disagree. What would often happen is after the first few stages of the battle it would quickly become evident that if an army sat there and fired it would be wiped out, so they would create an ordered retreat. If the enemy pursued them they would lose the advantage of their superior position, so it was hard to have a decisive victory. A good general COULD get an enemy in a position where he could have a decisive victory though, but it was not common. Also, enemy armies would often surrender rather than being wiped out.
Not only would it be more realistic, but it would put more of an emphasis on precombat maneuvers and less on standing and watching.
I guess you got what you wanted in ETW then Mr Monk - have *fun* beating outnumbered counterattacks uphill.
!it burnsus!
Actually what I want for ETW would be an AI that rivals a human, but I realize that desire probably isn't going to be realized.
An AI that doesn't fight and instead retreats off the map at the slightest bit of casualties, however, is not my idea of fun. Total War games have always gone overboard in casualty ratios due to the relatively small unit scale that we have in regards to what was actually used. Assuming that your average army will have around 1300-1500 men, then 20% means 280 men. When 280 men die, the AI retreats. I don't find that idea fun. Would you?
I guess you got what you wanted in ETW then Mr Monk - have *fun* beating outnumbered counterattacks uphill.
!it burnsus!
Gollum, your manner of address to both Lars and Monk is very sarcastic and inappropriate. You have a habit on all the threads I have seen you post to get very excited about this game. Maybe you should just relax. I would prefer it totally realistic as well, but it IS a game, and that IS how most people want it, and CA is making the game to be fun for MOST people. We can wait for mods when we want realism. Also, many of your suggestions for realism are flawed anyway, so I doubt that the game would be much more realistic if you were at the helm. If you want a game in your image, wait till it comes out and make your own mod. In the meanwhile, treat other members with respect. :bow:
Actually what I want for ETW would be an AI that rivals a human, but I realize that desire probably isn't going to be realized.
An AI that doesn't fight and instead retreats off the map at the slightest bit of casualties, however, is not my idea of fun. Total War games have always gone overboard in casualty ratios due to the relatively small unit scale that we have in regards to what was actually used. Assuming that your average army will have around 1300-1500 men, then 20% means 280 men. When 280 men die, the AI retreats. I don't find that idea fun. Would you?
Armies did not retreat because they took those casualties, and they should not. They retreated when they knew that they could not win, or that if they did it would be at too great a cost. I am not sure if they could get the AI smart enough to be able to judge this accurately, but it would be nice. Again though, I do not think that they should retreat because of taking casualties, but instead because either they think that they cannot win the battle, or they think it will be at too great a cost.
An AI that doesn't fight and instead retreats off the map at the slightest bit of casualties, however, is not my idea of fun. Total War games have always gone overboard in casualty ratios due to the relatively small unit scale that we have in regards to what was actually used. Assuming that your average army will have around 1300-1500 men, then 20% means 280 men. When 280 men die, the AI retreats. I don't find that idea fun. Would you?
It depends - is he outclassed in quality? What is the battle for in strategic terms?
And in addition - even if the AI has to stay and fight - then he is better off using tactics that can win him victory; i dont know what it says to you, but to me being outnumbered and downhill it says retreat somewhere that i have flat ground or even perhaps a slight advantage in height and wait. In no circumstances does it say charge.
Even if the AI was even in numbers it is well known that high ground rushing can succeed when this happens with all the melee line advancing at once - that is maximise frontage and time impact to the enemy.
Well known to all except CA that is i guess.
!it burnsus!
Mailman653
02-13-2009, 08:01
In some instances the battle seems to go into a mini cutscene to highlight an action like a charge, and then go back to the game. I wonder if thats a feature of the game or just some nifty editing.
Gollum did make one correct observation though, the AI's suicidal tendecies. During this time period most armies lost no more than 20% of their men in a losing engagement. Most battles were not decisive, and if faced with such a situtation, the enemy army would not have charged up hill at him, but pulled its army together and either waited for him to attack again, or make an ordered retreat. He fights and and runs away, lives to win the next battle he fights. That is what people did back then. They were not such fanatics.
True enough. However, this is Total War! :clown: Casualties, along with army sizes, have always been wonky and out of sync with how it was. Truthfully the AI made a bad plan B (consisting of kill'em all! :furious3:). Honestly one 6 minute demo is far enough to make any kind of real judgement.
I am however hopeful from what I did see.
-The AI tried to from a defensive position when it was faced with mostly cavalry who had positon on them
-That said attempt could be foiled with a good use of light horse on unprepared infantry
Thank you for your comment Mr lars - out of curiosity how many mp battles have you fought in TW games and in which ones?
Never once have I played mp battles. And there is a good reason why....
It depends - is he outclassed in quality? What is the battle for in strategic terms?
And in addition - even if the AI has to stay and fight - then he is better off using tactics that can win him victory; i dont know what it says to you, but to me being outnumbered and downhill it says retreat somewhere that i have flat ground or even perhaps a slight advantage in height and wait. In no circumstances does it say charge.
Even if the AI was even in numbers it is well known that high ground rushing can succeed when this happens with all the melee line advancing at once - that is maximise frontage and time impact to the enemy.
Well known to all except CA that is i guess.
!it burnsus!
Strategic repositioning is one thing. I was referring to the idea that an AI army should give up if it takes a certain % of casualties. Or at least such a low one in regards to the scale. An AI army retreating to save face if it suffers 60-70% is much more feasible, given the scale of the TW games, imo.
Armies did not retreat because they took those casualties, and they should not. They retreated when they knew that they could not win, or that if they did it would be at too great a cost. I am not sure if they could get the AI smart enough to be able to judge this accurately, but it would be nice. Again though, I do not think that they should retreat because of taking casualties, but instead because either they think that they cannot win the battle, or they think it will be at too great a cost.
Perhaps it was the way you worded it then, I apologize for taking liberties with your argument if this was your original position.
I'm not sure that you can tell the AI to run if the battle looks like it will be too costly to win. I'm sure casualty ratio triggers could easily be built in. (if you suffer 90% casualties, retreat no matter what. ect) but I'm not sure if the battle AI could speak to the strategic AI in the sense to know what is at stake for a specific battle, on any given battle map. With luck one of the CA people will peak in and comment but it sounds really complex, maybe though that's just because i'm ignorant, I dunno. If not, you might get situations where an English army retreats when they are fighting for their capital, ect.
For what it's worth. The AI i saw in action, imo, did look improved than M2's and RTW's mess. It just seems that I had lower expectations than some of you.
Then we approached this from different angles mr Monk - if you mean by strategic repositioning the ability of the AI to make strategic decisions that in turn trigger tactical routines - then this is precisely what i am talking about.
This is the *brain* of the AI on the battlefield - his judgement if you will. What i am saying is that if this judgement is unable to choose from a situation of <outnumbered, in low ground> the obvious that is take a defensive posture - then there is little scope for the developer in making *improved tatcics* videos.
They are better off in letting the bomb explode at the last minute - when the hullaballoo of enthusiam will drown everything into oblivion - until the major bugs find their way to the surface of course.
!it burnsus!
Never once have I played mp battles. And there is a good reason why....
Thank you for clarifying mr Lars - reading your analysis, i advise you to stay on the SP side of the game with the improved AI and for a good reason why too.
regards
!it burnsus!
Then we approached this from different angles mr Monk - if you mean by strategic repositioning the ability of the AI to make strategic decisions that in turn trigger tactical routines - then this is precisely what i am talking about.
This is the *brain* of the AI on the battlefield - his judgement if you will. What i am saying is that if this judgement is unable to choose from a situation of <outnumbered, in low ground> the obvious that is take a defensive posture - then there is little scope for the developer in making *improved tatcics* videos.
They are better off in letting the bomb explode at the last minute - when the hullaballoo of enthusiam will drown everything into oblivion - until the major bugs find their way to the surface of course.
!it burnsus!
Again Gollum, while I agree with you that the AI needs to think better about how and where to fight, I think that you are being disrespectful and completely unreasonable. If you are not, let me tell you, that is the way you are coming off. I think that you need to calm down.
Strategic repositioning is one thing. I was referring to the idea that an AI army should give up if it takes a certain % of casualties. Or at least such a low one in regards to the scale. An AI army retreating to save face if it suffers 60-70% is much more feasible, given the scale of the TW games, imo.
Perhaps it was the way you worded it then, I apologize for taking liberties with your argument if this was your original position.
I'm not sure that you can tell the AI to run if the battle looks like it will be too costly to win. I'm sure casualty ratio triggers could easily be built in. (if you suffer 90% casualties, retreat no matter what. ect) but I'm not sure if the battle AI could speak to the strategic AI in the sense to know what is at stake for a specific battle, on any given battle map. With luck one of the CA people will peak in and comment but it sounds really complex, maybe though that's just because i'm ignorant, I dunno. If not, you might get situations where an English army retreats when they are fighting for their capital, ect.
For what it's worth. The AI i saw in action, imo, did look improved than M2's and RTW's mess. It just seems that I had lower expectations than some of you.
There is no need to apologize Monk, it was a simple misunderstanding. The reason that I mentioned the statistics is to demonstrate how indecisive many battles were. Of course they would have to take overall goals into account, so retreating from Capitol defenses would not happen much. (though they have happened before, even with the US, though, granted, there was no real defensive army)
While I see improvements also, I still think it is deeply flawed and has most of the same problems. I do not think it is game breaking, but certainly realism breaking.
Honestly it sounds like we are on the same side, just taking the argument to different degrees.
Then we approached this from different angles mr Monk - if you mean by strategic repositioning the ability of the AI to make strategic decisions that in turn trigger tactical routines - then this is precisely what i am talking about.
Yes that is exactly what I was referring to. The ability to identify what he's fighting for and fight according to that idea, I just don't know if it's possible or is attempted in ETW. I don't know if strategic and tactical AIs are linked (I know Military and diplomatic ones are on the campaign map, but dunno about the former) nor do I even know if it's possible. AFAIK we've never had this. There was always campaign AI and battle AI from my understanding.
It would certainly be nice though.
This is the *brain* of the AI on the battlefield - his judgement if you will. What i am saying is that if this judgement is unable to choose from a situation of <outnumbered, in low ground> the obvious that is take a defensive posture - then there is little scope for the developer in making *improved tatcics* videos.
They are better off in letting the bomb explode at the last minute - when the hullaballoo of enthusiam will drown everything into oblivion - until the major bugs find their way to the surface of course.
!it burnsus!
I was impressed with the AI up until it charged the hilltop position. The reason I was impressed is because it demonstrated to ability to change its tactics and adapt to a changing battlefield. I think it was disheartening that it chose to put itself in such a disadvantageous situation, however, and that is where my enthusiasm was cut short.
Honestly it sounds like we are on the same side, just taking the argument to different degrees.
Yes that is exactly what I was referring to. The ability to identify what he's fighting for and fight according to that idea, I just don't know if it's possible or is attempted in ETW. I don't know if strategic and tactical AIs are linked (I know Military and diplomatic ones are on the campaign map, but dunno about the former) nor do I even know if it's possible. AKAIK we've ever had this. There was always campaign AI and battle AI from my understanding.
It would certainly be nice though.
I was impressed with the AI up until it charged the hilltop position. The reason I was impressed is because it demonstrated to ability to change its tactics and adapt to a changing battlefield. I think it was disheartening that it chose to put itself in such a disadvantageous situation, however, and that is where my enthusiasm was cut short.
There I agree with you. What is at stake should play a huge role in how they fight. Also, the main problem I had with the AI was the charging up hill thing.
Honestly it sounds like we are on the same side, just taking the argument to different degrees.
Indeed.
Yes that is exactly what I was referring to. The ability to identify what he's fighting for and fight according to that idea, I just don't know if it's possible or is attempted in ETW. I don't know if strategic and tactical AIs are linked (I know Military and diplomatic ones are on the campaign map, but dunno about the former) nor do I even know if it's possible. AFAIK we've never had this. There was always campaign AI and battle AI from my understanding.
It would certainly be nice though.
Well Mr Monk, i certainly would be very dissapointed if that is not in - because it was advertised
from ages ago and repeatedly.
I was impressed with the AI up until it charged the hilltop position. The reason I was impressed is because it demonstrated to ability to change its tactics and adapt to a changing battlefield. I think it was disheartening that it chose to put itself in such a disadvantageous situation, however, and that is where my enthusiasm was cut short.
I wasnt (really impressed) - historical formations existed in TW since the MTW era - the routines were scripted in txt files in the main game folder. In RTW for example the senate was fighting with the Camellian battle order (hastati-principes-triarii). This is nothing new - and the formation on the video is in all probability something on this vein.
The true test for the AI came after the charge was beaten off - the programmer says *now they have to come up with something else* and the *something else* is a piece meal charge uphill.
!it burnsus!
Indeed.
Well Mr Monk, i certainly would be very dissapointed if that is not in - because it was advertised
from ages ago and repeatedly.
I wasnt (really impressed) - historical formations existed in TW since the MTW era - the routines were scripted in txt files in the main game folder. In RTW for example the senate was fighting with the Camellian battle order (hastati-principes-triarii). This is nothing new - and the formation on the video is in all probability something on this vein.
The true test for the AI came after the charge was beaten off - the programmer says *now they have to come up with something else* and the *something else* is a piece meal charge uphill.
!it burnsus!
It is impressive I believe because they are decided HOW they are going to use the formation instead of doing everything the same all the time. I will agree with you though, the AI had an epic failure after that. They say that they have given the modders more freedom this time around though, so hopefully there will be something that they can do.
It is impressive I believe because they are decided HOW they are going to use the formation instead of doing everything the same all the time.
Yes Mr Vuk - however remember that this was a public demonstration of the AI using the square formation. If i was doing such a thing, i would script the AI to use the formation i demonstrate by default. In other words i doubt that the AI had a say in what formation to use at the start of the battle.
!it burnsus!
Yes Mr Vuk - however remember that this was a public demonstration of the AI using the square formation. If i was doing such a thing, i would script the AI to use the formation i demonstrate by default. In other words i doubt that the AI had a say in what formation to use at the start of the battle.
!it burnsus!
The other alternative is that the AI automatically adopts that formation if it sees the enemy has a massive detachment of heavy cavalry, as was the case here. Though I won't get my hopes up.
Like i said before, I seriously hope CA wouldn't tease the community by playing with scripted events after so much hype.
Like I always say, hope for the best, expect the worst. ~;P That is what I am doing with ETW. Like I say though, modders will probably be able to do a lot for it.
During this time period most armies lost no more than 20% of their men in a losing engagement. Most battles were not decisive, and if faced with such a situtation, the enemy army would not have charged up hill at him, but pulled its army together and either waited for him to attack again, or make an ordered retreat. He fights and and runs away, lives to win the next battle he fights. That is what people did back then. They were not such fanatics.
this could be said of ANY of the total war games. ALL of the Total war games have broken history to make the game more fun to play and more interesting. Lets look at RTW and more specifically at battles between Greek nations perhaps because it is the most obvious example.
A Greek hoplite battle would have very very low casualties and the idea was to outmaneuver your opponents and most battles came down to the strength of the hoplite unit as a whole and the majority of casualties were caused when one army routed and were killed while fleeing.
Of course casualties are going to be higher than historically accurate and of course there is going to be alot more pitched chaotic battles. its because the game wouldnt sell if u had a battle with little to know casualties on each side and u spent the next 10 turns chasing a fleeing stack around killing 100 guys each turn.
ALL that said i know why game designers dont like releasing stuff b4 the game now. one gameplay video which mite i add u could hardly see anything in, and people are already screaming that the AI plays poorly.
THIS WAS A SIMULATION he stated himself he wanted to see how the AI did with the square. for all we know that might have been all the AI was programmed to do in this simulation, they mite simply to have wanted to show how the square worked and broke down, after that perhaps all it was designed to do was fight and die, who knows. so for the love of all that is holy stop complaining about it and wait for either a demo or the full version.
Cheers knoddy
The other alternative is that the AI automatically adopts that formation if it sees the enemy has a massive detachment of heavy cavalry, as was the case here. Though I won't get my hopes up.
Indeed - and if thats the case, it might be not that bad, although as i mentioned there were other ways to deal with the stuation that might have been more helpful under the circumstances.
There is also something to be said about cavalry beeing able to charge frontally musket infantry to the effect they did in the video and the movement speed rates as other posters noted. The whole seems too fast - and although i am sure that SP players and CA will say that there is a speed/slow option this does not distract from the fact that there is an effective working pace for troop movement, relative troop movement, reload rates, reload rates and fire power and melee resolution rates.
!it burnsus!
this could be said of ANY of the total war games. ALL of the Total war games have broken history to make the game more fun to play and more interesting. Lets look at RTW and more specifically at battles between Greek nations perhaps because it is the most obvious example.
A Greek hoplite battle would have very very low casualties and the idea was to outmaneuver your opponents and most battles came down to the strength of the hoplite unit as a whole and the majority of casualties were caused when one army routed and were killed while fleeing.
Of course casualties are going to be higher than historically accurate and of course there is going to be alot more pitched chaotic battles. its because the game wouldnt sell if u had a battle with little to know casualties on each side and u spent the next 10 turns chasing a fleeing stack around killing 100 guys each turn.
ALL that said i know why game designers dont like releasing stuff b4 the game now. one gameplay video which mite i add u could hardly see anything in, and people are already screaming that the AI plays poorly.
THIS WAS A SIMULATION he stated himself he wanted to see how the AI did with the square. for all we know that might have been all the AI was programmed to do in this simulation, they mite simply to have wanted to show how the square worked and broke down, after that perhaps all it was designed to do was fight and die, who knows. so for the love of all that is holy stop complaining about it and wait for either a demo or the full version.
Cheers knoddy
I agree, it could be said about all the Total War games. That is why I (as much as I like them) have been complaining about this flaw since MTW. You do not seem to understand, that is why formations and maneuvering is almost useless in the total war games. I think that if they tried it, they would find that it makes very good game play. Chasing down an army over 5 turns only to be outmaneuvered and wiped out in the end because you were over confident and let them lead you right into their territory. It would make diplomacy much more important, because now people would have a reason to avoid wars...they would be much longer, harder, and more costly. It would also no long be possible to play the game on the hardest difficulty and conquer in 5 hours. (the whole map) It being harder does not mean that it would not be fun though, and of course of easier difficulties you could make the AI do the crazy charge up a hill thing. :P
For the love of all is holy, i stoped complaining about the RTW demo, then the M2TW demo; after that i made the decision to speak my mind mr Knoddy if not for anything else but for the love of all is holy.
!it burnsus!
@knoddy
Hey man, take it easy! have a ~:cheers: on me.
As to why we are all nitpicking and worrying... well, that's kinda what we do. We're fans. It's our area to nitpick about things and offer feedback about what we thought was good, or bad, or in some cases woefully wrong about what CA releases to the public. CA reads this forum, if we are not honest about what we want or what we think then how will they know where they need to tweak things?
Obviously, we don't outright bash CA, but that doesn't mean we cannot (or should not) voice criticism and frustration right alongside our optimism. :yes:
Also download the 170 odd mb video that hoom linked, not the 1.2gb one, the second one he linked. It's in reasonably high-def and you can see pretty much everything right down to the unit counts. However Sega has a speed cap in place so it may take a while.
@knoddy
Hey man, take it easy! have a ~:cheers: on me.
As to why we are all nitpicking and worrying... well, that's kinda what we do. We're fans. It's our area to nitpick about things and offer feedback about what we thought was good, or bad, or in some cases woefully wrong about what CA releases to the public. CA reads this forum, if we are not honest about what we want or what we think then how will they know where they need to tweak things?
Obviously, we don't outright bash CA, but that doesn't mean we cannot (or should not) voice criticism and frustration right alongside our optimism. :yes:
Also download the 170 odd mb video that hoom linked, not the 1.2gb one, the second one he linked. It's in reasonably high-def and you can see pretty much everything right down to the unit counts. However Sega has a speed cap in place so it may take a while.
cant drink im still at work :P im not really that worked up but after rome and medieval 2 one gets sick of the negativity some times. but then after being part of countless forums pre release to games u kinda get used to it.
however i still think everyone is being overly critical of a system they have not played yet. leave your judgements for the demo which we will hopefully be getting soon. you can only tell so much from a 10 minute (or however long it was) video of someone else playing the game.
i was involved in beta of another game recently and alot of the criticisms of the early footage of the game was that combat was very very slow. However once i got into beta i found this was def not the case. combat was quite fast paced and u had to think on your feet.
what im trying to say is dont judge too harshly too early.
I agree, it could be said about all the Total War games. That is why I (as much as I like them) have been complaining about this flaw since MTW. You do not seem to understand, that is why formations and maneuvering is almost useless in the total war games. I think that if they tried it, they would find that it makes very good game play. Chasing down an army over 5 turns only to be outmaneuvered and wiped out in the end because you were over confident and let them lead you right into their territory. It would make diplomacy much more important, because now people would have a reason to avoid wars...they would be much longer, harder, and more costly. It would also no long be possible to play the game on the hardest difficulty and conquer in 5 hours. (the whole map) It being harder does not mean that it would not be fun though, and of course of easier difficulties you could make the AI do the crazy charge up a hill thing. :P
i would suggest the europa universalis games. much more indepth, wars are alot more drawn out alot harder to win, alot more time spent chasing AI around the map as u fight it win and only kill a 1000 or so troops in a 40000 man stack.
i will await the demo for my judgement. and then buy it neway :P
cheers Knoddy
cant drink im still at work :P im not really that worked up but after rome and medieval 2 one gets sick of the negativity some times. but then after being part of countless forums pre release to games u kinda get used to it.
however i still think everyone is being overly critical of a system they have not played yet. leave your judgements for the demo which we will hopefully be getting soon. you can only tell so much from a 10 minute (or however long it was) video of someone else playing the game.
i was involved in beta of another game recently and alot of the criticisms of the early footage of the game was that combat was very very slow. However once i got into beta i found this was def not the case. combat was quite fast paced and u had to think on your feet.
what im trying to say is dont judge too harshly too early.
i would suggest the europa universalis games. much more indepth, wars are alot more drawn out alot harder to win, alot more time spent chasing AI around the map as u fight it win and only kill a 1000 or so troops in a 40000 man stack.
i will await the demo for my judgement. and then buy it neway :P
cheers Knoddy
If there are flaws though that are important to gameplay, we want them to know now while there is a chance of improving the game, not later on when the demo is released.
I am just looking at what they showed us realistically. They showed it to us so we could judge it.
EDIT: The fact that I am on this forum posting shows that I have a strong appreciation and fondness for their games.
Jack Lusted
02-13-2009, 10:39
Copy paste from official forums:
Hi chaps!
Thanks for all of the comments! I just wanted to make the point that - what I was really hoping would come out of the video - is the concept of the AI using a "special tactic", where it responds to the make-up and advance of my army, and uses it's units coherently and together in a way in which only an expert player would be able to (i.e. surrounding it's cavalry with line infantry in a manually-constructed square, leaving it's General's bodyguard and support cavalry inside the square for protection of both it and the line, positioning it's artillery and light infantry tactically outside for covering fire), and then going on to try to maintain this formation over time by repairing "holes" in the wall. I deliberately picked a massively over-powered heavy cavalry army to freak-out the AI into using this behaviour, and eventually overcame it, although the battle actually went on a heck of a lot longer than the video and I took a bit of a beating in the process, including getting my General wasted!
Anyway, the video was filmed quite a while ago, and we've obviously made a tonne of logic and animation fixes, and unit balancing since then. I think bayonets against Cavalry were maybe a little underpowered when that battle was played out, for example.
Putting together an AI opponent which both allows new players to the series to enjoy themselves, and satisifies the hard-core veterans, is always a tough prospect, and you guys rightfully have huge expectations, so I hope you enjoy the game in a few weeks time. We certainly are here!
And if you don't, at least you know what I look like now so you can hunt me down and kill me (- joke image).
All the best image,
Richard Bull
Battle AI Programmer
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/reply/581966/t/New-Video-Superior-Tactics-1.html#reply-581966
Sir Beane
02-13-2009, 10:41
Thanks Jack! :2thumbsup:
CA have said they rather like their rapid zombiefans...
but i realy do know that much about how they battleld beside that sweden has some realy easy to move cannons and thats it so i think it will be a rather steap hill for me to climb if it is realy diffrent from mtw2. but that just part of the fun.
and i wounder if the ai had much more technology then the dev if he would be able to do the same then or if he would be forced to adapt the strategy.
hopefully not to much spelling errors
Originally posted by Richard Bull
Anyway, the video was filmed quite a while ago, and we've obviously made a tonne of logic and animation fixes, and unit balancing since then. I think bayonets against Cavalry were maybe a little underpowered when that battle was played out, for example.
Its good that this was reckognised the cavalry should have taken much more of a beating frontally - this is good stuff. I hope the pace of the battles is similarly tweaked.
I just wanted to make the point that - what I was really hoping would come out of the video - is the concept of the AI using a "special tactic", where it responds to the make-up and advance of my army, and uses it's units coherently and together in a way in which only an expert player would be able to (i.e. surrounding it's cavalry with line infantry in a manually-constructed square, leaving it's General's bodyguard and support cavalry inside the square for protection of both it and the line, positioning it's artillery and light infantry tactically outside for covering fire), and then going on to try to maintain this formation over time by repairing "holes" in the wall. I deliberately picked a massively over-powered heavy cavalry army to freak-out the AI into using this behaviour, and eventually overcame it, although the battle actually went on a heck of a lot longer than the video and I took a bit of a beating in the process, including getting my General wasted!
All of it appreciated - no word relative to the charge uphill though, especially in the light that the AI was outnumbered - it was evident that Mr Bull used almost two armies for the battle. Why then the AI in light of being overpoewred charges uphill?
It seems that Mr Monk was right and the AI was prompted to use the square.
And if you don't, at least you know what I look like now so you can hunt me down and kill me (- joke image).
I bet no-one told him about the TW community in the job interview.
thanks Mr Lusted
!it burnsus!
Copy paste from official forums:
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/reply/581966/t/New-Video-Superior-Tactics-1.html#reply-581966
Thanks for talking to the community! I am relieved to hear that it is from an earlier play test. I was wondering if it would be possible to say anything about the charging up hill thing though?
PS I love the end comment. :P Great sense of humor, but maybe also an indication that some people are getting a little too upset. :P
Another point with regard to the AI there, this was almost definitely a custom battle rather than a campign battle.
Custom battle should be fought to the death regardless the casualty ratio.
Campaign battle you & the AI will generally want to protect the strength of the army and fight more cautiously.
Campaign AI supposedly gives prompts to the battle AI about whether this is a battle to the death for the capital or just a minor skirmish for an unimportant backwater too.
You are absolutely right Mr Hoom - yet if last man standing victory means charge no matter the conditions to the AI - you can bet that this is a very very poor one.
!it burnsus!
Another point with regard to the AI there, this was almost definitely a custom battle rather than a campign battle.
Custom battle should be fought to the death regardless the casualty ratio.
Campaign battle you & the AI will generally want to protect the strength of the army and fight more cautiously.
Campaign AI supposedly gives prompts to the battle AI about whether this is a battle to the death for the capital or just a minor skirmish for an unimportant backwater too.
Yeah, but you can fight to the last man wisely. That was just stupid....
Here's a thought: Maybe the AI is supposed to panic when its battleplan has gone completely awry?
A pretty optimistic interpretation I know, and as far as I know there has been no indication from CA that the AI is capable of this, but if an enemy commander charging uphill against superior numbers isn't realistic, then a commander who reacts with mechanically cool-headed and precise decisions to even the most dire and unexpected of battlefield upsets certainly isn't, especially if that commander is supposed to be some low-ranking, inexperienced garrison commander rather than Bonaparte. If the AI is supposed to act like a human, then it stands to reason it should be capable of making mistakes and panicking under pressure.
Here's a thought: Maybe the AI is supposed to panic when its battleplan has gone completely awry?
A pretty optimistic interpretation I know, and as far as I know there has been no indication from CA that the AI is capable of this, but if an enemy commander charging uphill against superior numbers isn't realistic, then a commander who reacts with mechanically cool-headed and precise decisions to even the most dire and unexpected of battlefield upsets certainly isn't, especially if that commander is supposed to be some low-ranking, inexperienced garrison commander rather than Bonaparte. If the AI is supposed to act like a human, then it stands to reason it should be capable of making mistakes and panicking under pressure.
*grasping at straws*
Finally got the high quality video working.
Ok bayonets might have been under powered and will be changed. But that is one thing I noticed: where is the shooting? Heavy cavalry charging straight into infantry without taking that many losses from firepower and infantry charging other infantry.
The video shows lacking firepower and too fast running speed IMO.
CBR
Finally got the high quality video working.
Ok bayonets might have been under powered and will be changed. But that is one thing I noticed: where is the shooting? Heavy cavalry charging straight into infantry without taking that many losses from firepower and infantry charging other infantry.
The video shows lacking firepower and too fast running speed IMO.
CBR
I agree completely. During this time, guns were extremely inaccurate, but also extremely powerful. What it resulted in is that every man shooting with his musket was like one piece of bird shot from a shot gun. (the shot gun being the entire body of men) They were not stupidly standing in lines at shooting at each other, it was the best way to fight for the weapons they had because of their long reload time and short range. These two factors along with their inaccuracy neccesitated that they needed to be extremely concentrated so that the volley they fired would have the effect of a round of bird shot on the enemy. If they were more spread out, the guys on the far sides would not be in range, and only guys in the center could fire, and if it closed to melee, they would be cut to pieces. Reason I am saying all of this is because they DID form very dense lines (usually 2 or three of them) and when they shot it was like a shot of bird shot to the enemy formation...devastating. Three lines of muskets firing at that range into the cavalry should have wasted half of them. The importance of cavalry was their speed, not their ability to take 500 bullets. If they slowed everything down, but esp infantry, then cavalry would have the realistic advantage that it did in real life. Just my 2 cents...
Finally got the high quality video working.
Ok bayonets might have been under powered and will be changed. But that is one thing I noticed: where is the shooting? Heavy cavalry charging straight into infantry without taking that many losses from firepower and infantry charging other infantry.
The video shows lacking firepower and too fast running speed IMO.
CBR
one thing about this, when u think about it, they were light fast cavalry so they would probs get into melee with only 1 volley being fired. wether or not they should have been annihilated once in melee who knows, and again i havnt watched the vid in that much detail but realistically if they were being charged they mite get 1 or maybe 2 volleys off.
Cheers Knoddy
one thing about this, when u think about it, they were light fast cavalry so they would probs get into melee with only 1 volley being fired. wether or not they should have been annihilated once in melee who knows, and again i havnt watched the vid in that much detail but realistically if they were being charged they mite get 1 or maybe 2 volleys off.
Cheers Knoddy
A good thing to point out. I believe though what is worrying some fans is that the fact that in the video the infantry units do fire a volley(may have been 2) and not many horses went down at all. Which is understandable if the units weren't at such close range, but they were. Maybe CA can add something about that?
Based on unit selected, green arrows on the map as well as how the unit looked like in closeups, I'm pretty sure was heavy cavalry doing both the flanking attack on the light infantry as well as the frontal charge against the line infantry.
Sure the infantry should not have had time for more than one or two shots if it started firing at very long range (historically) but that is really all it needed. Unless a rabble infantry that would run away, cavalry would generally get shot up and not close in.
It didn't even look like the unit took one casualty at all, sure it is down to 44 (from 45) but that loss might have come earlier. But OK I guess it's gonna be bayonets that stop cavalry in ETW.
It is nice to see the AI respond to the player army composition. Would have been nice to see that it also meant an AI victory though.
The video did not give me a 18th century feel of a battle in the Age of Muskets and then it doesn't matter if the programmer had a "massively over-powered heavy cavalry army" And that quote gives me the shivers really, does this mean we can gather armies of 20 heavy cav and bowl over AI armies?
Ok I admit the shivers bit is an exaggeration as its more :shrug: as my expectations were low anyway.
CBR
scipiosgoblin
02-14-2009, 05:54
one thing about this, when u think about it, they were light fast cavalry so they would probs get into melee with only 1 volley being fired. wether or not they should have been annihilated once in melee who knows, and again i havnt watched the vid in that much detail but realistically if they were being charged they mite get 1 or maybe 2 volleys off.
Cheers Knoddy
I believe you are right about the speed at which the cavalry would get to the battle line. I think that horses do not like to charge into solid things. And horses that see a wall of men wouldn't know that the wall was made up of things that it could probably knock down. Therefore the horse would veer away from the wall of men in any case.
From personal experience, it takes months to train a horse that it can move an object the same size as itself. They are very skitish creatures. And before you guys tear me apart, yes I understand that these were battle trained horses. Fine. Battle trained horses of the time were expensive and would not have been wasted charging into bayonets unless there was no other alternative. Even at Waterloo, the British and French cavalry veered away from the infantry squares of the opposing army instead of charging home.
SG
Polemists
02-14-2009, 06:42
It was a good video, not done of course as all the videos we are shown of late were taken from a while ago, but we can all be hopeful that soon a up to date prenstation will be offered in a demonstrative form :laugh4:
That said, if it is slow I'd recommend go find it on youtube or similiar stream site. I have no luck with ca's site usually.
I believe you are right about the speed at which the cavalry would get to the battle line. I think that horses do not like to charge into solid things. And horses that see a wall of men wouldn't know that the wall was made up of things that it could probably knock down. Therefore the horse would veer away from the wall of men in any case.
From personal experience, it takes months to train a horse that it can move an object the same size as itself. They are very skitish creatures. And before you guys tear me apart, yes I understand that these were battle trained horses. Fine. Battle trained horses of the time were expensive and would not have been wasted charging into bayonets unless there was no other alternative. Even at Waterloo, the British and French cavalry veered away from the infantry squares of the opposing army instead of charging home.
SG
But Polish cavalry didn't.
But Polish cavalry didn't.
Indeed Mr Lars, it used its wings instead to fly over bayonet walls and evade bullets and deliver the blow.
!it burnsus!
CountArach
02-14-2009, 11:39
Even at Waterloo, the British and French cavalry veered away from the infantry squares of the opposing army instead of charging home.
SG
That had nothing at all to do with the horses. That had to do with the fact that this is what cavalry were trained to do. And with good reason - I remember reading about the Battle of Quatre Bras where some French squadrons charged into the rear of a Scottish Battalion and the rear rank of the Scots just turned around, fired at point blank and lowered bayonets. They successfully repulsed the charge because cavalry was not supposed to charge into ordered ranks of disciplined troops.
But Polish cavalry didn't.
The Poles were crazy in the Napoleonic Wars. Seriously they just never stopped fighting...
Sir Beane
02-14-2009, 13:33
Indeed Mr Lars, it used its wings instead to fly over bayonet walls and evade bullets and deliver the blow.
!it burnsus!
They must have used those wings for something :tongue:.
I wonder if Winged Hussars will suffer from 'fantasy unit' treatment, given their fame and outlandish appearence?
Colovion
02-14-2009, 19:35
Hmm that video reminds me of the first videos of RTW :no:
I want to see a video of 1 unit of cavalry charging 1 unit of Muskets where the Cavalry actually seem to be taking damage.
One flaw which seems to be still around in the AI is that when the Cavalry charges in, even though there's only a few cavalry in melee with the infantry, the infantry on the wings don't automatically take the advantage of the open flanks of the cavalry left exposed. To make only units within a certain range of the enemy soldiers to melee and the rest to continue firing would make any bogged down charge really hurt. That's one thing which would be great to see because it would really make cavalry that much more fragile - not merely big masses of whirling steel galloping around the map.
There were some pretty graphics and I suppose they did show that the AI can adapt somewhat to the human opponent. One difficulty the programmers have is that when we humans look at the screen we can see a charge happening and think "ok well I should do XYZ to counter that, so I'll do that now" whereas the computer has a more abstract sense of the battle but can make multiple commands instantly.
I'm sure that the AI does have some fancy tricks to play; unfortunately I haven't seen them play any tricks but CHARRRGEE since MTW; maybe MTW's combat was just paced well enough that it allowed the computer to fully utilize their units while now the battles are so fast that it's over before they get the chance. It seems most fights in RTW and M2TW consist of "charge + cavalry = win" since the battles end after the first few units run - and the collision/momentum of cavalry is enough to break up and slaughter most unit formations.
Hopefully there'll be more battle recordings released to show the speed of combat and perhaps :gasp: an unsuccessful cavalry charge! :idea2:
Oleander Ardens
02-14-2009, 20:39
I guess we will all have to wait and see. IMHO CA tried and tries to make the AI more challenging - we will see how it is done. And we will see how the various unit types face off each other.
lol, I know that CA did not do cavalry very well (though M2 was an improvement as they cut down on crazy hitpoints and way too high attack and transfered some of those points to charge bonus), but at the same time people have this general opinion that cavalry stunk, it didn't. In fact, cavalry was generally much superior to infantry during the time of M2, which is one of the reasons that the importance of pikemen increased so much later on. I am not saying that CA's portrayal is realistic, but at the same time, fan's have a tendency to over compensate and say that cav is useless. I think CA was right in making it powerful, they just did it the wrong way (and in an unrealistic way that unbalanced the game). If you look at history though, cavalry charges COULD smash much greater numbers of infantry. My point is that the goal here shouldn't be to make cav bad, but to make gameplay realistic. :bow:
He does do odd things with his units. Which in all intense purposes would work, just don't expect an army after. Someone who was playing to preserve his army would have a deal of trouble the AI did nothing stupid from what I saw and I am guessing he was playing on Medium
To be fair to earlier TWs, a general charge (downhill preferably & not to be confused with a charge by the General) + cavalry on the flanks was very effective in Shogun too.
Regarding the AI charging up the hill at the programmers army, the Programmer guy did a 'select all, drag & drop' onto the hill after his heavy cav had been mauled by its frontal attack on bayonet equipped infantry.
Those units arrived piecemeal, exposing themselves on the ridgeline above & not very far from the AI position.
Lets look at this situation from the AI point of view:
If the AI has some LoS coding, it probably doesn't know how much force is just over the ridge but it would be aware that it had inflicted heavy losses on the cav section of its opponents cav heavy army so could assume that there was not particularly much force behind the isolated units already in place up there.
Given that situation, I think I'd have quite likely charged up that hill myself.
I'm sure that the AI does have some fancy tricks to play; unfortunately I haven't seen them play any tricks but CHARRRGEE since MTW; maybe MTW's combat was just paced well enough that it allowed the computer to fully utilize their unitsI think a lot of this is just bad stats.
Some of the Rome modders have managed to pull out of the AI some behaviour that was mostly missing from the main game but which were more common in Shogun/MTW.
eg RTR:The Iberian Campaign has stats etc balanced so that the AI is quite scary.
Personally, I get all flustered & concerned when the AI comes at you with an approximately equal strength army & without pause, without reforming just slams into your army full across the front, possibly with some flanking.
Those can be the most intense battles TW can provide & RTR:TIC gives a bunch of them.
When the AI is confident & has well setup unit stats it makes good, agressive moves.
When the AI is not confident/confused by unit stats it'll march up to your army then mill around reforming, tiring its troops & taking losses.
Oleander Ardens
02-15-2009, 20:05
The cavalry vs. infantry debate is an other issue than the AI. I remember how I conquered in my first Roman campaign the whole of Gaul with dogs and cavalry. I personally would prefer a high/very high frontal resistance - if the AI tries to keep unit cohesion than thinks will become much more difficult. We all know that it was always easy to create a great local superiorty while keeping the rest of the enemy at bay with few, well placed units. After the first routs the snowball effect would set in, unless the enemy was on vh.
monsterfurby
02-15-2009, 21:16
It does indeed seem that the AI is not that smart after all. Then again, I already know that there will be AI mods around by the time I get to play ETW, so it's not that big a deal for me.
I am still dreaming of a TW game where the AI actually adjusts depending on the general's skill. I actually have no problem with the enemy being stupid and charging uphill if they are led by a civil officer bureaucrat who never commanded an army before. However if I am facing Bonaparte, I would sort of expect a more sophisticated AI. Maybe, one day, this will be seen in a TW game
Incongruous
02-16-2009, 00:52
If cavalry can charge front on into a line of stationary infantry and win the fight, the game is broken. I know that there are cases of such occurances happening in history, but in terms of a game in which gunpowder infantry are the bread and butter of a battle, such an occurnace would be disasterous. It would make more than half the units obsolete, and condemn battles to a simplistic click and charge affair. Its not the bayonets which should be pumped up, if infantry are indeed attacked in a broken formation lacking the ability of controlled musketry, then they should be slaughtered no matter how good they are with cold steel, amping up the bayonet's stats would screw this up and ruin the purpose of cavalry. What clearly needs to be done, is some kind of improvemnt of the firing system, if cavalry run into a hail of musketry delivered by a rock solid wall of infantry, the game should be up for the sake of gameplay and balance.
If a player stupidly orders a general advance with bayonets into an opposing line which has recievd only a few licks of the volley, his men should be shredded. If such acts of tactical idiocy are indeed punished by well balanced stats then manouvre and actual tactical thinking will have primacy on the battlefield and create a far more pleasing game.
Battlefield Fire
02-16-2009, 09:06
Nice graphics, though I wonder what battalion square he's talking about that they got from Bonaparte as the squares used by the AI aren't even squares.
Incongruous
02-16-2009, 09:26
Nice graphics, though I wonder what battalion square he's talking about that they got from Bonaparte as the squares used by the AI aren't even squares.
Indeed, you hit upon a good point and a great weakness of that DEMOnstration which was apparently meant to show us the ability of the AI to use advanced tactics such as a battalion square. The CA man playing cut his own head off rather fantastically by employing increadibly poor tactics and nullifying any chance of a true demonstration of the AI's abilities, very poor marketing I must say.
The CA rep began an almost immdiate assault upon the AI with his cavalry in an almost suicidal way, charging head on into infantry formations, losing most of his army in the process and in doing so ruined any chance of us seeing the AI's new abilities in action. We did not get a chance to see anything and were instead allowed to see the serious flkaws in the game.
Battlefield Fire
02-16-2009, 09:32
Bopa: True. He was trying to duplicate the Mameluke charges against Bonaparte's squares in the Battle of the Pyramids. The only difference is the Mameluke's lost because Napoleon's squares were real squares while those of the AI weren't. ( heh )
Fisherking
02-16-2009, 10:29
I think that maybe this is a bit over analyzed. He wanted to see if the AI would act with a particular placement of troops and protect his cavalry and General.
The AI was vastly out numbered. It took one of the actions most likely to put up a creditable defense. With those odds the only other thing was to run.
Polemists
02-16-2009, 11:36
Agreed, I was just impressed it didn't ctrl a, and flank with calvary. It actually had goals, a formation.
A AI with tactics is a vast improvement over what we used to have..
I guess this means I have to start thinking in battles :( doh........
Actually Napoleon used divisional squares in that battle he was referring to. So the individual battalions were still in line. And that also seems to be what the AI is using.
CBR
Schiltrom
02-16-2009, 18:33
My only fear is that this was a scripted battle and not the real deal.
According to PC Gamer, the AI is improved.
peacemaker
02-16-2009, 19:53
i dunno. After watching that video, I think the AI did rather well, and I know that since I'm not that great of a gamer, it provides a decent and challenging game. If you want to go and fight another human with human tactics, go play online. If you want a decent, challenging game, single player works well enough IMHO
Overpowered cavalry charges.. check.
Overpowered artillery... check.
Ridiculously unrealistic casualty rates... check.
Dodgy AI... check.
I can't believe they're using the Battalion/Division Square for the French special formation instead of Mixed Order. The only reason Napoleon used it in Egypt (and to my knowledge, the ONLY time he used it) was because he was forced to due to lack of a large cavalry force of his own. The Mameluks were massacred by French musket & cannon fire as they repeatedly charged the giant square. Very few reached the actual formation and those that did were unable to penetrate its ranks. Watching the AI charge right into the square as if they were a bunch of heavily armored knights sporting couched lances took the wind out of my sails... I guess it was too much to expect AI cavalry to swarm around squares while looking for a weak spot.
But hey... it looks great!
According to PC Gamer, the AI is improved.
We have heard this from the gaming press in every single preview for every Total War game since Medieval and every time they've been wrong. Rome Total War's AI was awful. Medieval 2's AI was barely any better... but whether it was improved or not it was still pretty damn stupid. Only when Kingdoms was released did the AI demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and even then it wasn't enough to provide a challenge.
In light of the strange bouts of spontaneous retardation suffered by the gaming press whenever a Total War game is released I must content myself to wait until the TW community has given ETW a thorough going over before giving it serious consideration.
Sol Invictus
02-17-2009, 04:16
Yep, printed reviews mean not a damn thing.:thumbsdown: You have to actually play the release version to get any feel for how well the AI will perform. I am hopeful, but time will tell.
Polemists
02-17-2009, 07:50
I'd settle for playing a demonstration to see how the game works :laugh4:
Yea I mean I'm not going to go nuts over a variety of videos or whatever. I want to have it in my hands, and see how the units behave. Then we can discuss and debate what is and isn't. Till then just all hearsay :juggle2:
Colovion
02-17-2009, 20:03
once again Spino hits the nail on the head
Sir Beane
02-17-2009, 20:17
Just as you can't judge the game by reading press reviews, you also can't judge the game by watching a short clip that was specifically designed to show one showy A.I tactic and nothing else.
Wait until the game is out before deciding whether things like cavalry are overpowered or not. You may find that problems have been resolved, or never even existed in the first place.
I'll admit the video wasn't hugely encouraging, but it's only one video. I'd like a lot more data before coming to my own conclusions about the game.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.