View Full Version : I've had enough....
I have finally decided that RTW is, in fact, a crap game. Nice gfx engine but utterly lacking in gameplay, mainly due to an appalling AI and shoddy loose ends. Two examples today provided the last straw: The first was when my heir and his ten unit army attacked a single Velite unit. I autoresolved rather than fight such a pointless encounter. The enemy, understandably, ran away on the strat map. My heir got the "doubtful courage" trait as if he had run off! Shoddy, very shoddy. The second situation was just about the worse AI problem ever. I own two towns on Sicily, the Greeks own one. The Scipii, with which both my Carthagians and the Greeks are at war, have a large army (about 12 units, including two family members) on the island. It is the biggest army around. It landed outdie the Greek city of Syracuse and has stayed there for about ten years (ie twenty turns) and done nothing. To make matters worse, for the past few turns Syracuse has had no garrisson, No defenders at all, but still the AI makes no move for it! Pathetic.
I am uninstalling RTW until such time a patch or, more likely, a mod makes it worth playing. It is just a shame that it is too late to return it and get my money back.
the_rydster
12-06-2004, 16:54
I have just experienced some appaling AI problems with a friendly reinforcements army of mine.
I was attacked by two massive armies of Julii elite infantry. I set up my army of mostly decent infantry plus archers, between two woods and placed my sole roman cavelry unit plus two units of urban cohorts in the woods a little ahead so I could outflank when they attacked my main force.
Along comes my army of reinforcements. I think 'nice one' since those two Julii armies are dam large. The AI general then proceded to march two units of Auxili at full speed past my army and into the face of the enemy urban cohorts. Result is they rout in about 2 seconds. Meanwhile the rest of his infantry march past mine in a haphazzard fashion into the enemy front and pin down the enemy. I am not sure what to do know, I can see they are struggling so I have to move my troops and change plan, meanwhile my friendly AI infantry are starting to look like they are going to rout and the friendly AI general is hidding in the rear with two units of Pretorian cavelry doing nothing!
When the 2nd enemy army arrived, all was lost in that battle. The friendly AI seemed to be acting like I was not there and took no account of my position at all. I tried this again and the friendly AI always does the same thing. Basically I can not fight a defensive battle and have to time my charge at about the same time as my friendly AI general orders his. Now that would not be so bad if my friendly AI general attacked in force and maybe used his cavelry to outflank or something, but his infantry manuvers seem chaotic and it is only late on after my infantry have been virtually decimated that he orders his cavelry to attack. Also he (my AI general) got himself killed my charging a non routed unit of auxili who were in the enemy rear.
It took me three attempts to win that battle.
This is a great game no doubt but this AI think really bugs me. It would be better if you could perhaps order the friendly AI general to opt for some clear strategy like 'defend/hold' or 'charge', 'outflank with cavelry' or something.
chemchok
12-06-2004, 17:01
I'm just hoping the A.S. (artificial stupidity) in the battle and campaign map gets some loving from CA in the patch. Everything else can be modded to suit my playing style.
Empedocles
12-06-2004, 17:05
Rome total realism 4.1, better AI, not the same as a human, but really better.
Try VH/VH as Chartage and you will know.
Try to imagine that army got a non attack but remain hostile" kind of mission by the senate. Imagine the senate decided to force a pact with the greeks and yourself and they send an army to intimidate you.
Diego, from Argentina
PS: RTW is a great game!
chemchok
12-06-2004, 17:19
I heard that the AI build routines were broken by RTR. Besides, making the Senate give me difficult missions has nothing to do with how proficiently the AI is managing it's army on the map or on the field.
Doug-Thompson
12-06-2004, 17:40
I think the improvements to the strategy map had a cost, making things much more difficult for the AI.
I suppose it's easier to program an AI when it only has a choice of going to one province or another, or staying put. Having a much more "open" map with a bewildering number of options makes things more difficult.
Also, I don't believe that the "doubtful courage" trait given above was an error. I had something similar happen when I left a small force alone in favor of attacking a larger army. I got a "doubtful courage" vice despite winning a crushing victory against a larger army. I was annoyed at first, then realized that it did look like I was running away from the little force. Likewise, taking 10 units to attack one then having it get away isn't exactly an awe-imposing demonstration of valor or prowess.
The biggest problem by far mentioned by everybody is the "kamikaze reinforcements." It's ruined more games than anything, apparently.
chemchok
12-06-2004, 17:44
I think the improvements to the strategy map had a cost, making things much more difficult for the AI.
I suppose it's easier to program an AI when it only has a choice of going to one province or another, or staying put. Having a much more "open" map with a bewildering number of options makes things more difficult.
Bingo.
Red Harvest
12-06-2004, 18:20
The increased complexity of the 3D map should easily be compensated for by increasing the think time on the AI turns. Presently it is extremely short. If it took 10 times longer it wouldn't be obtrusive. Plus, the goal each time is still to control settlements ( = provinces) so the fundamental aspect is not that much more complex.
One aspect of the short AI think time seems to be the issuing of a single set of orders per army/agent each turn. Example: army attacks, fails to follow up. Army lands, fails to attack or besiege. Army lands, fails to merge. It is single ply AI.
The point is that I think CA has considerable room to improve the strategic AI without an unreasonable investment or without exceeding what the min. game spec. PC can comfortably handle.
There's a reason you tend to get doubtful courage when you autobattle, and it's obvious if you think of it as a little joke: though the trait resides on the family member who leads the troops, it's really a jab at the player, who lacks the courage to face the already shoddy AI in battle.
Mikeus Caesar
12-06-2004, 19:21
I hate the kamikaze AI problem. It's either one of your armies, made up of cavalry, charging into rows of enemy phalanxes, or it's the enemy AI standing at the walls of your town, getting mown down by the towers.
I think the improvements to the strategy map had a cost, making things much more difficult for the AI.
I suppose it's easier to program an AI when it only has a choice of going to one province or another, or staying put. Having a much more "open" map with a bewildering number of options makes things more difficult.
Uh, I recall Medieval's strategic AI making incredibly dumb decisions, for the most part it was much worse than RTW's. When playing MTW I lost count of how many times the AI declared war on a vastly superior enemy and refused to make peace even when its very existence was threatened. I also lost count of how many times it sent its faction leader and several stacks to take a far flung province of dubious value while leaving more valuable provinces (often those bording more dangerous opponents) poorly garrisoned if not completely undefended. The only thing Medieval's strategic AI had going for it was it unpredictability and its massed stack approach when attacking. With regard to the former I am referring to alliances which really didn't mean squat. If you turned your back on an ally in MTW it would eventually take advantage and swipe a poorly defended province.
Rome's strategic AI is definitely better than Medieval's. RTW's biggest and most immediate strategic AI problems are (as everyone has already pointed out) its penchance for not consolidating its armies and besieging settlements with an inadequate force, its obsession with building vast, uneccessary navies and its failure to consistently place family members in charge of large armies.
The increased complexity of the 3D map should easily be compensated for by increasing the think time on the AI turns. Presently it is extremely short. If it took 10 times longer it wouldn't be obtrusive. Plus, the goal each time is still to control settlements ( = provinces) so the fundamental aspect is not that much more complex.
One aspect of the short AI think time seems to be the issuing of a single set of orders per army/agent each turn. Example: army attacks, fails to follow up. Army lands, fails to attack or besiege. Army lands, fails to merge. It is single ply AI.
The point is that I think CA has considerable room to improve the strategic AI without an unreasonable investment or without exceeding what the min. game spec. PC can comfortably handle.
Hah, I was going to comment on this! Yes, well you would think that the AI should take longer to get through a turn but it's a lesser known fact that long wait times for AI turns are not looked favorably upon by publishers, even with companies that publish wargames, a genre with a decidedly niche market. Generally speaking long wait times and/or unusually high CPU requirements for the AI translates into impatient and/or frustrated gamers. Personally I would more than happy to wait a loooong time for the AI to make its moves if it translated into a more challenging game for yours truly. When I play a game on Hard I expect it to be hard, AI requirements be damned! Give the ADD RTS kiddies a faster AI on Normal difficulty, .
A view points in reply to various posts:
First the "doubtful courage" thing was preseeded, of course. So even when I moved the rest of my forces away and attacked with just the general's unit he still got the trait. If this is a "joke" as suggested above I believe it to be a very poor one when you consider the number of small rebel and faction stacks littering the map. I cannot be bothered to go through the tedious formality of slaughtering them all.
As for the strat AI. If you design a new, more open strat map then you tweak your AI routines to suit. It is easy to see, and logical, that CA just built on their old AI system. Just not enough to make it any good. Yes the AI was often stupid in MTW. Attacking with insufficient forces then legging it etc. Yes it would declare war when pathetically weak and would not accept peace terms. It wasn't great. However its performance on the battlefield was better (unless you used the hide-in-the-corner-with-loads-of-archers-behind-spears tactic) and you were actually worried when their troops in any numbers. Not in RTW, because it just does not happen.
In fact many of the problems identified in the previous games are still present in RTW. They have not been fixed, even when they had been patched in the older games. In fact the weakness of the AI is exacerbated by the greater variety of units. In STW it could handle the limited number of unit types quite sufficiently. In MTW it stumbled, being unable to deal with the new challenges provided. The same in RTW, but now it applies to the strat map too. Why? Because it had not ben taught (programmed) how to. It still cannot cope. It still fights the same in the battles. It still cannot handle diplomacy in any way shape or form.
I would go further than most and say that RTW is not a new game at all. It is STW in disguise. It is an old game with a new interface and new rules to which the AI as not been adapted. It may look like a brand new BMW but it is still the old Model T engine, so to speak. Little wonder that the new features do not work.
Strategic AI certainly has its limit. The more options there are, the higher the chance that there is something wrong -- bugged, or simply without the capicity to think this much.
I would like to think "AI opponent" as a special identity, separate from a human opponent. For a human opponent, we might think of "fairness", "logical reasoning", "mutual respect", "friendship", "ladders", etc. That can only happen to the theoretical ultimate AI which you can't distinguish AI from real human beings.
For an AI opponent, I recognize all their cheating abilities and stupidity, and try to figure out to maximize my advantage and defeat it in the ugliest way I can. If you don't like this opponent, then you can choose another one. I mean, yes, leave the game because it is not good for you. I have played several games that I had to swore in front of the monitor and hitting the table with my fist. I understand that kind of feeling. :furious3:
Jeanne d'arc
12-07-2004, 00:58
RTW is a great game, sure u stated some problems wich are sadly true but to quit and call it a crap game AND opening yet another "hate" thread in the forum for this once again shows your lack of respect to the makers of this game.
Know that theres modifications out that fix many problems and theres a patch underway like u stated.
Its not a hate thread. Its a disappointment thread. I offer CA no personal offence. I thoroughly enjoyed STW and MTW, and thank them for the experience. RTW is simply, IMO, a flawed game full of style but lacking in substance. It is full of good ideas which are badly implemented, problems that were identified in the earlier games (how many "beta" tests do you need?) and hamstrung by an AI which is at best no better than the pevious incarnations and at worst crippled by the new features. I cannot tell where that "extra year of development" went.
As for patches and mods, well! Previous TW games have had support in patches limited to technical fixes and bug fixes. I expect this game to be nothing different. I hope I am proved wrong, but with the usual time and monetary constraints on developers I doubt it. There may be a gameplay rebuild in the inevitable expansion pack, as there was in previous TW games but to what extent? With mods it all depends on the skill of the modders and what can actually be modded. I have tried various versions of RTR for example, but such mods are currently unable to change what really matters. They just paper over the cracks with varying success. I hope one of them succeeds but I wonder whether it is possible for a mere mod to improve the actual AI? Probably not.
PS
I don't see very many hate threads here. Perhaps you are thinking of .com?
I think Slyspy is being a bit harsh, but I've noticed I have pretty much quit playing the game as well. A combination of a poor AI, several relatively minor gameplay issues and the unrealalistic/silly units have hurt the replayability of the game. I think my disappointment is more a result of overly high expectations rather than the game being a bust out. I'm sure with a patch and a couple of more refined mods I be back playing Rome.
When playing against the Gauls they brought in 3 to 5 unit armies, in another game at the same point against the Egyptians and Pontus they are fielding 20 unit strike forces of mixed units.
mfberg
I think one of the problems is starting as thr Romans, who (too experienced TW'ers anyway) are relatively easy to win with through their troop combination and monetary resources. If you had played the first game as say carthage, it might have introduced the game in a different way.
ToranagaSama
12-07-2004, 22:40
Its not a hate thread. Its a disappointment thread. I offer CA no personal offence. I thoroughly enjoyed STW and MTW, and thank them for the experience. RTW is simply, IMO, a flawed game full of style but lacking in substance. It is full of good ideas which are badly implemented, problems that were identified in the earlier games (how many "beta" tests do you need?) and hamstrung by an AI which is at best no better than the pevious incarnations and at worst crippled by the new features. I cannot tell where that "extra year of development" went.
As for patches and mods, well! Previous TW games have had support in patches limited to technical fixes and bug fixes. I expect this game to be nothing different. I hope I am proved wrong, but with the usual time and monetary constraints on developers I doubt it. There may be a gameplay rebuild in the inevitable expansion pack, as there was in previous TW games but to what extent? With mods it all depends on the skill of the modders and what can actually be modded. I have tried various versions of RTR for example, but such mods are currently unable to change what really matters. They just paper over the cracks with varying success. I hope one of them succeeds but I wonder whether it is possible for a mere mod to improve the actual AI? Probably not.
I second the above, in its entirety.
PS
I don't see very many hate threads here. Perhaps you are thinking of .com?
What's a "hate thread"? :dizzy2:
To be honest I first found RTW very tedious - tons of rebels and tons of army movement. ARGH! I can't imagine I would finish a long campaign.
Then probably I get numbed by the boredom, and started to find some interesting insights. Here are things that I did to make things more fun:
(1) Try different units - at least something new
My first long campaign was Brutii. At the end I felt so bored because all I use is hastati/principe and equite... But my 2nd Roman long campaign as the Julii is more fun, because I used a lot of enslavement to beef my pop. to Marius reform. This way I can try a large number of different units mixed up with my now-obselete veterans. It doesn't feel the same anymore. I love archer auxilia. ~D
(2) Try different factions
Most factions have a distinct taste in it. I have played through about 70-80% of all of the factions (including rebels) and they all offer pretty distinct experiences.
(3) Try different unit sizes
I switched from normal to large, then to huge. It is like having a different battle engine in huge. (can't flank that easily anymore)
(4) Try... new tactics and... exploits ~D
Just try to defeat the AI with some novel idea. I might get bored if the game is made too easily with the exploits - time to find more exploits. ~;)
I second the above, in its entirety.
What's a "hate thread"? :dizzy2:
If I qualify this game by 'entertainment dollars spent', its been a great deal for me so far.
Most folks in the entertainment biz rate it as 'dollars per hour'. A movie (in the US) costs 8-10 dollars for 2 or so hours. So call it 4.50 per hour. At that rate if I can get 10 hours of play out of a 45 dollar game, its a reasonable deal. I've spent more like 100 hours or more on RTW (so far), and will probably spend a good deal more time before I'm done with it.
That makes RTW a fantastic deal to me, even with a less than stellar AI. Could it be better? Certainly! Not a single game I've played couldn't have been better. NOT ONE. The issue is, was it fun for the time spent? If not.. you misspent your $$. For me, I'm happy as a clam.
And yes, this is a hate thread. If you have something negative about this game to say, why not send it directly to CA? These boards are about (at least from my perspective) trading info on how to play the game better, get info about mods, clarify stats, etc. Not complaining about how bad the game is. I just clutters the boards with stuff that does the rest of the happy community no good.
I for one am beginning to get a tad miffed at all the whining. Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good).
chemchok
12-07-2004, 23:27
To whine about the game or to whine about the whiners - that is the question. :bow:
To whine about the game or to whine about the whiners - that is the question. :bow:
Ha! Touche!
I'm all about constructive action. I've expressed my sorrow on these boards many times for folks that feel like their money was misspent. And I've done my fair share of whining.. but always directed at those responsible.. never in an open forum like this.
I also seem to remember a 'bug thread' at totalwar.com that is a perfect place for comments about improvements to RTW.
Constructive action makes the world better. Knowing which battles to fight and which ones not to fight leaves energy for the important battles.
Learning both these things took me a while (I'm in my mid-40s).
Just my two cents/pennies/pfennigs/francs/etc.
Rome total realism 4.1, better AI, not the same as a human, but really better.
Try VH/VH as Chartage and you will know.
I was thinking the same thing when I read chemchok's post while nodding in agreement. It is better and I still can't believe I lost a battle on medium with it.
Venting, bitch'n, hate, call it what you will. At least here members do such posting with style and with a sense of maturity. For instance, I can't say I didn't enjoy reading this thread, from beginning to end. It was a good 10 minutes. Now if you wanna see some real insanity, allow me to present a link to the .com. Some threads there are just abominations of insta-flamers. Not good reading.
Those who frequent this board (especially the Tavern) may know that I am not prone to unthinking rage. They will also know that I am not an angry teenager prone to throwing my toys out of the pram. This thread represents my opinion which may, of course, not be yours. Although quite clearly there is a good number who share that opinion to some extent.
I have already made it quite clear that I have, in the past, thoroughly enjoyed CA's work and that it is what I see as wasted potential that makes me criticise RTW. There are few games I have uninstalled so early. I wanted to enjoy it, I really did, but I cannot. I don't especially care about the cash I spent on it (that was just to demostrate my irritation) I just feel bitterly disappointed that a developer with such a pedigree could produce an unfinished product like RTW. All this is opinon of course.
Give me an email address and I will send a message to CA explaining my issues with the game. I doubt very much that it will do any good. Anyone who works in a corporate environment can tell you want happens to customer complaints that do not hint at impending lawsuits! I could post on the offical forums but they are, frankly, a chaotic mess and any sensible criticism is likely to by drowned out by "RTW rox" or "RTW sux". So I post here, were it may be read by intelligent forumites and may the developers as well.
I've tired to stay away from these bitch threads, as most of what you guys are always going on about I've either never experienced or don't bother me at all. Now I feel I need to say something.
Mainly that I can see a lot and I mean a lot of paralells between the grips against RTW and the grips against CNC generals. They being silly units, lack of polish, WTF were they thinking, stupid AI, I wasted my money on this piece of shit. Both of these games took a venerable game series to full 3D. Both had some serious and minor flaws. Both eliseted an ass-load of un-rest controversy from the hardcore fan base.
But where CNC fans choose to blame EA, TW fans have chosen to blame CA. There are good reasons for this, if Activision had bought out and dismembered CA halfway threw RTW development then you would probably blame Activision too.
You should also consider that for a short time in 2000 STW, MTW, and RTW were all being worked on by CA at the same time. The president of CA having said in an G4techTV interview that they began working on MTW and RTW "as soon as shogun was out the door". The obvious reaction to this is how could these bugs have slipped threw with 4 years to catch them. The most likely answer is that it is an odd happenstance of sub-routine interactions in the games code. In other words 2 exact same bugs from the 2 previous games showing up in RTW are the result of creating a new engine from scratch. Your next cavat well why didn't the beta testers catch it. Because the beta tester may have thought it was supposed to be that way (based on their beta testing experience with STW and MTW), or they had never played a TW before. Also it's worth noting that beta testers are employed and selected by the publishers not developers.
DisruptorX
12-08-2004, 06:37
I have already made it quite clear that I have, in the past, thoroughly enjoyed CA's work and that it is what I see as wasted potential that makes me criticise RTW. There are few games I have uninstalled so early. I wanted to enjoy it, I really did, but I cannot. I don't especially care about the cash I spent on it (that was just to demostrate my irritation) I just feel bitterly disappointed that a developer with such a pedigree could produce an unfinished product like RTW. All this is opinon of course.
.
Those are my thoughts exactly
chemchok
12-08-2004, 07:55
Well, I'm sorry I called the AI artificially stupid, I had no intentions of hurting the AI's feelings, or any of the AI's friends. I will do my best to make it up to "it" by gifting it some large monetary sums and several provinces in my current game.
~:grouphug:
My apology to the AI aside, I haven't played RTR yet, but if Gaius has been so successful at tweaking the AI, then I'd imagine that the CA team will be able to produce some changes in the upcoming patch.
Also, let it be known I'm a fan of RTW, I'm a fan of other games that are so horribly buggy and unsupported by publishers that they make RTW's initial release look like some [insert your own vision of a pristine wilderness panorama]. That's right The Temple of Elemental Evil - I'm thinking about you right now. Just because I'm critical of some aspects of the game does not mean I'm trashing CA or RTW, nor should I have to display my dissaproval through some hidden, back-channel communication lines.
This forum is about RTW, if a thread can exist where members can discuss what their favorite beverage is while playing the game, then its members should be allowed to discuss the shortcomings of the game - especially when a large modding community exists here.
Anyway, cheers everyone.
~:cheers:
Rome is a great game but like so many great things it is flawed. Many issues need to be addressed, the AI especially, and the diplomacy, the way factions have small armies and HUGE navies, the list could go on for ages... But i think many of these will be fixed/changed in the upcoming patches and before we damn Rome to the depths of the inferno we must think that it took CA a lot of effort to make a great game, so lets give them some time and space to fix some of the problems accoiated with it, instead of endlessly critising them. :bow:
ToranagaSama
12-08-2004, 14:47
I for one am beginning to get a tad miffed at all the whining. Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good).
First of all, WHO ARE YOU??? I don't care how "miffed" you get. Who are you to tell me to "take it somewhere" else???
Who are you freaking ignorant newbies?? I can't take this S anymore.
Let me explain a few things for YOU and all the others:
1) This is the Org.
Is is not the .com site, and it is NOT like any other game forum. This sort of thing s/h been comprehended to you in the Entrance Hall, but apparently not.
2) This is the First and TRUE TW fan site.
This does not mean that it is a *Fanboy* site. It is NOT!
3) The way we do things around here is, we discect the game down to its elements. We discuss and critique to our hearts content. We offer constructive critism and feedback to the Developers. The Developers read this forum. The Developers communicate with this forum.
We [I]agitate[/l] for change. Change does occur.
THIS is where we communicate with CA.
4) We communicate with and help each other.
5) We are polite and mature, but sometimes things get outta hand. Like now!
Excuse me, but WHAT have YOU contributed to this forum to make such ignorant comments, as to tell anyone to " Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good)".
6) The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org.
---
Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place. :furious3:
"Attention Must be Paid!"
Willy Loman
Death of a Salesmen by Arthur Miller
Paul Peru
12-08-2004, 14:54
long wait times for AI turns are not looked favorably upon by publishers, even with companies that publish wargames, a genre with a decidedly niche market. Generally speaking long wait times and/or unusually high CPU requirements for the AI translates into impatient and/or frustrated gamers. Personally I would more than happy to wait a loooong time for the AI to make its moves if it translated into a more challenging game for yours truly. When I play a game on Hard I expect it to be hard, AI requirements be damned! Give the ADD RTS kiddies a faster AI on Normal difficulty, .
Agree! Giving the AI more time on harder settings should be palatable even to Activision. Failing that, they could add an extra checkbox saying "I'm really patient and have an Athlon64".
When playing against the Gauls they brought in 3 to 5 unit armies, in another game at the same point against the Egyptians and Pontus they are fielding 20 unit strike forces of mixed units.
mfberg
Hmmm... Perhaps I've misunderestimated :dizzy2: the AI in this respect as well. I know I have done so in the diplomacy department (at least according to the diplomacy guide). Do you think the AI is just roleplaying? Barbarian factions should be disorganized, with roving bands and unescorted leaders. Civilized factions know how to field an army. Pausing to think about it, I have had the same experiences. It would be great if CA would respond to some of the potentially unfounded accusations, rather than just sitting there suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous accents.
First of all, WHO ARE YOU??? I don't care how "miffed" you get. Who are you to tell me to "take it somewhere" else???
Who are you freaking ignorant newbies?? I can't take this S anymore.
Let me explain a few things for YOU and all the others:
1) This is the Org.
Is is not the .com site, and it is NOT like any other game forum. This sort of thing s/h been comprehended to you in the Entrance Hall, but apparently not.
2) This is the First and TRUE TW fan site.
This does not mean that it is a *Fanboy* site. It is NOT!
3) The way we do things around here is, we discect the game down to its elements. We discuss and critique to our hearts content. We offer constructive critism and feedback to the Developers. The Developers read this forum. The Developers communicate with this forum.
We [I]agitate[/l] for change. Change does occur.
THIS is where we communicate with CA.
4) We communicate with and help each other.
5) We are polite and mature, but sometimes things get outta hand. Like now!
Excuse me, but WHAT have YOU contributed to this forum to make such ignorant comments, as to tell anyone to " Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good)".
6) The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org.
---
Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place. :furious3:
"Attention Must be Paid!"
Willy Loman
Death of a Salesmen by Arthur Miller
Interesting attitude.
First.. What has been said in this thread has been said a lot on these forums for the last 2 months. I've read nothing new here. If there was something new, I wouldn't feel like I'd wasted my time reading this thread, but there ISN'T. THAT is why I'm miffed. Again, and honestly, I'm sorry you feel that RTW is so bad. That said.. its just a game.. show a little perspective.
Unblinking conformance is a totalitarian ideal. Am I to understand that I am to blindly conform? Or am I free to express my opinion just as you are (I'm pretty sure its choice #2 dude). You are not more or less important than me. To attempt to insult me by calling me a 'newbie' or other such labels insults both my intelligence and my age. I suppose it is the state of things in the world today that rudeness passes for logic, but frankly I'm saddened by it.
In all this time I've made one negative comment about how folks are grousing, and I get the royal treatment by you. ONE. Does this seem just?
Insult me if you must, but don't expect to muzzle me with anger or insults. That simply will not happen.
Hey dudes:
I really don't think there is a need to get angry towards particular types of players's opinions - this is not a place to decide our nation's policy that will restrict your freedom of speech for the rest of your life. I don't think any software developer will even look into all the flame threads of their game forums because it is too time consuming and not worthwhile. There are 100 different kinds of players, all with their individual wishes. Some are directly opposite of each other. Software developers just want to fix bugs that are summarized in nice threads, not to fulfill everybody's wishes like Heaven.
All opinions here they also reflect part of the market that software companies are targeting on. You might think some opinions are rubbish, but we value different things differently. Also I must say some wishes are too hard to fulfill.
I was once a new user of the ORG (look at my registration date). Being a newbie or veteran doesn't mean opinions should be valued differently. There are certainly still a lot of elements that makes RTW fun - so if possible, shall we share it around so everybody can have fun?
Mikeus Caesar
12-08-2004, 22:21
Also it's worth noting that beta testers are employed and selected by the publishers not developers.
The amount of bugs that have slipped through the net, you'd think that AV picked a few people off the street and told them to play it. The people they picked where prolly not the most observant people in the world....after all, who would not notice all the bugs? And as for the AI building huge navies, instead of armies, that is just stupid. The only thing navies are good for are for getting to islands. And some of the places that the AI build navies are just stupid. Like the Parthians making huge navies in the caspian sea.
Hey dudes:
I really don't think there is a need to get angry towards particular types of players's opinions - this is not a place to decide our nation's policy that will restrict your freedom of speech for the rest of your life. I don't think any software developer will even look into all the flame threads of their game forums because it is too time consuming and not worthwhile. There are 100 different kinds of players, all with their individual wishes. Some are directly opposite of each other. Software developers just want to fix bugs that are summarized in nice threads, not to fulfill everybody's wishes like Heaven.
All opinions here they also reflect part of the market that software companies are targeting on. You might think some opinions are rubbish, but we value different things differently. Also I must say some wishes are too hard to fulfill.
I was once a new user of the ORG (look at my registration date). Being a newbie or veteran doesn't mean opinions should be valued differently. There are certainly still a lot of elements that makes RTW fun - so if possible, shall we share it around so everybody can have fun?
Believe it or not, I actually think a lot of what Toranaga says about the game is true. And if its affecting the fun factor for him, then I feel doubly sorry. But at this point, its rehashing the same stuff. CA knows (I'm sure) our opinion. I've seen the same issues echoed on the bug thread at totalwar.com as are discussed in this particular thread. So if CA is gonna hear it, its in a nice obvious place. If CA isn't, then 'oh well'. I hope that CA listens also, but am realistic about the chances of 90% of the ideas ever seeing the light of day (as in NOT).
I harbor no grudges or ill-will against Toranaga at all. He has a right to his opinion. I support every member's right to express themselves as they see fit. That doesn't mean I'll like all those opinions or support them. But they have the right to say them.
I do think some folks need to get some perspective. That is my point. There comes a point when you've done all that you can do, and then its waiting to see what happens. We are at least a month past that on these forums (at least IMO). That is the source of my comments and I stand by them. If Toranaga disagrees, I'm fine with him making those statements (although I don't agree and will make my disagreement known! :) ).
Patricius
12-09-2004, 01:24
Interesting attitude.
First.. What has been said in this thread has been said a lot on these forums for the last 2 months. I've read nothing new here. If there was something new, I wouldn't feel like I'd wasted my time reading this thread, but there ISN'T. THAT is why I'm miffed. Again, and honestly, I'm sorry you feel that RTW is so bad. That said.. its just a game.. show a little perspective.
Unblinking conformance is a totalitarian ideal. Am I to understand that I am to blindly conform? Or am I free to express my opinion just as you are (I'm pretty sure its choice #2 dude). You are not more or less important than me. To attempt to insult me by calling me a 'newbie' or other such labels insults both my intelligence and my age. I suppose it is the state of things in the world today that rudeness passes for logic, but frankly I'm saddened by it.
In all this time I've made one negative comment about how folks are grousing, and I get the royal treatment by you. ONE. Does this seem just?
Insult me if you must, but don't expect to muzzle me with anger or insults. That simply will not happen.
I agree with that. Further to that, 1000 posts more and an attitude does not give someone more insight or perspective. Between a few forums where I post under different names on matters TW related I could possibly triple that. Others could septuple that easily. There are many ways in which this game has fallen short and even a few things battle-wise that STW/MI or MTW/VI did far better. But in the context of the competition and even for itself it is a masterpiece. Doggies etc. can be eliminated in ten minutes of text editing. There are some wonderful mods. Overall, the failings seem so minute in the overall context that only people who lose perspective entirely
could hate this game. And obviously too if the genre was of no interest. .com has too many throwaway threads (why is there no newbie forum?), but of the fan(atic)'s comical yet pathetic arrogance, there are not too many instances. CA should keep a closer watch on the .com.
There is probably no point making comparisons. Some earlier poster did not get his coffee.
edit: My membership is as old as ToranagaSama's. I do not always login here and rarely post. I prefer .com and find that apart from certain failing like the lack of a newbie forum it every bit as good as this forum. It plays its own complementary role. Reading and thinking might have benefitted him a little bit more.
I agree with that. Further to that, 1000 posts more and an attitude does not give someone more insight or perspective. Between a few forums where I post under different names on matters TW related I could possibly triple that. Others could septuple that easily. There are many ways in which this game has fallen short and even a few things battle-wise that STW/MI or MTW/VI did far better. But in the context of the competition and even for itself it is a masterpiece. Doggies etc. can be eliminated in ten minutes of text editing. There are some wonderful mods. Overall, the failings seem so minute in the overall context that only people who lose perspective entirely
could hate this game. And obviously too if the genre was of no interest. .com has too many throwaway threads (why is there no newbie forum?), but of the fan(atic)'s comical yet pathetic arrogance, there are not too many instances. CA should keep a closer watch on the .com.
There is probably no point making comparisons. Some earlier poster did not get his coffee.
edit: My membership is as old as ToranagaSama's. I do not always login here and rarely post. I prefer .com and find that apart from certain failing like the lack of a newbie forum it every bit as good as this forum. It plays its own complementary role. Reading and thinking might have benefitted him a little bit more.
I'm chalking it up to a bad day. Not like I haven't had bad days in the past.
The Storyteller
12-09-2004, 03:51
First of all, WHO ARE YOU??? I don't care how "miffed" you get. Who are you to tell me to "take it somewhere" else???
Who are you freaking ignorant newbies?? I can't take this S anymore.
...
Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place. :furious3:
...
5) We are polite and mature
*chuckle*
DisruptorX
12-09-2004, 04:32
Hah, I was going to comment on this! Yes, well you would think that the AI should take longer to get through a turn but it's a lesser known fact that long wait times for AI turns are not looked favorably upon by publishers, even with companies that publish wargames, a genre with a decidedly niche market. Generally speaking long wait times and/or unusually high CPU requirements for the AI translates into impatient and/or frustrated gamers. Personally I would more than happy to wait a loooong time for the AI to make its moves if it translated into a more challenging game for yours truly. When I play a game on Hard I expect it to be hard, AI requirements be damned! Give the ADD RTS kiddies a faster AI on Normal difficulty, .
I say tell the ADD RTS kiddies that they are in the wrong game and kindly point them in the direction of www.battle.net.
And by the way, RTS kiddies are not all youngsters. I played Civ 2 when I was in 5th grade and loved it. Age is *not* an excuse for lack of taste and/or intellegence.
I say tell the ADD RTS kiddies that they are in the wrong game and kindly point them in the direction of www.battle.net.
And by the way, RTS kiddies are not all youngsters. I played Civ 2 when I was in 5th grade and loved it. Age is *not* an excuse for lack of taste and/or intellegence.
LOL
Nice. I like STW, MTW, RTW, Combat Mission, Civ 2/3, Age of Empires 2, CnC Generals, Starcraft, and many other more 'twitch oriented' RTSs. I'm 46 (so definitely not a kiddie, although definitely young at heart).
The TW games and more turn oriented fare are like fine wines, or maybe champaign. Definitely refined. The RTSs are more like beer. Some are fine lagers, others are evil little pilsners. But many appeal to my wide range of tastes.
There is a time for beer, and a time for wine.
Oh.. and I'm a programmer by trade (21+ years). If I knew how to amend the AIs for MTW/STW/RTW, I'd be all over it like a cheap suit. I totally agree with the comment about 'waiting for the turn to be done' on the campaign map.
DisruptorX
12-09-2004, 05:25
LOL
Nice. I like STW, MTW, RTW, Combat Mission, Civ 2/3, Age of Empires 2, CnC Generals, Starcraft, and many other more 'twitch oriented' RTSs. I'm 46 (so definitely not a kiddie, although definitely young at heart).
The TW games and more turn oriented fare are like fine wines, or maybe champaign. Definitely refined. The RTSs are more like beer. Some are fine lagers, others are evil little pilsners. But many appeal to my wide range of tastes.
There is a time for beer, and a time for wine.
Oh.. and I'm a programmer by trade (21+ years). If I knew how to amend the AIs for MTW/STW/RTW, I'd be all over it like a cheap suit. I totally agree with the comment about 'waiting for the turn to be done' on the campaign map.
I wasn't implying that there is something wrong with Blizzard's games. I was simply saying that there are plenty of games coming out all the time that are fast paced, but almost none that are more hardcore. I liked Warcraft III alot, in fact, I like it a whole lot better than Rome: Total War, because warcraft III didn't stray from the spirit of its predecessors.
Every feature they added to make RTW more generic pains me, especially "the bar", what's great about the total war series was that it wasn't like anything else. The part about "bad taste" was referring to anyone who thinks that the changes in RTW, aside from graphics, are good. ~;)
I wasn't implying that there is something wrong with Blizzard's games. I was simply saying that there are plenty of games coming out all the time that are fast paced, but almost none that are more hardcore. I liked Warcraft III alot, in fact, I like it a whole lot better than Rome: Total War, because warcraft III didn't stray from the spirit of its predecessors.
Every feature they added to make RTW more generic pains me, especially "the bar", what's great about the total war series was that it wasn't like anything else. The part about "bad taste" was referring to anyone who thinks that the changes in RTW, aside from graphics, are good. ~;)
No worries. I didn't think you were. :) My 'LOL/Nice' where meant to imply I thought your comments were funny!
I tend to agree. My take is that the hardcore gamer is seeing more tough times lately. Most game developers and game publishers have woken up to the fact that there is a really large casual audience out there.. and that 5-10 million x $20 is a lot of money for one game. And who amongst us would choose not to be rich if it seemed clear that going down a certain path would get us there?
I read a comment by Chris Roberts (Gas Powered Games/Dungeon Siege) that stated that all the detractors who didn't think Dungeon Siege was as good as Diablo 2 were only the 'hardcore crowd', and that GPG was making games for mom and pop to sit down and have a good time.. something that doesn't require lots of reading and thinking to play and have a good time at.
I personally like both game types immensely, but I'm also detecting that it will be the rare game indeed that will appeal to my need for 'more work' and 'more substance' in a game.
I think we 'hardcore' types are on the outs with major publishers right now. A few games will come down the pike for us, but only a few.
I DO believe that this will change in the coming years. Film used to be a very simple medium, but it is not anymore. Games will be the same as they find a wider audience. Just wait.
We've come out of gaming's 'experimental period', and entered its 'early period' (I think the early period started 5-6 years ago.. 1995 at the very earliest).... The mature period will hopefully follow in the next 10-15 years (or earlier hopefully..). These may not be comforting words to the hardcore gamers in the crowd (me included!!!!), but I think they reflect reality. And note this does not follow the movie timeline. If you start in the 20s with talkies, it took until the 60s or 70s until movies truly hit a mature stage. I'm hoping that a media savvy american public will become more jaded with the simpler forms of interactive entertainment quicker. Which will lead to more diversity in games a much happier hardcore community!
Herodotus
12-09-2004, 08:08
"Hah, I was going to comment on this! Yes, well you would think that the AI should take longer to get through a turn but it's a lesser known fact that long wait times for AI turns are not looked favorably upon by publishers, even with companies that publish wargames, a genre with a decidedly niche market. Generally speaking long wait times and/or unusually high CPU requirements for the AI translates into impatient and/or frustrated gamers. Personally I would more than happy to wait a loooong time for the AI to make its moves if it translated into a more challenging game for yours truly. When I play a game on Hard I expect it to be hard, AI requirements be damned! Give the ADD RTS kiddies a faster AI on Normal difficulty, ."
Here here! Like Chess the real measure of the game is in its AI.
CA I HOPE YOU HAVE LEARNT A LESSON, STOP APPEALING TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR!
An explanation of the failure of RTW to recapture the success of the eariler games is that they may have aimed to high. Often I find that games that try to be advanced and detailed end up feeling too simple. A complex game needs to extremely complex to satisfy me. We were promised an even better TW experience and yet RTW feels simpler than MTW in many ways.
Also they should have listened to me and implemented some features from 'Centurion Defender of Rome' (an old classic pc game). Features like Gladiatorial combat and Chariot races would have broken up the monotony of gameplay.
Gladiator fights potentially improved happiness (depending on how entertaining you were) while at the Chariots you could gamble on yourself to win.
SpencerH
12-09-2004, 16:05
I sincerely doubt that we will ever have AI that will appeal to the 'hardcore' strat gamer. It hasnt happened with the CIV series in terms of the 'strategy portion' of the game (their area of expertise IMO), and it hasnt happened with the TW series in terms of the 'tactical portion' of the game (likewise their area of expertise).
The answer is to forego AI altogether.
"The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org."
Anyone else find this statement a bit, well, scary...
"Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place. :furious3:"
I'm relatively new, too. Sorry to get in the way. Personally, I thought both the original posters comments were fair, and I thought TheDuck's were also emminently fair and eloquently expressed. Maybe I've missed something about only being allowed opinions once you've made a certain number of posts, maybe there's something that wasn't, erm, "comprehended" to me...
Conform to what exactly? As long as a post abides by the rules laid out when signing up (and I dont see anything in the Ducks post that doesnt) I dont see the problem.
The opinions of those new to these forums are as valid as those who have been here since STW; what they may lack in experience, they add in not having their vision clouded by (romanticized) memories of 'how it used to be'.
As for the disappointment of RTW: Ever since waiting for Master of Orion 3 to be released for what seemed like decades and then playing the 'finished' product, it has been damn near impossible to disappoint me.
That said, RTW really would benefit greatly from a major AI overhaul....
The answer is to forego AI altogether.
It’s all a matter of resource allocating. At some point in development a decision is made as to what parts get what of a limited and budgeted resource. There have been games that have exhibited a form of AI that could make any hardcore smile joyfully. I can name two titles off the top of my head, and both developed cult-like followings, but were never big box-office successes. Giving the AI the biggest cut of the pie does not make sales. Those of us that would drool over an AI that could bitch slap us without the obvious stat-jack cheats or “resources for AI +400%” are a relatively small crowd. My impression of today’s gamers is a person that wants a very short learning curve, little thought for lots of fun, and graphics that make him/her go “ooooh, aaaahhhh”. Or if you would prefer we are seeing the “Wal-mart-ization” of games.
EDIT: Just wanted to add, Civilization was not one of my picks.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-09-2004, 17:21
Maybe I've missed something about only being allowed opinions once you've made a certain number of posts, maybe there's something that wasn't, erm, "comprehended" to me...
I think you just met an interesting Org... character... ~;)
Nothing to be really worried about, it's rather usual, eventually we all get used to it. I got to say it's kind of surprising the first time ~D
Be sure other patrons will read... or "comprehend" your posts with a bit more... patience ~D
Louis,
Mikeus Caesar
12-09-2004, 17:41
Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place.
1) Do not use the term newbie, as it is a stupid and over-used erm.
2) At one point you were also a 'newbie pissin all over the place', so shut your yap and stay on the subject of this topic.
Giving the AI the biggest cut of the pie does not make sales. Those of us that would drool over an AI that could bitch slap us without the obvious stat-jack cheats or “resources for AI +400%” are a relatively small crowd. My impression of today’s gamers is a person that wants a very short learning curve, little thought for lots of fun, and graphics that make him/her go “ooooh, aaaahhhh”. Or if you would prefer we are seeing the “Wal-mart-ization” of games.
Yuck, walmart. Personally, i think that game makers of today should be doing what their predecessors did, and make a game how they like because they think it's cool, instead of making something that's 99% looks and graphics and 1% gaming strategy.
I agree, i have been gaming since the c64 (does that make me a newbie to gaming cos i only registered here this month? ~:eek: ) and I have to say, try playing a few old megadrive games for example.. some of them are terrible, but are few are still fun to play because they have that strange thing called 'gameplay'. What one person finds fun and interesting differs froma nother, some like quick easy battles that last 30 seconds, others want to spend 4 hrs waiting for the next 4 units of peasants to appear. Each to their own, it doesn't make their opinion less valuable, just different.
~:grouphug:
Mikeus Caesar
12-09-2004, 18:16
agree, i have been gaming since the c64
I've been playing games since i was 6, so i've spent the last 8 years in perpetual bliss.
but are few are still fun to play because they have that strange thing called 'gameplay'
I have to agree with you. I was playing theme park world for ps1 recently, and i realised how damn good it was and still is. Heck, i've had it since i was 9, and i only just found out how to do loop-de-loops on roller-coasters. Now if all games could last that long, then i would be happy.
C64? Noob! I had a Vic=20...
(Mum and dad bought the Vic 20 about a week before the C64 came out. Cheers mum and dad :o. )
Mikeus Caesar
12-09-2004, 18:19
sorry to sound like a little kid, but what's a Vic 20?
SpencerH
12-09-2004, 18:49
It’s all a matter of resource allocating. At some point in development a decision is made as to what parts get what of a limited and budgeted resource. There have been games that have exhibited a form of AI that could make any hardcore smile joyfully. I can name two titles off the top of my head, and both developed cult-like followings, but were never big box-office successes. Giving the AI the biggest cut of the pie does not make sales. Those of us that would drool over an AI that could bitch slap us without the obvious stat-jack cheats or “resources for AI +400%” are a relatively small crowd. My impression of today’s gamers is a person that wants a very short learning curve, little thought for lots of fun, and graphics that make him/her go “ooooh, aaaahhhh”. Or if you would prefer we are seeing the “Wal-mart-ization” of games.
EDIT: Just wanted to add, Civilization was not one of my picks.
What were the games?
From the perspective of AI design what seems to be the case is that there is a conflict between building a more capable AI vs 'game freedom' (couldnt think of a better term to use). For example, chess has a finite number of potential choices so an AI can be designed which beats the best human player (using an appropriate computer of course). On the other hand, in games with infinite choices (freedom) the AI becomes more and more limited as the number of choices increases. Developers either dumb the game down (limit choice) or accept a more limited AI. We're not in a position to have both even if, as you say, the average player wouldnt want it even if he could have it.
C64? Noob! I had a Vic=20...
(Mum and dad bought the Vic 20 about a week before the C64 came out. Cheers mum and dad :o. )
:laugh4:
Heh heh.. I may have most of you beat...
My first computer was a single board 6502... you had to use a hex-keypad to enter machine programs (yikes!) That was 1974 (I was 16). (takes old-fogey hat off) ~D
I think you just met an interesting Org... character... ~;)
Nothing to be really worried about, it's rather usual, eventually we all get used to it. I got to say it's kind of surprising the first time ~D
Be sure other patrons will read... or "comprehend" your posts with a bit more... patience ~D
Louis,
I'll add to this. I've been posting/reading on this forum for two years now (reading since 2002 actually.. I was a silent troller for a while). 99.9% of the participants on this forum are fine, upstanding citizens, both patient and mature. Which is why I reacted the way I did and why I keep returning to the ORG. This is a great place to be.
"The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org."
Anyone else find this statement a bit, well, scary...
"Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place. :furious3:"
I'm relatively new, too. Sorry to get in the way. Personally, I thought both the original posters comments were fair, and I thought TheDuck's were also emminently fair and eloquently expressed. Maybe I've missed something about only being allowed opinions once you've made a certain number of posts, maybe there's something that wasn't, erm, "comprehended" to me...
Thanks.
sorry to sound like a little kid, but what's a Vic 20?
*goes all misty-eyed*
The GTi turbo desktop computer of its day. A rival to the Sinclair ZX80 & 81. Boasted a phenomenal 5k of RAM (vs 1k for the Sinclair :) and a 1MHz processor
Was part of the 1st generation of computers to be genuinely usable at home. You didn't even have to load the OS from a tape deck! Slap in a 16k RAM expansion and you had more programming space than you thought you would ever need. Many games released on ROM cards. Zero load times! Years ahead of its time.
Get an emulator and games here - http://www.vic20.net/ - and be amazed at the addictive quality of a piece of hardware with less processing power than your TV remote control. Now that's programming.
Time for my medicine.
*dribbles into mug of Ovaltine*
bhutavarna
12-09-2004, 22:08
i like this game, but it gets boring very quickly. the main disappointment for me is the battle engine. everything that happens in battle happens too fast. tactical depth is lacking. i missed the days of MTW, where ambushing enemy from the woods actually matters, and if you're smart you can actually beat the enemy with weaker force. and most importantly you have time to oversee the battles. by comparison, playing RTW battles is like having premature ejaculation. you have almost no time to enjoy it at all.
and don't tell me that i can mod the game to slow it down, because i tried and i don't like it because it unbalances the game. besides i didn't buy the game so that i can mod it.
From the perspective of AI design what seems to be the case is that there is a conflict between building a more capable AI vs 'game freedom' (couldnt think of a better term to use). For example, chess has a finite number of potential choices so an AI can be designed which beats the best human player (using an appropriate computer of course). On the other hand, in games with infinite choices (freedom) the AI becomes more and more limited as the number of choices increases. Developers either dumb the game down (limit choice) or accept a more limited AI. We're not in a position to have both even if, as you say, the average player wouldnt want it even if he could have it.
Yes I would say that profile fits almost all strategy games out there. In the past we have seen games attempt to make compromises but this usually results in both ends failing. MOO3 would be a good example of that.
IIRC it took quite the computer to actually defeat the best chess player. Big Blue was it called? My point is, does it really take that much computing to make a functioning AI? Given the "Freedom" of choices allowed in a game like RTW, I can't believe one would require a house sized computer to provide a formidable AI opponent. Then again, I' am sadly ignorrant when it comes to computer science. Have there not been games of past that provided a level of AI that can smartly handle a multitude of choices in such a way that seems intelligent? Obviously as you suggested, not so.
My two game picks were - Xcom:UFO Defence and StarWars Rebellion. Both kinda old.
Yes I would say that profile fits almost all strategy games out there. In the past we have seen games attempt to make compromises but this usually results in both ends failing. MOO3 would be a good example of that.
IIRC it took quite the computer to actually defeat the best chess player. Big Blue was it called? My point is, does it really take that much computing to make a functioning AI? Given the "Freedom" of choices allowed in a game like RTW, I can't believe one would require a house sized computer to provide a formidable AI opponent. Then again, I' am sadly ignorrant when it comes to computer science. Have there not been games of past that provided a level of AI that can smartly handle a multitude of choices in such a way that seems intelligent? Obviously as you suggested, not so.
My two game picks were - Xcom:UFO Defence and StarWars Rebellion. Both kinda old.
As a computer programmer (and computer programming manager), I'll say this...
Computer AI is a study to itself. And requires a conscious relatively large investment by a game programming team if it is to be done well.
3D graphics is a study in itself. And requires a conscious relatively large investment by a game programming team if it is to be done well.
The last cycle for CA involved upgrading their their graphics engine and campaign map engine to a full 3d non sprite driven engine. That is a big undertaking by a fairly small team. When I knew that they were doing that, I absolutely knew that AI would either be the same or suffer. There are simply not enough programmers on their team to tackle all these issues well. I can get on my knees and hope that the next release or two will use the same graphics engine (which it probably will, otherwise they are wasting current effort), so the next release may be better AI wise.. That said.. I might be smokin crack and they may do other graphical things to keep up with technology changes. Too many variables for me to know.
My take on AI is this: its fiendishly difficult. A reasonably challenging opponent for a 10 year old is a boringly predictable one for a 30 year old. Although it appears to a layman to be simple.. the whole concept of changing strategies and adaptability (which we humans show in great abundance) is very hard to simulate in software without writing lots of code. And execution of that code during real time circumstances takes away from processor time that could be spent showing nice graphics... and since much of the market seems to depend on pretty pictures and not challenging opponents... we have the current state of affairs in PC games.
Games where AI can be simpler and get away with it are the 'Warcraft 3' types.. the AI is by no means simple, but it is simpler than what would be required for a turn based strategy game where depth of thought on a human's part requires lots of flexibility from a computer opponent. I believe that is why those games seem better as a player... The strategic choices are fairly simple, and the tactical choices relate more to quick/reasonable choices executed efficiently.
My 2 cents.
The answer is to forego AI altogether.
This would be fine if it didn’t compel you go online. Chess is popular. But so is solitaire. If Rome were MP only I and hundreds of thousands of others would never touch it.
I could go into the “How many copies of a TW game would sell if it were only MP?” discussion but I won’t because it’s been done to death and verified by the devs themselves.
Here's is what I think too many people miss about computer gaming. Most players want to have fun playing their game alone. They get to do what they want in a non competitive atmosphere. The AI in Rome is probably good enough to entertain the mass of casual gamers who, if they try going online at all, get repelled by the Two Big Online Deterrents:
1) connectivity is unreliable, (getting better but be honest, still a pain all to often)
2) jerks abound, (rude behavior and language, PKing and hyper competitiveness)
Clans are one way to deal with the jerks but the whole concept is generally too childish sounding for most adults to bother with. Many players also have no desire to practice their game. They want to just play it not practice so they can survive among people who live and breath the game online. Some online enthusiasts are semiprofessional it seems. I play shooters online. If you aren’t good you spend most of your time respawning. That’s how it is. Go online to play a game and it becomes a competition. Winners and losers. Fun for A FEW maybe but apparently not for most.
Solo play is very fun and entertaining for a huge majority of buyers. There is no vast hoard of potential multiplayers out there guys. It’s the Holy Grail that ain't real. Playing alone does not an introspective geek make. For a few hours a week a player is alone with what he’s doing and away from real life’s hassles while he stomps the Gauls with his legions or bombs the Third Reich or defeats Dagoth Ur. A lot of hobbies are like that. Carpentry, fishing. Alone time is good. Therapeutic even.
Now, what I want to see is more MP coop against the AI. Valve is going to provide that with HL2. That's how I plan to play it.
This would be fine if it didn’t compel you go online. Chess is popular. But so is solitaire. If Rome were MP only I and hundreds of thousands of others would never touch it.
I could go into the “How many copies of a TW game would sell if it were only MP?” discussion but I won’t because it’s been done to death and verified by the devs themselves.
Here's is what I think too many people miss about computer gaming. Most players want to have fun playing their game alone. They get to do what they want in a non competitive atmosphere. The AI in Rome is probably good enough to entertain the mass of casual gamers who, if they try going online at all, get repelled by the Two Big Online Deterrents:
1) connectivity is unreliable, (getting better but be honest, still a pain all to often)
2) jerks abound, (rude behavior and language, PKing and hyper competitiveness)
Clans are one way to deal with the jerks but the whole concept is generally too childish sounding for most adults to bother with. Many players also have no desire to practice their game. They want to just play it not practice so they can survive among people who live and breath the game online. Some online enthusiasts are semiprofessional it seems. I play shooters online. If you aren’t good you spend most of your time respawning. That’s how it is. Go online to play a game and it becomes a competition. Winners and losers. Fun for A FEW maybe but apparently not for most.
Solo play is very fun and entertaining for a huge majority of buyers. There is no vast hoard of potential multiplayers out there guys. It’s the Holy Grail that ain't real. Playing alone does not an introspective geek make. For a few hours a week a player is alone with what he’s doing and away from real life’s hassles while he stomps the Gauls with his legions or bombs the Third Reich or defeats Dagoth Ur. A lot of hobbies are like that. Carpentry, fishing. Alone time is good. Therapeutic even.
Now, what I want to see is more MP coop against the AI. Valve is going to provide that with HL2. That's how I plan to play it.
You put you finger right on it for me..
This is precisely how my friends and I play shooters and strat games. Coop against the AI. Unreal Tourney 2004 is ideal for this since the AI is very good and it requires real teamwork to succeed. We play CnC Generals the same way. Jack up the computers to high level and play outnumbered. Great fun and a great way to have coop fun. More games that supported that mode of play out of the gate would ROCK.
And because I game to 'get away from it all', I don't do the whole multi-player thing that much.. Its tiring.. and when I'm tired.. I want entertainment, not competition.
Reminds me of coop play on Total Annihlation (the only game I've played where upgrading your computer made the game harder! ~:eek: ). That worked well, but RTW is not able to be set up like that (well, not in campaign mode anyway).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.