View Full Version : 1.3.1. Ridiculous "gameplay" adjustments by CA
We know, if we play Britain, France, UP (possibly some other Western European factions) then Marathas are 99% likely to take over India by 1715. Now, try Russia on H and try getting a trade agreement with Marathas (who seem to be doing OK until that point). OK, you succeed. Guess what, by 1711, Marathas are eliminated by Mughals...
Complete :wall:
On a similar note. Playing as Russia, from the game start, the faction is allied with Denmark and Poland. Sweden declares war on Denmark. Fine. Russia joins in to defend its ally. Some 5 years into the war, Russia notices a huge buildup of Danish forces near the northern end of Karelia and Finland. Do you think, that buildup was created to attack the common enemy, Sweden, who was, at the time, blockading all Danish trade? No! Swedish rading parties were completely ignored by the Danish (likewise, the Danish [camping out on the Swedish ground] were ignored by the Swedish raiding parties), while the Danish force was being built up to break the alliance (having "very good relationship") and attack Russian Karelia a couple turns later...
Complete :wall: again.
pevergreen
08-28-2009, 06:32
What was your position with the Danes? Was it negative?
What! Factions become a force! Heavin forbid!
Not like Selucids could do it, or Egypt, or Persia, or Julii, Gauls, Spain, Britain.
Someone emerges as a clear winner, its always been like that.
as I see it, you take over your part of the world, someone else has become the major faction. Or would you rather have multiple small factions that are just steam roll material. Or an actual opponent.
Iavorios
08-28-2009, 13:25
The AI in ETW is a joke. Once you have past the first 8-12 turns it is over. The only way it can create you some problems is if backstab's you, or to do something very stupid, witch it does very, very often. AI's only idea of strategy planing is to trow everything it has on you ASAP. And this is it. No logic, no planing no intelekt.
What was your position with the Danes? Was it negative?
What! Factions become a force! Heavin forbid!
Not like Selucids could do it, or Egypt, or Persia, or Julii, Gauls, Spain, Britain.
Someone emerges as a clear winner, its always been like that.
as I see it, you take over your part of the world, someone else has become the major faction. Or would you rather have multiple small factions that are just steam roll material. Or an actual opponent.
My relationship meter with the Danish was around +150 at the time they declared war.
Seyavash
08-28-2009, 18:00
We know, if we play Britain, France, UP (possibly some other Western European factions) then Marathas are 99% likely to take over India by 1715. Now, try Russia on H and try getting a trade agreement with Marathas (who seem to be doing OK until that point). OK, you succeed. Guess what, by 1711, Marathas are eliminated by Mughals...
Complete :wall:
On a similar note. Playing as Russia, from the game start, the faction is allied with Denmark and Poland. Sweden declares war on Denmark. Fine. Russia joins in to defend its ally. Some 5 years into the war, Russia notices a huge buildup of Danish forces near the northern end of Karelia and Finland. Do you think, that buildup was created to attack the common enemy, Sweden, who was, at the time, blockading all Danish trade? No! Swedish rading parties were completely ignored by the Danish (likewise, the Danish [camping out on the Swedish ground] were ignored by the Swedish raiding parties), while the Danish force was being built up to break the alliance (having "very good relationship") and attack Russian Karelia a couple turns later...
Complete :wall: again.
While the AI decision making is ludicrous to non existent, my experience was completely different. Playing as Russia Marathas completely dominated India even with a trade agreement with me, while the Danes have never bothered me.
antisocialmunky
08-29-2009, 00:29
Eh... the title of this thread is misleading, I thought you were going to talk about rifled dragoons and such quakery.
I want my money back!
Eh... the title of this thread is misleading, I thought you were going to talk about rifled dragoons and such quakery.
I want my money back!
Nobody's stopping you from expanding from the OP here. The title covers it all. :laugh4:
It's only safe to ally with someone if you don't share a border with them.
Fisherking
09-10-2009, 08:14
It's only safe to ally with someone if you don't share a border with them.
No! That is not safe either. :laugh4:
I played a French Campaign. The turn after I got a trade agreement with the Marathas they were blockaded. That lasted until I went to India and cleared the blockade in about 1780 or so.
Usually they clear ports every 20 years or so but not this time. A 75 year blockade is a bit much.:inquisitive:
I think that other than the bugs and the over generous economy, this game started well but the AI and Diplomacy changes have mostly been mistakes.:whip:
Durallan
09-10-2009, 12:13
you think this is bad? wait till the naval changes in 1.4 :laugh4: :dizzy2:
My heroic (and impossible) victories over the superior pirate fleets will come to an end.:sweatdrop:
Sheogorath
09-15-2009, 10:30
I personally find myself wondering how they messed the AI up so badly...I mean, the released diplomatic AI was almost perfect...maybe a little too easygoing with the peace treaties, but not all that bad...and they somehow managed to turn a mild-mannered and semi-intelligent AI into a rabid beast that consumes and destroys all before it...and it took them two patches after that to get it back to any semblance of sanity, even though it's still crazy.
antisocialmunky
09-15-2009, 19:23
Yes, the descent from
http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/monkeys.jpg
to
http://monkeytypes.com/files/images/MonkeyFight.jpg
was a little ridiculous.
Also, its not that the AI was overly friendly, it was the fact that they had nothing to fight over... They were all too nice to each other. Perhaps if they actually pursued victory territories, that would have generated enough friction between factions to work.
Its the equivalent of going from Civ4's easy going AI to Civ3's retarded warmonger AI. The only reason Civ4 AIs fight at all is AI personality(Isabella of Spain will convert you or die trying, Montezuma likes to kill his neighbors, and Caesar is easily bought into wars) and victory conditions(Space Race can get pretty bloodly sometimes) which IMHO was quite an intellegent solution. The Civ3 AI would invade its neighbors and buy all its allies into a war so it ended up with you against everyone eventually(sound familiar?).
Perhaps CA needs to bribe Mr. Soren away from his indie projects to help them with their AI. :-p
I personally find myself wondering how they messed the AI up so badly...I mean, the released diplomatic AI was almost perfect...maybe a little too easygoing with the peace treaties, but not all that bad...and they somehow managed to turn a mild-mannered and semi-intelligent AI into a rabid beast that consumes and destroys all before it...and it took them two patches after that to get it back to any semblance of sanity, even though it's still crazy.
Well, maybe it was easier to get treaties in version 0 of the game, but the AI was way too passive. The game was a complete cakewalk on VH campaign difficulty with the player grabbing anything and the only real opposition being the minor factions which tended to field better armies than AI empires. The game was broken as it came out. The problem is, now it's broken in a different way.
Sheogorath
09-17-2009, 20:19
Well, maybe it was easier to get treaties in version 0 of the game, but the AI was way too passive. The game was a complete cakewalk on VH campaign difficulty with the player grabbing anything and the only real opposition being the minor factions which tended to field better armies than AI empires. The game was broken as it came out. The problem is, now it's broken in a different way.
The main competition, in vanilla anyway, is still the minor states. I never had a serious challenge from, say, Austria. Wurtemburg and Georgia, on the other hand...
antisocialmunky
09-18-2009, 01:46
Georgia is rabid in all my games...
Sheogorath
09-18-2009, 01:54
Georgia is rabid in all my games...
They seem quite passive until the player shares a border with them...that's when they start foaming at the mouth.
Monsieur Alphonse
09-18-2009, 05:58
They seem quite passive until the player shares a border with them...that's when they start foaming at the mouth.
That's the matter with all minor factions. Actually that is the matter with all factions. The share border and attack diplomacy has been the standard diplomatic model since RTW. In RTW a diplomat will pass by and ask for something like maps, alliance and a trade treaty. That faction will attack then in a couple of turns. In M2TW and ETW sharing borders is the number one reason for a declaration of war. The diplomatic screen is only useful during the first few turns. After that all diplomats are shot and the blitz yourself out of trouble starts.
The problem is that CA raised the expectations too high. They promised diplomacy that would feel like it was conducted by a human player. CA delivered a campaign with only one strategy: fight your way out of trouble like you had to do with the Teutonic order in Kingdoms.
Trying to turtle, building an alliance against a strong opponent, signing a peace treaty which gives the spoils of war to the victors: Ooh what a wishful thinking.
I am quite positive that if CA doesn't get ETW playable again, which means that it is fun to play, NTW won't be a success. Unless all the things we want are put in NTW. Which is not very likely.
Peasant Phill
09-18-2009, 11:10
They said that 1.4 would contain better CAI and diplomacy. So I'm at least somewhat hopeful but as they didn't mention anything about the Black knight syndrom it's only a fragile hope.
They said that 1.4 would contain better CAI and diplomacy. So I'm at least somewhat hopeful but as they didn't mention anything about the Black knight syndrom it's only a fragile hope.
Well, in my TW experience, CA promises "significant improvements, better CAI and diplomacy" for almost all the patches they make. However, the resulting improvements are mostly cosmetic and surgical. Take MTW2: the diplomacy and CAI is complete c-p still in the very latest version of the game!... Same story with RTW and MTW1. Note, those games, did not use the ETW "open map" concept, which greatly complicates AI's decision making. So, sorry, I do not have much hope for the upcoming ETW 1.4.
Though, what a game it would be if CA delivered what they promised BEFORE the release... :dizzy2:
Even one thing (from the promised arsenal) would make quite some difference: the AI being able to judge the importance of the battle and RETREATING if faced with bad odds or low expected payoff for high expected costs. Yeah, right... that feature never made it further than the pre-release announcement. Wishful thinking (for that coldly calculating and optimizing AI) aside, I'm still puzzled, why did CA remove AI's ability to retreat. In all previous titles it was able to do so on the battlefield and the campaign map. In ETW, it's always pulling some kamikaze suicide stuff like "bravely" facing a full-stack army with a unit of peasants...
:wall:
Is it even possible to code a AI that can play the game as good as a human as last time I checked computers could not think for them selves.
I know its probably possible to improve the AI in TW but computers are fundamentally not intelligent so there must be limits.
Peasant Phill
09-18-2009, 15:45
Sure, there are limits but ETW's AI is far from them. Other games could do it a lot better.
Sheogorath
09-18-2009, 22:22
Some features the REVIEWERS mentioned didn't even make it into the game.
Remember the 'authentic tactics' people jabbered about endlessly? Monster columns and so forth?
So far all I've seen the AI do is:
1. Line up and march forward
2. Line up and don't do anything until fired on/an enemy comes close
3. Line up and do nothing
4. Hurl everything at you all in one go.
Sometimes it tries a little flanking manuever with a single unit of cavalry, as well. As a bonus.
Is it even possible to code a AI that can play the game as good as a human as last time I checked computers could not think for them selves.
I know its probably possible to improve the AI in TW but computers are fundamentally not intelligent so there must be limits.
There is technology available that allows the AI to mimic a human after playing them.:beam:
I've gotten the battalion square thing out of the AI. If you fight the default late, large Dutch army with a high cav force the AI should form its army into a square. Its a shame cav can charge head on into line otherwise that would work well v cav heavy army.
https://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7804/squarai2.jpg
Knight of Ne
09-20-2009, 12:08
Is it me or is that square somewhat a bit crap. I thought a battalion square would have a lot deeper ranks. Its very dissapointing.
Ne
antisocialmunky
09-20-2009, 14:08
It should be 2 ranks deep with reserves inside but ETW heavy cavalry is OP.
Some features the REVIEWERS mentioned didn't even make it into the game.
Remember the 'authentic tactics' people jabbered about endlessly? Monster columns and so forth?
So far all I've seen the AI do is:
1. Line up and march forward
2. Line up and don't do anything until fired on/an enemy comes close
3. Line up and do nothing
4. Hurl everything at you all in one go.
Sometimes it tries a little flanking manuever with a single unit of cavalry, as well. As a bonus.
I would add that sometimes the AI knows how to overweight one or the other flank and try to crush you that way. Easily countered, by shifting a few units of reserves left and right behind your lines (to match the AI overweighting). The AI is likely to get confused and go for dead center in the end.
Fisherking
09-21-2009, 17:33
I have had the AI attack in columns. It is the most vivid recollection was when they should have been in line. I had only a couple of units that had fire arms and they were heavy in line infantry.
It always seems to select the worse possible tactic and plays to the strengths of the human player's forces.
As to the adjustments, a few have gone well but the larger part seem to always go the wrong way.
Diplomacy started out being very good, but each subsequent patch has made it worse, each and every time.
In part it is because they have listened to the players, or at least some of them. By turning up the aggression on the diplomatic game it has resulted in this "Black Knight Syndrome".
I for one would rather they make peace every other turn than fight to the death each and every time.
The bugs were a problem early on but at least for most of us the worst ones have been fixed and we even see sea invasions that are not too ridiculous. Now the issues are mostly with game play, chiefly diplomacy and making peace. It would seem most players have left the game on the shelf after this last patch brought out the black knight in all his glory. Not exactly a strong selling point for the upcoming NTW, is it?
It had been several years between M2TW and ETW and people were willing to believe the hype about what a marvel it would be. Not so with NTW which is following quickly even for an expansion, let alone a stand alone game.
If people are not thrilled with ETW and the way it has turned around, I don’t think they will be standing in line to shell out more money on an iffy prospect with NTW.
Lets hope we all like the next patch. Though many are already set against the proposed Naval changes...so that is one strike against it before it even gets here.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.