View Full Version : What is the single most important thing to be patched?
I just wonder what one thing people here would realistically most like to be implemented in a patch? I know people have different issues with RTW as it is (fast game speed, ahistorical Egyptian units etc), but which one currently is most likely to deterr people from playing it much longer?
To start the ball rolling, I think for me it would be tweaks to the campaign AI so that the AI confronted you with larger stacks. As it is the game is in danger of just being too easy, unless you use the higher difficulty settings which just "feel" wrong. At hard campaign, I hate my navy always losing; hard battles are ok, but v.hard battles skews things too much to cav/missiles. Somehow STW and MTW managed to get the difficulty level at a more challenging level without absurdly overpowering AI units (actually, I suspect it was the transition from a Risk style campaign map to a more open that has undermined the AI).
There are various tweaks that together might achieve what I want:
(1) Some of this should be easy - get the computer to avoid going near clearly superior enemy (Heroes of Might and Magic 3 - Homm3 - was good at this). For example, as Carthage, I have had to confront almost annual pathetic Julii landings in Sardinia (e.g. landing 1 hastati vs my stack of 12+ top notch garrison troops). That is just braindead - Shogun did much better, the AI effectively doing a Terminator style "I'll be back" and not returning until it could do so in much greater strength next time.
(2) In addition, it should surely be easy to programme it so that the computer used two stacks to attack in mutual support rather than committing them sequentially to be defeated detail in the same turn.
(3) Other changes might be more subtle - eg as Julii, the Gauls never seem to concentrate their numerically superior forces enough. Again Homm3 was good at this, designating a "main stack" that the AI single mindedly pumped up and used much more aggressively.
(4) Tweaking build priorities might help. In MTW, neglect of the sea was the AIs Achilles heel - in RTW, it is overcompensating. Less ships, more troops, would serve most factions well.
(5) Finally, I would really rather see some Civ-style AI economic cheats. Make the higher difficulty levels give the AI more resources (or the player less) rather than weight the dice.
A little bit of tweaking along the above lines might do wonders for the game's shelf-life - to be honest, most of the other things on people's patch lists either don't matter too much to me or could be left to modders.
I'd also vote AI, but I'd vote for battle AI, not campaign AI. Admittedly, the campaign AI isn't the best. But it really doesn't matter much. It doesn't matter if it sends an underpowered stack to attack me, because underpowered or not, I'm going to massacre them. Make the AI tough enough to have a chance of winning a conflict or two, and I'd be much happier.
This would, of course, include fixes for all of the various brain-dead AI battlefield tactics, such as "stand there and get shot", and "look at the pretty pony".
Bh
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-30-2004, 00:30
Phalanxs need some serious work. I've stopped counting the times I've thrown my mouse at the screen while playing as the Greeks.
Friendly fire, we need the routines used in STW and MTW carried forward to RTW and the person who forgot them put up against a wall and shot.
Friendly fire, we need the routines used in STW and MTW carried forward to RTW and the person who forgot them put up against a wall and shot.
I agree entirely!
Colovion
11-30-2004, 02:45
How about this:
"Fix things that were fixed in MTW"
I still can't get over the "step backwards" issue that RTW has next to MTW. If things were a problem in MTW, then fixed, then it seems incredibly astounding for the same problems to be here now. The game should play exactly like MTW on a control standpoint - unit grouping errors and friendly fire were never so prevalent in MTW, and thus shouldn't be a problem in RTW.
Parmenio
11-30-2004, 03:04
(1) Friendly Fire: The General don't take kindly to getting shot in the ass.
(2) Group command oddities: When The General shouts "Infantry advance!" He becomes vexed if the light horse take that to mean "Go jump on those pikes!"
(3) Lots of little army stacks: Dear AI, please concentrate your forces first, and then go hunting. Little stacks get eaten by the player and make for repeatative and eventually tedious battles.
(4) Suicide Generals: It is likewise advisable for all cavalry units to check whether light foot skirmishers have solid lines of horse eating heavy infantry backing them up. Galloping giddy oh into well ordered pointy things bad.
(5) Go easy on the boats: Disband a few unneeded ones now and then if you're not using them. But do use the ones you have. A great many ports go unblockcaded for no visible discernable reason.
(6) Standing still while archers shoot you down to the last man: Should only ever happen if you're Spartans on 'Defend' orders. The rest of you withdraw, charge or rout.
(7) Egyptians: Hey, let's not do the time warp again. Remember the Marketing Division will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
(8) Assaults: Dear AI, don't bring a cavalry army to an infantry fight. Them horsey's no climb the ladders, chief. By all means seige the city until it falls or build saps - lots of saps before you assault.
(9) Carthage and Seleucids: Ah, the mighty and fearful empires of the... ...oh hang on, they're gone belly up again.
(10) Missions and goals good - Hojo horde bad: Other factions other than the Romans could use some objectives. For example: Reclaiming Alexander's Empire for the Successors.
Red Harvest
11-30-2004, 03:11
Very hard to identify a single thing, there are several major areas that need work...I'll do it in general terms:
#1 Issue
Unit balance--historical counters should work, infantry shouldn't be the whipping boys for cav and archers in this period, cav should be good at running down archers, elephants should have historical weaknesses, cav shouldn't want to get near elephants, horses should avoid camels, rank bonuses/penalties should be important for phalanx, infantry, AND archers.
Runner up (but I could see reversing the order.)
#2 Battlefield AI improvement--especially with phalanx units.
I agree with you about the Strategic AI limitations. The AI likes to fight with one arm tied behind its back until it is too late to even untie the bound arm. I had a turn vs. the Gauls where I had a half stack army attacked by FOUR seperate Gaul armies in series on the same turn. It was easy. Combined they might still have lost, but there were enough that they would have caused a lot of casualties in the process and it would have been a strategic set back for this somewhat over extended force.
Forgive my lack of subtlety but the single most important thing that should be patched is the...
A.I.
With miscellaneous bugs, tweaks and balances a distant second.
AI is at the top of my list. For games like this AI is almost always at the top of my list! I love RTW but the more I play it the more I realize the game in its current state has little long term value. It all points to the inability of the AI, both tactical and strategic, to make sensible decisions. Now I did write 'sensible' and not 'brilliant'. I have a firm grasp of reality and unless a revolution in AI programming occurs in the near future I don't expect see Napoleon or Caesar in a home computer game until well after my demise. No matter which faction you play or how you mod it RTW's AI leaves alot to be desired.
I simply cannot overlook the fact that CA poured four years of sweat and toil into making Rome as pretty, feature packed and as grand as it is but gave AI development the red headed stepchild treatment. Why do the gaming gods forsake us?
Swordsman
11-30-2004, 06:14
Make bribing harder! Doesn't do much good for the AI to have large stacks with Captains getting bribed/disbanded for piddly amounts. As Seleucids, I had 300K and was bribing hordes of Greek & Brutii full-stacks for 2-3K apiece (sometimes even less). Probably could have won with a token army or two to fight the AI Generals that weren't easily bribed. Have since established a "house rule" to keep from over-using bribery, but the option is always there. Fix this, THEN enhance the AI, and I think you've got something... :charge:
Swordsman
Everybody has already made good points, but after the A.I. I want the phalaxes fixed. No dancing and bring back rank bonuses. What's the point of the phalanx really if there is no rank bonuses or kickass bonuses against cav that they should have. But especially the dancing. I've played as greeks only in custom battles and have found I've lost fights or got seriously wounded because my men were dancing and got flanked for no reason then had to reform the phalanx to attack the flanking enemy and lose 10 men in the process and had to switch to swords because while reforming the enemy got in close. I really want to play as greece or macedon or even selucids but it's really hard when the phalanxes are all messed up.
Also fix the damn time limit! :furious3:
Simon's #1 is probably my number one as well. I like the battles, but they are so frequent and silly they become boring. This is ruining it for me when I have to fight off the AI's waves of pathetic "militia captian rushers". Make a real army,... please. Don't be attacking my superfortress containing 1000 elite with a 3 unit militia hoplite, only to run for the red line when my first unit steps outside the gates. Gad, thats so frustrating. You can't autocalc, because of the Vices your general will get. So everyturn I fight all these wanna be battles.
It's compounded by my #2, "all AI attack the player, and ally with all other AI" cheese. Gaul and the Julii allied for 110 years. I mean, come on.
There is no AI. Anything the AI does is just scripted subsets that fail. For the now, I hold my faith in the mods, but I'll keep an openmind for the upcoming patch.
Ellesthyan
11-30-2004, 10:01
unit and faction limit!
They must be taken out, whatever it takes :duel:
Help me, I really, really would like to see almost all of the changes mentioned above and can't decide.
I'm a bit greedy so I'll go with AI (both campaign and battlefield), unit balance and bribing. ~D
I was a HoMM enthusiast for many years (all games before HoMM4) and thoroughly agree with Simon's suggestions. Building an uber stack and using that stack intelligently and aggressively would go a long way to making the AI much more of a threat.
Well, let's see if the coming patch for AI is any good... and if it isn't, it's time for yet more rant... mwahahahaha :devilish:
Pellinor
11-30-2004, 13:09
Friendly fire, we need the routines used in STW and MTW carried forward to RTW and the person who forgot them put up against a wall and shot.
Couldn't he just be given a weapon and told to do what comes naturally?
(4) Tweaking build priorities might help. In MTW, neglect of the sea was the AIs Achilles heel - in RTW, it is overcompensating. Less ships, more troops, would serve most factions well.
Yes, that worked great. I think MedMod was so good, because the AI finally managed to build an army as advanced as the player's. No more fighting endless bunches of peasants/militia hoplites. Wouldnt it be easier if these units (like the militia hoplites) could be upgraded? So you have like lvl 1 spearmen lvl 2 ya know.
Besides that what I want in the patch is things that cant be modded easily (AI!). I dont worry too much about balance and textures and stuff, since these can be modded.
I am surprised no one has mentioned the lack of movie replays for campaign battles.
Why weren't movies included? One of my biggest disappointments and surprises when I bought the game.
Hopefully in the patch.
Duke John
11-30-2004, 15:10
1. The numerous small (rebel) armies make the game tedious. Instead of enormous battles that can bring glory or the downfall of an empire we are stuck with lots 1-10 unit battles. Especially the small armies attacking settlements with large garrisons is silly.
Since the player most of the time has an edge (or I do hope so) over the AI, it would be pretty logical/easy (or so I hope) to change the code so that the AI checks the possibility of winning. I mean we have a little bar before the battle that says how much the chance is of winning when autocalculating. How difficult is it to code the AI in such a way that at normal level it always strives for 50%, on hard 60% and very hard 70%. If it is incapably of achieving that percentage then the AI shouldn't attack and instead try to merge with other armies.
If an enemy army invades one of the AI provinces, then he should form an army that can reach that percentage and try to intercept that army. If it cannot reach that percentage it will retreat to the settlement strengthening the garrison.
The computer is the ultimate machine for calculations, and the above is nothing more then tallying up combat values of units and compare it to another army within a certain area. Doesn't sound too difficult too me, but it would improve the game alot.
Bob the Insane
11-30-2004, 15:19
I agree the like of replays in campiagn battles is annoying but if I have to chose one thing...
Battlefield AI...
I find it hard to put my finger on it specifically but I find it too easy to beat with only minimal use of tactics. I can be being thrashed strategically, outmanuovered and out-numbered but I as long as I can bring the enemy to the battlefield I know things should be okay. Loads of other issues could be easily ignored if the AI was capable of savaging you on the battlefield.
Friendly Fire. Isn't.
Ok, I can accept that firing in a crowd of my guys engaging the enemy is inevitably going to cause some casualties. However, right now I'm killing alot more of my guys than the Huns, and I suspect this is because the AI focusing point for ranged fire (onagers included) is pointed directly at the enemy's front line, in the center. This may or may not be fine, but right now the arrows tend to hit my guys in the rear, particularly since they can't block with their shields in the rear. If I were an archer I would try to fire at the enemy's back when they're tussling with my guys.
Don't even get me started on archers shooting the bowman in front, from all of 2 yards. If I can see my arrow would spilt my compadre's head in two, I would NOT fire. Repeat, NOT fire. Only those with a clear line of sight to the enemy should be allowed by the engine to loose arrows.
Red Harvest
11-30-2004, 19:04
We've been focusing on game killers...stuff that must be fixed to get the interest level back. But the next big issue is battle enjoyment. That one hangs on battle speed for the majority of us. Slow down the kill rate and you fix some of the unit imbalance (cav) and AI issues. Charges will lose some of their tremendous punch. Players will get back a sense of control where an action is ordered and they get to watch it carried out. At present the player is too busy issuing rapid orders to watch any of the fighting. And pause is a necessity. It's like watching a movie with alternating 4x speed and "still" with no 1x and no rewind.
I'd start with the campaign map:
- I'd also like to see something that forces the AI to concentrate power. I'd like to face big stacks of top of the line units. Maybe a resource bonus on higher difficulty levels to help them pull this off.
- It would be nice if the AI learned a little from experience. After it has seen my all cav archer army for the 20th time, it should stop making armies that are 80% phalanx or eastern infantry.
These seem fairly easy, and bigger and better stacks would go a long way to overcome the battle map issues.
On the battle map:
Cav or cav archer dominated armies seem to be a serious problem for the AI. This can either be solved by beefing up the counter-units, increasing the upkeep cost of cav, or improving the battlefield AI. It would be nice if it would recognize "Hey, I'm up against an all cav-archer army" and adopt approprate tactics.
Remove the stupid map selling.
Or at least, make the AI pay much much less for maps.
I don`t sell maps in My games, but from what I have read in numerous guides map selling is much like a money-cheat.
If you need or only want some money, you can type in the cheat or sell your maps to the AI. Both works the same way and is equally easy.
As for the rest, I agree completely.
I would like to add that the AI should protect it`s flanks better. From what I read and from my own experience, most battles go the same way. Armies clash, player flanks with a unit or two and all AI units run away.
Lastly, I would like to have HA reduced in either range, power or ammo.
Red Harvest
11-30-2004, 22:14
About the map selling...I only do it with the very hard factions like Spain, Scythia, etc. where I have no money even though I start out building econ stuff, not armies. I don't game it by asking incredible sums for the map, I take the first offer, and I don't try to sell again. With "early" maps on hard or very hard campaign I'm getting about 600 to 1000 denari--enough to build a structure. Poor factions have given me as little as 400 and split it into two turns. Not unreasonable. So I see it as something to do when you have no money or are in the hole. I don't use it with an already robust economy, that would be gaming it for sure.
Lots of interesting responses. Going a bit off topic for a moment - anyone care to explain map selling to me? I always try to trade maps early in my games but get almost always get rejected and so give up. Anyone care to explain how to sell them? (I hope you are not saying factions will buy maps but not trade them? that would be wierd)
I actually like seeing more of the map for fun - but is it also true that you can only trade with cities that have been revealed?
I've only succeeded to trade military access, not maps.
I have tried to buy maps from AI, but they sell their map for very high prices, way higher than the amount they would pay for mine. (except if I ask them to pay 99999 turns of 2000 denari tribute, though ~;) ) So if I want their maps I usually ask for something else in a combo - for example, trade rights + trade map. This way the AI usually loves to say yes.
***
Diplomacy works fine so far. I already expect to see everybody attacking me in higher difficulties - it was this way since STW. I really want to see AI put lower priority of seeing other's maps. Selling map is a bad result that comes from some overvalued map information.
Does the program let AI not be able to invade you if they don't knwo your map? I don't think so. Pontus usually invades Thrace's Tylis with no diplomat around. Thrace also don't send diplomat to Asia minor. So AI is capable of seeing the map without map info anyways. Then why does AI want your map? Maybe sell it 1/10 of the current value is enough.
The AI does let family members to lead full-stack army - but only if they have "extra". I think the AI puts its priority to have family members in the settlement. If that's changed - combined with much-increased bribing cost of settlement & army - then it's flawless. ~:)
For diplomats I think the current bribing price is fine. Sometimes I also want to bribe spies... ~D
***
In terms of battlefield AI I have some specific wishes:
(1) Overpowered cavalry? Neh.
AI controlled units now doesn't really change their mind easily. I wish to see them more flexible, more open-minded... you can call that "intelligent" I guess.
For example, now when AI see an enemy's (humna's) shock troop passing them on the left, they keep charging forward only to be soon charged in the arse. Experienced human players never do that. Whenever I see something advance to my back, I back off my entire line to finish these potential threats first, sandwich them between my front line and my reserves. Yummy.
Many people complain cavalry (HA is another issue) to be too powerful - only partly true. In one setence: AI fails to stop their advance and prepare for human's cavalry's, or any shock troop's flanking action.
Therefore, may I call it "shocking troops" over powerful. Cavalry stands out only because they shock faster than infantry. However, shock troops is powerful in human's hands only, not in AI's 100-finger-yet-dumb hand.
I'd cry to see AI do respond to a potential flanking threat, like a real human competitor does. If they suddenly turn to face your cavalry and charge you, leaving your absorption slow spears waiting like idiots, if you find your cavlry's first 2 lines row to the ground at the moment of contact, nobody will ever complain cavalry too powerful. :)
(2) How'bout horse archers? how about less arrows over the walls...
Horse archers are insanely powerful now - not in the shock value, but in their speed. Nobody can touch HA while they are in skirmish. However, historically HA do run over Europe like that in my limited knowledge, so it's fine as long as the sieges are reworked.
Horse archers should have its lethal weakness of siege - but now they are superb in sieges. We just line them up outside the gate and enjoy a shooting festival. The AI might have tons of missle units to counter, but most of the time they just run them around to become live targets.
Except there are height advantages allowing soldiers to see thorugh the cities, no missle units should be able to shoot through the wall, in or out, unless they are ordered to fire at a specifc area. That will balance the HA issue out a lot. :)
Colovion
12-01-2004, 02:36
Here's another vote for the AI to be fixed
LordKhaine
12-01-2004, 02:55
AI. Mainly the battlefield AI though, that's the worst part of the AI right now by far.
Unseen Potato
12-01-2004, 18:01
The phalanx has to fixed!!!!!
I hate it when my phalanx start to walk right when they are engaged, so that the enemy can flank them from the left :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
[QUOTE=Zorn]Remove the stupid map selling.
Or at least, make the AI pay much much less for maps.
QUOTE]
Agree - way overvalued.
Eg: I've just kicked Egyptian ar$e all the way down the road from Antioch, but I'm being diverted from my real purpose elsewhere. So I send in my top diplomat to arrange a truce.
In a single negociating session I establish a ceasefire, trade rights and an alliance - with a faction whose heir I just routed!
Pharaoh is a wuss! So I slip in a quick money-maker request to sell a bit of map info. You would have thought I'd demanded his daughter's virginity. Alliance cancelled, trade rights shredded and the next few turns wasted chasing chariots all the way to Alexandria. Does my dip lose points for that? I can't work it out.
Glycerus
12-01-2004, 19:33
I see the AI is doing things such as building too many ships and not enough troops. It also does not concentrate its forces as I would, if I knew I were coming. But that is the point. The AI doesn't know when I am going to attack, or from exactly where. Nor should it know that navies should be minimized. I find it more realistic that some factions are naval heavy, because some actually were. Last night I saw a Greek general in my province deterring trade. I rushed out to attack him, since I was in a war with the Greeks anyway this would be the perfect opportunity to take out one of there generals who was there all alone. I found it odd that the AI would leave a general that exposed. I rushed out with a full stack, and was ambushed by the bulk of the greeks army. Being in a road march formation, I was completely vulnerable. I got my but handed to me and ran home whimpering, all because I the AI baited me with a general and I took it. Next time I shall stop and think about the fact that a general would not be out cutting off trade.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38342&page=2&pp=30 might be good read for people with problems with Phalanx unit.
They work as well as any other unit for me. Powerful unit.
I'd vote for the AI making more troops and fewer ships (but more than in MTW!).
I faced a huge number of Greek ships in the game I'm halfway through right now. They didn't bother me, because I then just finished taking their last remaining cities. Having loads of ships didn't stop me sneaking one through with an army and wiping them out due to lack of men defending their empire.
Oh, that and I think it's weird that an army of Equites can beat anything I've seen so far. Even spears-charge in the front, stop short, have another unit charge in the back. When they start to turn, have the original unit finish the charge. Which ever unit is caught between the two routes and is cut down.
I really can't be bothered to mess around with phalanxes since I can just charge everything in the front and if that doesn't work, send some cavalry around the back. Works every time.
Let's not forget seiges, too. The AI loves to have units stand in the main town square and resolutely not move while being killed by archers.
Lonewarrior
12-02-2004, 01:43
For me, the problems with connecting to games in MP, since I can't connect to any games :embarassed:
Tricky Lady
12-02-2004, 08:45
For me, the problems with connecting to games in MP, since I can't connect to any games :embarassed:
Sounds familiar to me. I have tried to sign up for some MP battles too, but the few times that I tried it never worked. When I tried to set up a MP game with a fellow Org member, he couldn't even see my MP game. :furious2:
So even when MP might not be the reason why I bought RTW, it still would be nice if this feature worked properly.
There are more important issues to be fixed though (nearly everything that has been mentioned already ad nauseum at these boards).
ToranagaSama
12-02-2004, 12:00
For my money, if CA were to focus mainly upon a single goal, it would be to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of inconsequential and meaningless battles. There are just toooooo many battles, and I've kinda lost interest.
Also, fully re-incorporate the tenents of Sun Tsu back into the game (to the level that existed in STW).
In both STW and MTW, a player had the capability of out-maneuvering the AI on the Campaign Map with well thought-out chess-like movements of one's Stacks. In this way it was possible to take a Province W/O fighting a battle(s). This capability has been COMPLETELY lost in RTW. I don't recall, specifically, but there is a Sun Tzu quote that directly states the goal is to win a battle w/o actually fighting it.
---
To the forum, think about this:
Virtually, if not literally, every post represents a truly legitimate, want, need or desire. Think about it, take all the legit requests of this thread, and add all the legit issues we've all been discussing since the Demo release, it all adds up to one helluva revamp. Beyond I would think the limits of a "Patch".
Given the above, and CA's *Patch History*, do you all really think we'll be seeing a Patch anytime soon?? How long did they take to do the MTW patches??? Compare what was needed, desired, and requestd regaring MTW to that of RTW. NO WAY we'll see more than a *single* patch. One might wonder if there'll be any patch whatsoever; and if so, it'd probably behoove CA to keep it simple, and focus upon such things as, "Path Finding", "Friendly Fire", and the like more normally subscribed to Patch Fixes. Along with some Stat and Balance tweaks.
What more could be expected in what would be considered a "reasonable" time period?
Pellinor
12-02-2004, 17:37
AI, the dodgy grouping and friendly fire need sorting out, but the one significant change I would like to see is about capturing cities.
At the moment the general policy is to exterminate the inhabitants of a city as soon as you take it. Compared to simply occupying the city this gives you a load of cash and significantly reduces the unrest; on the down side it means the city won't grow for a while, and the income form it is reduced a bit. With very small cities you may also be unable to build new units if the population goes down to the 400s. This makes conquest a no-brainer: you pile into the enemy territory and loot it, and the city is still standing to allow you to retrain units and carry on - you don't even need to leave much of a garrison.
The change I would like to see is for cities to operate at the level of their population, rather than the level of the government building. That is, treat buildings as if they were a lower level if the population reduces.
For example, if a city gets up to 12,000 population it can grow to level 4; the level 4 barracks can build Triarii, the port has 3 trade routes and can build quinqueremes, and so forth. If you sack the city and take it down to 3,000 people, it should be treated as a level 2 city. It can therefore only build hastati and biremes, and has only one sea trade route, until the population rebuilds itself.
You could of course go halfway and enslave the city, taking it down to 6,000 people (level 3), but if you want the benefits of a nice income and production capacity you would need to suffer (or be prepared for) the problems of a newly conquered city with lots of angry people.
The effect of this would be to make the strategic game rather more complex, and it would almost certainly slow the player's expansion down enormously (assuming he is a blitzer, like me). The AI tends to expand slower anyway, and so would not be hampered.
One other side effect is that plague or revolt in your home cities would become a much greater danger. At the moment they are almost more of a blessing than a curse, being cheesy (IMO) ways to cut squalor; this way, they would stand a chance of punishing the careless player.
The treatment of some buildings (or perhaps the rationalisation for it) might get a little complex: stone walls should still resist sieges better than wooden, but perhaps the arrows could be reduced (fewer people to man the towers); roads should still be as straight, but perhaps the trade bonus could go down (fewer inns and ostlers along the way); temples with fewer worshippers have ceremonies which are not so grand (or something); aqueducts and sewers leak; armourers can't get the wood; circuses can't get bums on seats; etc.
Cheers,
Pell.R.
In both STW and MTW, a player had the capability of out-maneuvering the AI on the Campaign Map with well thought-out chess-like movements of one's Stacks. In this way it was possible to take a Province W/O fighting a battle(s). This capability has been COMPLETELY lost in RTW. I don't recall, specifically, but there is a Sun Tzu quote that directly states the goal is to win a battle w/o actually fighting it.
Perhaps:
'To subdue the enemy's troops without fighting is the supreme excellence.'
or
'Generally the best policy is to attack the enemy's strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field, and the worst policy is to attack cities.'
Herakleitos
12-03-2004, 12:03
Make bribing harder! Doesn't do much good for the AI to have large stacks with Captains getting bribed/disbanded for piddly amounts. As Seleucids, I had 300K and was bribing hordes of Greek & Brutii full-stacks for 2-3K apiece (sometimes even less). Probably could have won with a token army or two to fight the AI Generals that weren't easily bribed. Have since established a "house rule" to keep from over-using bribery, but the option is always there. Fix this, THEN enhance the AI, and I think you've got something... :charge:
Swordsman
I totally agree... allthough I try to maintain the same "house rule", when my not-so-well defended edge of my empire is attacked by three full stacks at the same time and I have 300K in my pocket it is just to tempting to make them 'disappear in a puff of denarii' (Freely quoted from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy).
In S:TW and M:TW bribing armies was more expensive and there was no 100% guarantee they would accept the bribe. What if in R:TW there would be a chance that the army would accept the bribe and say: "Thank you very much, you're denarii went to my boss and I am still here... what are you going to do about it...?!"
I would say the most important thing to be patched is the suicidal generals. I am fairly certain that they will be addressing this in the soon to be released patch.
pyrocryo
12-04-2004, 15:29
1. The secondary attack should be fixed. To me, it's still alea jecta est-ing whether i already asked my cavalry to attack with swords or lance.
2. rank bonus should be brought back, especially for spear units.
3. As i recall, No Barbarian Horde ever attack in a single line over a long distance (I thought that's why romans win all the time ~:eek: )
4. The testudo button should be fixed. i lost many idiot legionaries who insists to holding his shield testudo like. . .When he is ten/twenty paces OUTSIDE the box.
5. Bring back the at-will/hold formation button. Guard seem useless.
6. PLEASEEEEE give at least a simple animation of sea fight. I don't care if we can do the tactics but at least i want to see WHY two decere get beaten by 6 biremes.
7. Fix the family names. As I recall there is NO family group in Rome with the cognomen Brutus or Scipio. Change it to other. Cornelii and Aurelii is quite famous families. The Marii or the Pompeii also quite famous. The guys should check the family names of Roman Noble families . As I recall except Gaius Julius Caesar, the Julii family have never been considered except as second-tier Patrician.
8. Add some more interesting campaign and campaign maps. Caesar's Gaul Campaign, the Social (Italian) War, the campaign against Mithridates of Pontus (BTW where's cappadocia and what's-the-other kingdoms? I thought they are separate from Pontus until Mithradates came up?), Punic Wars, German campaign, etc.
Hope they here this
anti_strunt
12-04-2004, 16:18
IMHO: First the AI, all parts of it; then the silly friendly fire...
I have a minor idea - to be annexed here instead of posting a new thread.
For some reason I feel RTW battlefield is not real enough - but I couldn't identify the reason. There are corpses lying everywhere already.
Now I suddenly realize it is the "blood". No corpse bleeds, they just lie down. How about bloods on the battlefield - a reasonable amount of blood stain on the corpse, also spilling to the nearby ground. Under very high unit details bloods are also spilled on warriors who achieve certain number of kills. If he killed 10 he would be soaked in dark red, not shiny heh.
So you really get the gross feeling of the battlefield ~:cheers:
The computer AI:
Campaign: Less small stackes, more big / high quality ones. I would much rather fight one big tough battle than 100 small meaningless ones.
The AI needs to be able to defend itself better somehow. Even on the highest difficulty its way to easy to outmanuver and slaughter armies 5 times the size of your own.
Battlemap
Pathfinding, this one really annoys me, especially in towns where theres a lot of narrow areas. Unis will stop in thier tracks (got a big army slaughtered today during a siege because none of my units were smart enough to walk through an open gate. Instead they all stoped up in a big group right in front of the open gateway.. just under that nice warm oil bath.), engage enemy units seemingly at random (just who would that unit of archers charge headling into a phalanx formation after thier general just told them to more around the phalanx formation?!)
I would love to see the units keep thier formation a lot better. I can understand a barbarian warband charging around with little order. But romes finest aught to more around in formation for the most part.
Movement speed, reduce the overall movement speed on the battle map. Futher reduce infantry run speed. Make battles more about choicing the right stragedy as opposed to having fast reflexes with the mouse.
General changes
Bribing really needs a reworking. It dosent take long before your income usually grow to a size where money matters little. Bring able to bribe great armies so easily is rather a problem. A possible fix might be to, rather then disband a bribed army its sent back to the nearest friendly city. That way you can still use money to buy you some time, but not kill off thousands of enemies.
Would be nice if sea battles was a bit more brutal / more losses on either side so you dont ahve to chase a single ship halfway across the world to sink it.
I would love to see fatigue, elevation and terrain have a greater effect.
I'd like to see a reduction of the moral bonus in a city square. Getting a solid bonus is ok, but currently it feels like its simply impossible for a defending unit to rout.
:help:
Red Harvest
12-05-2004, 18:46
5. Bring back the at-will/hold formation button. Guard seem useless.
I agree with that. First thing I do with every phalanx unit is to disable guard mode, wish that they didn't default to it. I have yet to find a use for guard mode. It is just an unwanted switch. RTW lost some depth here compared to MTW.
DisruptorX
12-05-2004, 20:59
Remove the Egyptians or make them look like they should, there is no excuse for the way they look. "Silly" would be an understatement.
No turning on a dime for chariots.
No Druids. This is NOT Warcraft 3.
Make every unit obey orders when you issue them the first time.
No dancing Phalanxes
SLOW DOWN THE GAME TO MTW LEVEL.
AI. No more zerg rush. Make them behave like actual generals.
No Suicide generals.
Fix Diplomacy.
Remove ALL fantasy units. Especially the Egyptian ones.
Fix the way that units move so that pursuing doesn't involve horses running
in front of the men they are supposedly "following".
Fix the way units get stuck in terrain and can't enter town squares. I have lost battles because my men refused to enter the town square. No excuse.
Allow spear walls with, you know, SPEARS.
And most importantly:
REMOVE the starcraft UI bar at the bottom of the screen. It takes up a third of the damn screen.
dedmoroz
12-05-2004, 23:31
Campaign AI - it is a joke right now with some major bugs. Game is unplayable right now. point.
ToranagaSama
12-06-2004, 21:56
I agree with that. First thing I do with every phalanx unit is to disable guard mode, wish that they didn't default to it. I have yet to find a use for guard mode. It is just an unwanted switch. RTW lost some depth here compared to MTW.
The Guard command works(, though I haven't a clue as to what's being "guarded"!!). It will keep your units from chasing enemey routers; and, if I recall correctly (haven't played in weeks!), units will hold position. Though the "hold position" part dosen't appear to be as effective as RTW's *Hold Position*. I tend to use it on the 3/4 units in the middle of my line.
---
To the poster that wanted blood on the battlefield, jfyi, there's a mod that attempts just that. Though, why you feel the need for it I can't fathom.
I'd prefer if the dead sprites(??) had more visual depth. They don't look like bodies lying about a field, but more like flat cardboard cutouts strewn about. Very unrealistic. STW's sprites were more effective in evoking post-battle carnage. I can recall in STW viewing the afterbattle with awe, not the same with RTW.
Yes, I do understand the need to manage system resources. To that I say gimme back my sprites! ~D
The Guard command works(, though I haven't a clue as to what's being "guarded"!!). It will keep your units from chasing enemey routers; and, if I recall correctly (haven't played in weeks!), units will hold position. Though the "hold position" part dosen't appear to be as effective as RTW's *Hold Position*. I tend to use it on the 3/4 units in the middle of my line.
The problem that many people have found is that on guard mode the phalanx unit does not properly "engage" the enemy unit that hits it. There often is no animation of spear/pike thrusts and the enemy unit takes no casulaties.
The Storyteller
12-07-2004, 09:38
7. Fix the family names. As I recall there is NO family group in Rome with the cognomen Brutus or Scipio. Change it to other. Cornelii and Aurelii is quite famous families. The Marii or the Pompeii also quite famous. The guys should check the family names of Roman Noble families . As I recall except Gaius Julius Caesar, the Julii family have never been considered except as second-tier Patrician.
I don't have any problems with the family names, but maybe I haven't played long enough. In my game as the Brutii, I keep getting names like "Vibius Brutus", which means that Vibius is the praenomen and Brutus is the nomen. The character either doesn't have a cognomen yet, or is simply not being addressed by it. There is no cognomen of Julius, either.
It was quite common for a Roman to be addressed by his cognomen and nomen alone. Thus, Gaius Julius Caesar was often called Gaius Julius.
In the case of Publius Cornelius Scipio, Publius is the praenomen, and Cornelius Scipio is the nomen. In other names like Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, Gnaeus is the praenomen, Pompeius is the nomen and Strabo is the cognomen.
The Julii always thought of themselves as being very aristocratic, as they were descended from the Gods themselves. Their fortunes were on the decline because of monetary issues, but they were revived with the marriage of one of their daughters to Gaius Marius.
ToranagaSama
12-07-2004, 16:16
[Old Reply I just got around to posting:]
At the moment the general policy is to exterminate the inhabitants of a city as soon as you take it.
General to whom? Not me!
I rarely exterminate, preferring to Occupy for precisely the reasons you imply---its harder!
For example, if a city gets up to 12,000 population it can grow to level 4; the level 4 barracks can build Triarii, the port has 3 trade routes and can build quinqueremes, and so forth. If you sack the city and take it down to 3,000 people, it should be treated as a level 2 city. It can therefore only build hastati and biremes, and has only one sea trade route, until the population rebuilds itself.
You could of course go halfway and enslave the city, taking it down to 6,000 people (level 3), but if you want the benefits of a nice income and production capacity you would need to suffer (or be prepared for) the problems of a newly conquered city with lots of angry people.
Very interesting.
The effect of this would be to make the strategic game rather more complex, and it would almost certainly slow the player's expansion down enormously (assuming he is a blitzer, like me). The AI tends to expand slower anyway, and so would not be hampered.
Couldn't the same effect be had, by simply refraining from the use of Extermination?
All in all some interesting thoughts.
---
Didz,
Thanks for the quotes, though neither is the one I was thinking of. I believe the gist of it was something along the lines of (paraphrasing), that actually fighting a battle was the greatest risk, and represented the failure of more clandestine efforts (including diplomacy, etc.); but, this one suffices quite adroitly!:
'To subdue the enemy's troops without fighting is the supreme excellence.'
My sincerest hope is that, now that they must be a bit flush with profits, and have what I presume to be stronger backing, they go back and re-visit the original planning document for Shogun. Using it as a guide along with modern tools and technology re-create Shogun evoking all the elements of Sun Tzu.
---
TS, finds it amazing the amounts of money some of you have at your disposal. Some things never change.
ToranagaSama
12-07-2004, 16:21
The problem that many people have found is that on guard mode the phalanx unit does not properly "engage" the enemy unit that hits it. There often is no animation of spear/pike thrusts and the enemy unit takes no casulaties.
Ah so! :bow:
Maybe one of these days I'll be motivated to push through the game and learn of, what!, even more issues. Something to look forward to....
I rarely exterminate, preferring to Occupy for precisely the reasons you imply---its harder!
Another thing the player can do is restrict himself to retraining only one unit at a time in a city, and require an empty recruiting queue to do it as well.
Herakleitos
12-08-2004, 14:59
There's one thing I'd like added to the diplomacy; when besieging a city there's no possibility of negociating. You should be able to go to the gate and say: 'Surrender now and we won't deflower your women and daughters, enslave the able bodied and massacre the remaining population!' ~D
ToranagaSama
12-08-2004, 15:39
Hmmm....don't know about all the deflowering and stuff, at first the idea seems a bit half-baked, but thinking about, you're right!
There s/b a "surrender" option. The likelihood of success might be tied to the ratio of the number of to the number of defenders; having a Spy or the number of Spies within the City; and, very importantly, how far or near another same faction City may be, how near/far a same faction Stack might be (meaning the likelihood that help is on the way); and, the general state of the besieged Faction within the City and without.
Enough negative factors for the besieger, and Surrender would be triggered.
Interesting.
---
Another thing the player can do is restrict himself to retraining only one unit at a time in a city, and require an empty recruiting queue to do it as well.
Don't know if I'm good enough for that yet! Hahaha.
Puzz, funny, just last night I started pursing Barocca's thread. All this RTW disappointment has given me strong hankering for some good ole SHOGUN.
Herakleitos
12-08-2004, 16:24
OK, let's skip the deflowering bit... ~;)
I agree with the underlying mechanics; if there is no hope that a siege can be lifted the people would be more inclined to surrender. It would be nice if you could negociate, something like this:
Diplomat: Surrender! :furious3:
City: No way!
Diplomat: Surrender and we will let you live...
City: Hmmm, OK... :embarassed:
The problem that many people have found is that on guard mode the phalanx unit does not properly "engage" the enemy unit that hits it. There often is no animation of spear/pike thrusts and the enemy unit takes no casulaties.
I use Guard mode all the time for my phalanx units and my victories are still lopsided. I don't see what the problem is. I rarely tell a phalanx unit to actively engage the enemy by clicking on the enemy unit. I usually put them in phalanx mode and tell them to move to a spot beyond the enemy unit. Once enough of their spears come into contact with the enemy I hit Stop to keep them from 'morphing' and walking around the enemy unit. Since they're in Guard mode their formation stays nice and neat while they poke away.
Pellinor
12-08-2004, 19:21
Couldn't the same effect be had, by simply refraining from the use of Extermination?
You're implying some degree of willpower ~:)
You're quite right, of course - you could easily replicate most of it by choosing what you do, but it's not quite the same.
Cheers,
Pell.R.
Mikeus Caesar
12-08-2004, 22:36
I would love to see fatigue, elevation and terrain have a greater effect.
I would like that too. On MTW, i found it incredibly cool, watching as my men chased after the slow moving enemies. Much better than on RTW. It was also realistic how your men would go slowly up hills when you charge to the enemy, so it would be difficult to attack if they were at the top of a hill and you the bottom.
Remove ALL fantasy units. Especially the Egyptian ones.
Could you please give me an example of fantasy units? The only ones i know of are the british head-hurlers.
Red Harvest
12-09-2004, 04:35
I use Guard mode all the time for my phalanx units and my victories are still lopsided. I don't see what the problem is. I rarely tell a phalanx unit to actively engage the enemy by clicking on the enemy unit. I usually put them in phalanx mode and tell them to move to a spot beyond the enemy unit.
That is the key. I did the same for quite awhile. The problem came when I routed a unit and tried to alter my attack by clicking on the next target (rather than ordering a "march through." The phalangites often just stood there doing nothing. Of course, if the AI charges you, this is not really a problem either.
DisruptorX
12-09-2004, 05:45
Could you please give me an example of fantasy units? The only ones i know of are the british head-hurlers.
Every last Egyptian unit is completely ridiculous, except the noobian spearmen, they are cool. Especially the axe-men who apparantly have had a stoneskin spell cast on them. If that isn't fantasy, I don't know what is.
The Roman ninjas.
The Druid unit? WTF?? Right, because druids got together in large units on the battlefield like that, sure, right, whatever you say.
Xena, Scythian Princess, complete with female Breastplate. Ok...its only 1/2 fantasy, but it's portrayed in a really silly manner.
my 2c
when sieging a city, your men attack the walls, when you order them down to fight in the streets - some of the men get stuck in various places on the walls so the remaining 90 % of the unit gets stuck against the wall and wont attack the enemy - Ive seen this heaps
and why is their replays for the custom battles and multiplayer and not for the campaign
and another vote for the AI
and yes more challenging goals for all the factions
it would be nice if countries kept alliances and it had a little button like civ3 "what would it take ..." to ally, to attack these guys, to become a protectorate... the AI could make some big gains from the player in this way
at the moment diplomacy is just a token distratction when im really bored - everyone at war with me - no surprise there - oh well roll over them all - hmmm that was too easy - no need for words when you can do that - back to the AI I guess
Herakleitos
12-19-2004, 22:23
IMO you should also be able to arrange the unit-cards in your armies and cities. Yes, I want this because I am a perfectionist control-freak, but it would sometimes be really helpful. Especially in the middle of a battle when you're looking for that unit of skirmishers (I rarely pause).
1) you sally forth to meet an ai army that is besieging you. you send one unit of yours towards him and lure him into the range of your gatehouse/towers and he sits there getting killed by the arrows from the gateshouse/towers one by one until he retreats. and his siege equipment isnt with him for some reason (even though he built it)
2) ai builds one ram, and one siege tower. he approaches the walls the ram gets burnt, while the siege tower reaches the wall. he then retreats.
when i was playing as parthians in one campaign the brutii would litterally do this EVERY SINGLE turn. im sitting there waiting for a good fight and he runs away!! very frustrating.
one thing that would be a nice addition would also be if sometimes the ai would defend the city center instead of the walls (this would make for some interesting fights) For example if the walls had been damaged a lot the ai would know the city center has less entrances than the walls do, and would accordingly adjust its defense strategy to blockades the entraces to it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.