AI lifts sieges when loaded from savegame [Archive]

Yun Dog

02-22-2005, 02:59

I agree, I just played a short campaign as the romans after installing the patch 1.2. I did a lot of saving and loading (lots of short intervals of game time) and every time i reloaded the AI had lifted its seiges of my towns - almost like the AI forgets what its supposed to be doing and on re-assesment sends the army somewhere else because the conditions that made it lay seige no longer exist - but it appears to only retest or re asses on a reload. Its a real problem because it basically ruined the game I was playing what chance did the AI have - none

this is a fairly serious bug I would say - CA should give consideration to one more patch to fix this and other obvious bugs that are now more evident or have appeared.

:help:

tai4ji2x

02-22-2005, 05:23

heh, yeah. if we the fans continue our rational, well-reasoned pleas, CA (and Activision) will find it in their hearts to work on another patch. that'll happen.

i'm about to give up.

tai4ji2x

02-22-2005, 06:02

here's a link to the original thread over at the official .com forums

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=21909.topic

i would desperately like to ask that anyone who is willing to try and test this out as well, with the methods suggested in the two threads. IF this can be confirmed, i would say it's a pretty major bug.

hrvojej

02-22-2005, 06:09

Well, this certainly would explain some strange things in my last campaign, where after a few years no AI took over any territory despite massive armies. More to the point, I guess they didn't take any after I started using assassins. I, um, always give them a second chance if they, erm, are not sure what to do the first time. So, basically, due to the amount of spies and diplomats that have been sent my way, I was essentially reloading almost every turn - and nobody took over any territory as a result.
It actually would have been cool to have Carthage around for so long for once, if only I hadn't wiped them out at the start...

tai4ji2x

02-22-2005, 06:11

this would be a real cheesy way to keep a faction in the game though ~;)

Proletariat

02-22-2005, 08:14

i'm about to give up.

I was actually happier in the 1.1 days. At least then I could play and think to myself about how they'll fix up FF and the phalanx shuffle and a few other things and I'd be fine.

Now between the HAs (yeah it's fixed), SS Pikeman being slaughtered by gravity impervious Light Lancers, and chariots as fast as my javelin cav, I'm about ready to give up. I really wish they'd do just one quick patch to fix the damn VnV triggers at the least.

Not to mention the difficulty issue, but who am I kidding? I'll be here everyday looking for Red Harvest's and hrvojej's tweaks to see if there will be any break throughs.

tai4ji2x

02-22-2005, 08:24

Now between the HAs (yeah it's fixed)

only in single player though. you won't be able to use the fix in multiplayer.

Proletariat

02-22-2005, 08:27

Oh, great. Hadn't thought of that. I have two friends getting the game this weekend, too.

Will the game just crash or will it just disallow those units?

tai4ji2x

02-22-2005, 08:35

although it won't crash, you won't be able to even initiate a game. the game lobby will list you as incompatible. it checks the exe and other relevant data files to make sure they match.

The Stranger

02-22-2005, 10:41

can somebody help me, submit a mod at TWcenter, so you can see, what i fixed.

tai4ji2x

02-22-2005, 12:56

can somebody help me, submit a mod at TWcenter, so you can see, what i fixed.

you fixed this? ~:eek:

tai4ji2x

02-23-2005, 01:02

emperor umeu:

what are you referring to?

tai4ji2x

02-23-2005, 07:22

k, as mentioned in the thread at the official forums, i think i'm getting consistent results now. unless people can resolutely prove otherwise, i'm taking a break from RTW. i hope that others will be motivated to test it out for themselves.

Jambo

02-23-2005, 11:38

Yes, unfortunately this appears to be the case. Poor AI. Don't stop playing until you can be sure there are no settlements besieged on the campaign map. lol, this just gets worse and worse.

Puzz3D

02-23-2005, 14:18

Doc,

This savegame problem is very disappointing. I'm thinking about moving on to some other game at this point. You can't loose an RTW SP campaign game, and you don't even have to use diplomats, assassins or spys at all or ever look at character traits, offices or retinues. In comparision to that, I've played about 6 SP campaigns as Takeda using STWmod for MTW/VI on normal difficulty, and lost every one of them.

drone

02-25-2005, 22:19

I assume there is a "siege" flag that should be set for a stack in the save games, and the absence of it just means the AI doesn't know what to do with the stack when the game is reloaded. Haven't looked, does it affect blockaded ports as well? I would think they would be stored in a similiar manner.

OlafTheBrave

02-25-2005, 23:55

I think it works for ports as well. It has been my observation while not 100% verified that if you save and load the save without exiting all wars are cancelled. As far as sieges being lifted yes it is true whether you exit or not, as soon as you hit end turn the AI will wander off.

Kraxis

02-26-2005, 00:09

Makes sense now.
I never save unless I'm about to leave the game, so I will save once every 5-7 years at the most. And I face large enemy empires. So naturally I have wondered why other people have been complaining about the non-expanding enemies. Now I can see why. And I can see that even I have been facing enemies that have not been at their best. Great... :dizzy2:

I'm beginning to fear this forum. Almost every day I see some new bug, half forgotten feature or badly made unit/trait/ancilliary.

Btw Proletariat, if you want to play with the fix you must make certain that the other players have all gotten the same game as you. That means every single little file needs to be the same. So if you only want to play against your friends it should pose no problem, but if you want to play with them against others then it will get hard.
The MP community have been trying hard to get a common consensus on a mod that made the game better for MP back since early MTW days. Still not happened.

tai4ji2x

02-26-2005, 01:22

just a quick update, former totalwar.com moderator and game tester, Obake, has CONFIRMED this and agrees that it IS a bug.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=22412.topic&start=55&stop=62

Proletariat

02-26-2005, 03:01

Thanks, Kraxis.

Back OT, well, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. At least with 1.1 I could play and just ignore any stupid bugs because I felt like they were just temporary.

:rtwno:

Quietus

02-26-2005, 03:10

Shoot. Hopefully, someone finds a fix. :dizzy2: . Or a long shot, CA release a quick fix.

tai4ji2x

02-28-2005, 19:32

confirmed by yet another official forum moderator/admin, Wart:

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm...art=95&stop=103 (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=22412.topic&start=95&stop=103)

tai4ji2x

03-01-2005, 02:11

~:rolleyes: s_______y, CA staff member MikeB has apparently blamed this bug on modders. ~:rolleyes:

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm...art=81&stop=100 (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=22642.topic&start=81&stop=100)

EDIT: "shamefully" will be reworded to "misguidedly"

Red Harvest

03-01-2005, 02:22

I've seen MikeB blame several things on Mods that were actually problems in the vanilla game, not a good show. I'm beginning to wonder if he has been playing the game at all...

Pode

03-01-2005, 03:25

It took until now for you to wonder that, Red?

Sorry, that's just frustration talking again.

hrvojej

03-01-2005, 05:15

I would just like to reiterate that this bug makes the game almost completely unplayable. Unless you want to play the "oh, let's see what it would be like to win while everyone else is still on their starting positions" campaign, or a custom/historical battle. It's not even worth the effort of trying to play it, in fact.

Belenus

03-01-2005, 06:31

Same thing is happening to me too. :( The Brutii ans Scipii can't expand in my current game!

tai4ji2x

03-01-2005, 06:58

oh well, looks like killemall54 was hell bent on banning me

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=23201

Red Harvest

03-01-2005, 15:28

Killemall54 lost his cool. It's been funny reading some of his posts before he gets around to editing them... He sure knows how to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.

MikeB's response showed that he still doesn't get it. He is quick to the trigger calling a bug in the game a fault of modding, but he doesn't bother to test things. He did the same in the Blue Spanish generals thread for example. No wonder CA is having trouble with quality control. If they dismiss well established things without testing they are going to get nowhere in a hurry.

Epistolary Richard

03-01-2005, 16:01

Bit of a wild idea, but is it possible to mod the build times of siege equipment to zero?

Hopefully, this might reduce the number of AI sieges that last beyond a turn (it always was a bit unrealistic that it took half a year to build a single battering ram anyway).

:bobby:

Bhruic

03-01-2005, 16:34

Wow. I had no idea that CA took such an attitude on things. Absolutely, categorically wrong, and then makes a pathetically obvious attempt to pretend otherwise with a post that completely changes the point.

But I sure am thankful I'm going to get the 'opportunity' to pay more money in an attempt to fix the bugs (sorry, "stuff I don't like", according to MikeB) that the "modding community" has introduced.

Bh

Jambo

03-01-2005, 16:53

Pode

03-01-2005, 17:13

Unfortunately they aren't the best place for mature rational moderation either. Rule number one of customer service and marketing is to not call the customer a mental defective.

Ginger

03-01-2005, 17:39

THis also explains the REALLY slow AI expansion ive been experiencing. The most notable examples occured in my last campains (H/H) where I toppled the Gauls/greeks as julii/brutii respectively while scipii were still huming and hoing over syracuse with large armies wandering about doing very little...As im a serial saver/reloader this explains things.

(I wish i could play IRON MAN rules but frankly im not good enough :shame: )

Anyway, Kudos to all those pushing the point and asking for a fix. Its a credit to CA that they actually answer and *appear* to take an interest in fixing things, its just a pity that this game seems to be so complicated that a fix in one place breaks something else....

Still, I think it makes CA better than other developers that just want to shift the product and damn the bugs. ("its in the game" ... ~;) )

Red Harvest

03-01-2005, 17:55

The problem is the denial of reality. I don't see this as "modders vs. developers." That is what irks me and others. MikeB has been dropping into posts calling things modding issues which are game bugs. At least when he makes a mistake he could come back and say, "Oops, you are right, I missed that." Instead he goes on a tirade about modding effects. I commented on that thread about this problem: commenting without testing. I didn't call him a goon or label CA some underworld agency. MikeB posts some barbs, but that wouldn't matter much (and it would be mildly amusing if he was correct), but his basis is wrong because he hasn't bothered to examine the issue. It is sloppy and unprofessional to dismiss things without testing them.

In contrast, Jerome responds to comments about feature issues and modding at times. He does some testing of his own, and makes his call on what is happening. He isn't always correct because there might be some new aspect that is missing. But the dialogue is good and constructive and from what I have seen both sides usually learn something from the interaction.

tai4ji2x

03-01-2005, 18:40

denial of reality indeed. now, some of us (myself included) have been a bit harsh on mikeb, and it might be understandable that he's just getting defensive and thus spewing a whole bunch of misinformed and ignorant commentary in his emotional state. still, once he calms down (if it ever happens), he should take a step back and realize just how out of touch his statements were.

Proletariat

03-01-2005, 19:30

I was wondering why I haven't seen any faction aggressively taking territories. No more Roman or Egyptian domination, nothing. I tried messing with the faction personalities and everything. I've messed with starting dinari, higher governor buildings for certain factions, increased pop and nothing. I'm still fighting tons of Iberian infantry, Warbands, Militia hoplites, etc and that's forty years deep into a game.

Just once I want to fight an army with a couple archers, 5 or so cataphracts, 3 or 4 SS pikeman, a cataphract elephant, some legionaries and with some phalanx pikeman to fill the rest of the stack. Instead I'm beating up peasants and the lowest grade infantry with some merc missile units all the time.

:help:

Old Celt

03-01-2005, 19:56

Red Harvest,

I read the text of the warning they gave you on the "other website". Both the arrogance and ignorance of MikeB's response was incredible. The whole QA effort on this project has a poor record, but unprofessional and gratuitious remarks on the part of a designer are totally uncalled for. Rather than you receiving a warning, MikeB should have been disciplined for speaking to a customer with a valid complaint in the manner he did.

I was disgusted as an IT professional to see that kind of behavior from a member of CA staff. The 2 patch policy is not a fair treatment to the customer. The correct policy is simply this: "Do WHATEVER it takes to make a product which functions correctly and pleases (the vast majority of) our customers." If ActiVision is the determining authority then they need to accept responsibility and fix what has been broken by patch efforts, at the VERY least. If it takes 16 patches to perfect things, then so be it! There is nothing unusual in a complex program requiring several patches to reach a proper state.

It should not matter in the least how much CA staff is "alienated" by negative remarks from unhappy customers. Think of the alienation going on from the customer perspective!! CA has a responsibility to make this right, and there should be no requirement for anyone to kiss their asses to make it happen. They need to suck it up and make it right because that is the right thing to do.

We will all get the opportunity to pay for an expansion, probably this Fall. How many people will be willing to pay for such software if they can expect customer service like MikeB has been delivering? If CA doesn't handle these PATCH GENERATED bugs quickly, and with a good attitude, then they will have seriously damaged their reputation with far more than just a few veterans of the Total War series. Own up to your mistakes CA, fix them, and this community is bound to sing your praises from the rooftops.

Patricius

03-01-2005, 20:25

I rarely save as I just put the computer on standby or hibernate. I did check and the bug is certainly there. One possiblility is that a game uninstalled with mods and re-installed without, for 1.2 might cause a problem depending on what files are left post uninstall. I am just making an inexpert guess, so do not criticise me for it. I rarely safe and use standby so it is not a large issue for me, but it is striking problem. Horse archers got worse from 1.1 to 1.2 also. Yet the way sieges were managed during assaults and sallies by the ai seem much better. It is a puzzle to me.

Old Celt

03-01-2005, 21:27

Horse archers did get screwed up by the 1.2 patch. Fortunately, a fix has been found and posted on this site, so you can repair that particular damage yourself if you like.

Bhruic

03-01-2005, 21:49

Unfortunately with this one he's wrong, but let's give him some slack.

You know, I'd have been perfectly willing to cut him some slack if, in his second post, he had said something to the effect of "Oops, you're right, this bug affects default 1.2". But instead he tries to defend his earlier ill-informed post.

What's the point in posting in situations like that? You aren't helping the situation any, you aren't difusing tensions. Having the ability to dialogue with the developers is a good thing - assuming they are willing to return the favour. I won't completely tar him over this one incident, but if it is indicative of his normal posting style, I can't say that dialogue with MikeB would be terribly useful.

Bh

aw89

03-01-2005, 22:36

I cant say i can agree more with pode (way) up there, so it is now my new signature. (if you dont mind)

This explains why my civil war was so easy, i took a break in the secund turn when they had started sieging my cities.
to bad there isn't a law to make the developers inform you about patches expected (on the box) and something to force them to patch to a proper state. ~:(

mfberg

03-01-2005, 23:02

I have not seen the seiges being lifted in AI vs AI battles, does this only happen on human vs AI sieges?

mfberg

Red Harvest

03-01-2005, 23:15

Old Celt,

I'm really not that upset over it, disappointed, but not truly hacked. The "warning" from Killemall54 I actually found more amusing than anything else. The modding over there is a bit erratic, which until recently is why I've stayed clear of the place. MikeB did drop the ball in his 2nd response, I had hoped he would make some attempt at smoothing things out, but instead he lashed out and admitted no mistake.

The only reason I posted what I did was to encourage him to check his facts before posting. Most of the more avid types do some fact checking before they post something. When I haven't checked something for validity, I either say so, or I don't post on the subject. I certainly don't think it is too much to ask from CA's side to give similar consideration. Apparently such a request rises to warning level over at the .com. Oh well.

Anyway, I'll drop it now, as the horse is quite dead.

Pode

03-01-2005, 23:21

I cant say i can agree more with pode (way) up there, so it is now my new signature. (if you dont mind)

Here or on the official forums? I ask because Killemall and I seem to have patched things up via PM, although he is denying that he accused me of mental illness, which he in fact did. I'll let it slide because I really don't care what he thinks of me, but I don't want to tweak him on the subject and get my voice removed from the pool. Mike's latest pair of gaffes to the contrary, CA does pay some attention to that board, and I'd like to remain on it. If that quote is your sig here or on TWC, be my guest.
I think I'd rather be remembered for that one than my tagline at work: "This may sound like insubordination, sir, but . . . "

Puzz3D

03-01-2005, 23:23

Let's keep this place civil guys. The .COm forums aren't the best place for mature rational patrons and and let's not make the .ORG like there. MikeB often has to reply to false accusations of "bug!" when it may well be a modding issue or design feature. Unfortunately with this one he's wrong, but let's give him some slack. There's more to CA than just MikeB and I can assure you that coders (MikeB's a designer) are aware of the major issues at hand! We aren't going to get far going down the aggressive cynical route though, that's for sure.
Well Doc after I verified it myself, I personally informed CA of the siege/savegame bug through CA's beta team coordinator two weeks ago. I also sent a replay illustrating the Parthian shot problem. It seems that MikeB doesn't have a communication channel with the beta team coordinator or no one wanted to tell him that there were some major bugs in the v1.2 patch.

Killmall54 is an Activision stock holder and is very aggressive about protecting his financial interest. He isn't getting my dollars for the add-on an neither is CA.

The only reason RTW is still installed on my computer is that I'm playing an SP campaign with all battles auto-resolved and fog of war turned off, and only saving when there are no AI sieges in progress.

Pode

03-01-2005, 23:27

I have not seen the seiges being lifted in AI vs AI battles, does this only happen on human vs AI sieges?

Back to the important issue: Use the toggle_fow command in RomeShell (activated when you press ~ in campaign map) to watch AI vs. AI seiges. The usual sequence is to load a game, hit end turn, and then watch the AI retreat from all its seiges during its turns. If you don't see this happening, PLEASE report any and all details you can think of about your installation, timing, the presence or absence of seige equipment in the AI armies, etc. We'd all be very interested in seeing how you avoided this bug, if in fact you have.

Pode

03-01-2005, 23:31

I personally informed CA of the siege/savegame bug through CA's beta team coordinator two weeks ago. I also sent a replay illustrating the Parthian shot problem.

The only reason RTW is still installed on my computer is that I'm playing an SP campaign with all battles auto-resolved and fog of war turned off, and only saving when there are no AI sieges in progress.

Glad to hear it confirmed that they are at least aware of the two issues.

As to the SP campaign, how often on average are you able to save? I really want to start a campaign of this style, but the one report I've heard was that someone testing this approach went more than 40 turns before he was able to save at all. ~:eek:

SpencerH

03-01-2005, 23:33

My 2 cents.

CA have tried to make the game I've waited years to have, one that combines good strategy and tactical combat. Given their limited resources, I would have thought it worth their while to embrace the gameplay expertise of their loyal fans in order to find the bugs and improve the game. If they did that wouldnt we all rush out and buy the expansion (as we did with the previous games) and eagerly await the next iteration of this unique series? Instead, they seem to have followed a confrontational path.

I havent read that many threads at .org and almost none at .com but this is not the first comment I've seen from CA personnel with a similar tone to MikeB's post. I've seen comments about the maturity of the fans. Heres a flash, most of the people buying games are kids (I'm 46 so anyone under 30 or so is a kid). I'm sure its frustrating to get negative comments about bugs that are not bugs, and bugs that are caused by mods. I'm sure its hard for the folks at CA to keep their cool in the face of all that (as it is for all parents). Personally though, I have to wonder about the maturity of those at CA that have made the comments I've seen. It certainly doesnt seem to be a good business practice.

PS I now have a captured roman city that can now make carthaginian sacred band phalanx units. I dont know why or how, it cant even make poeni, and its not the capital (Carthage is still). I think it may be another :whispers: bug :/whispers: but I may be wrong.

hrvojej

03-01-2005, 23:40

For Sacred Band you need a temple that can only be built by you, Numidia and Egypt. It's likely that one of those temples was there and the Romans captured it later. Does this explain that quirk?

And guys, let's not allow this thread to devolve into a discussion about what goes on other forums. It may detract from the seriousness of the issue at hand.

SpencerH

03-02-2005, 00:56

For Sacred Band you need a temple that can only be built by you, Numidia and Egypt. It's likely that one of those temples was there and the Romans captured it later. Does this explain that quirk?
.

Thanks for that. I couldnt spot why I could only build them in those cities. I was thinking that a weird combination of Roman and Carthaginian buildings allowed it since prior to that I could only build sacred band in Carthage (and from the sacred band description it seemed as if I could only build them in Carthage). I just happened to have Awesome Temples of Baal in both cities.

Pode

03-02-2005, 04:53

I know we decided not to discuss things on the other forums, but (there's always a but, right?)

Mablung of the heavy hand has posted a snippet in the corresponding thread on the .com from a reply he recieved from activision tech support (IIRC). This activison employee indicated that a patch MAY be forthcoming for this issue.

In lesser news, I discovered that the game can be modded to eliminate walls, thus eliminating sieges for the most part and putting the AI back on an even footing. It sucks having to give up the wall battles, but this is a potential workaround until a patch comes.

Proletariat

03-02-2005, 05:50

In lesser news, I discovered that the game can be modded to eliminate walls, thus eliminating sieges for the most part and putting the AI back on an even footing. It sucks having to give up the wall battles, but this is a potential workaround until a patch comes.

I'm wishing you're just trying to take a jab here, and not trying to be helpful... I think I'm wrong, unfortunately. The fact that solutions like this are even feasable is pretty awful. What's next? Mod out phalanxes because equites obliterate their formations head-on?

Eh, sorry for the rant. I really hope they go for the patch 1.3 signature thread, otherwise I'll prolly move on.

All of these non sense bugs would be alot easier to swallow if the game wasn't so much better than anything else. It's like having a lottery ticket that is one number off out of ten. I'd almost rather have just not played. (Almost)

Jambo

03-02-2005, 13:17

I think this loading from save game bug could be doing more than just resetting siege orders.

As we move away from the start-game and into the mid-game, since 1.2 I have started to notice some very strange AI army behaviour, particularly involving warring factions where large land distances exist between cities.

For instance, in my recent campaign, Egypt are at war with Parthia and nothing seems to be happening. Egypt have mobilised many stacks but these for the most just remain on the border of the Parthian province (the one at the bottom), but never crossing!? Why?! Similarly, in previous campaigns I have noticed large Scipii build-ups near Lepcis Magna when they're at war with Egypt. The problems also seem to exist in and around the Scythian and German provinces.

Is this related to the loading from saved game bug? I have no concrete proof, but since there's no other explanation for it, I'd argue that it certainly has a key role to play. Stacks get issued with orders to attack a far-distanced city. Somewhere in between the game is saved and reloaded and the orders are is lost. As a result we end up with stacks of troops idly sitting around with broken orders...

Sometimes, it seems to reset or fix itself. Sometimes the stagnation goes on for 50 + years...

That's how I see it, and if it's true, it's BAD, real BAD.

Kraxis

03-02-2005, 14:30

I fear a bit that Jambo is right...

How do we know that sieges isn't the only thing that gets reset? I mean it could possibly be that the AI factions redo their entire buildprogramme every time we reload (in cities where a building is supposed to be started then). Or that they relegate funds from buildings to units, so that we see more low quality units and fewer high quality ones. That seems consistent with the experience people are talking about.

SpencerH

03-02-2005, 15:21

I'm still in my first campaign with 1.2 (and about to stop) and I've noticed that the AI is very nonaggressive. I had assumed that the cause was playing on normal (which I do to assess any game variations post patch) but perhaps it is the save bug in action. The brits have 4 or 5 aggressive-looking stacks sitting north of a Julii city (my protectorate) but aside from occasional border incursions they have not attacked in a long time. Similarly, I've been at war with Egypt for ever. Aside from one advance to take Cyrenica they've done nothing. When I attacked Siwa, I was surprised to find that they had many stacks of well balanced armies (including onagers). I even lost one battle (against double my strength) when I pursued too soon and lost all my cav including the family member.

Pode

03-02-2005, 16:35

Sorry to disappoint, but I actually did suggest such a drastic crippling of the game in an effort to be helpful. I know, it blows goats, but it's the only workaround I've found.

Quietus

03-02-2005, 17:19

Killmall54 is an Activision stock holder and is very aggressive about protecting his financial interest. He isn't getting my dollars for the add-on an neither is CA. Ha! Guess who closed a patch 1.3 petition at the dotcom. The plot thickens like grease....

@topic: No wonder the Romans weren't expanding in 1.2 whereas in the first game I tried (as the Julii), the Brutii had about twenty stacks and has obliterated the Macedonians and Greeks.

Kraxis

03-02-2005, 21:36

Ha! Guess who closed a patch 1.3 petition at the dotcom. The plot thickens like grease....
I see no connection between the Shogun closing the thread and your quotation of Puzz about Killemall. Remember the Shogun is directly responsible for the forum. If the forum is being used for badmouthing then it will directly impact on his job. I was only surprised it didn't get closed a few pages earlier.
I see even less of a plot really.

Red Harvest

03-02-2005, 21:49

I see no connection between the Shogun closing the thread and your quotation of Puzz about Killemall. Remember the Shogun is directly responsible for the forum. If the forum is being used for badmouthing then it will directly impact on his job. I was only surprised it didn't get closed a few pages earlier.
I see even less of a plot really.

Kraxis,

He is referring to the petition thread, that one was closed by killemall54 with one of his typical off the wall statements.

Mikeus Caesar

03-02-2005, 22:04

Killmall54 is an Activision stock holder and is very aggressive about protecting his financial interest. He isn't getting my dollars for the add-on an neither is CA.

Ha! Guess who closed a patch 1.3 petition at the dotcom. The plot thickens like grease....

I've been following this topic for a while, and i have to say, that comment is rather correct, as well as funny.

Kraxis

03-02-2005, 22:05

Ah... Well given I have some insight into the workings of the mod-squad I can tell you that whenever a situation like this arises, and it has too many times before, there is a 'close-on-sight' rule. The same was done when TWC and CA didn't get along. This is obviously another such situation. Killem is not referring to the partition as such as been made before, but to the thread in general. I can only say, just keep clear of any patch threads for a while. Be they benign or hostile they will not survive.
It is a case of the surgeon removing the bad parts but has to remove some of the good too until the wound can heal, so as not to risk new infections. Hope you get the analogy.

Mikeus Caesar

03-02-2005, 22:07

Old Celt

03-02-2005, 22:11

Colovion

03-02-2005, 22:13

Mikeus Caesar

03-02-2005, 22:15

This is starting to sound like CA is Saddam Hussein, on the outside, they make everything look good by marching through the main street with all their rockets and tanks and a general show of strength (releasing RTW, the ultimate in eye candy) but behind the silk curtains, the civilians are suffering (the suppressed inhabitants of the dotcom). It's up to us to be America and liberate the poor people of the dotcom!!! Or, we could just let the evil EA empire be America, and go in and conquer CA.

I'm crazy, aren't i?

Kraxis

03-02-2005, 23:48

In other words the mods are running a dictatorship. Anything that is said that is against the great and almighty Activision and CA is automatically removed, and the person/people who said it are put up to the wall and shot. Or, they just get banned....
Yes it is a dictatorship... on a private forum you have absolutely zero rights, that is something people forget often enough. The org is a dictatorship as well. Break the rules and you are out, there is no discussion on it.
When people begin to attack one another there is little room to maneuver, and if the mods at the com had to argue with each and every little prick that came by it would be a 200 hour a week job. Trust me!
The experience with the TWC case made a deep impact. Several people came back in new guises and made the same ramblings again and again. Not fair arguments or even lowvoiced complaints, but all out attacks that drew in more people. And that is where the trouble really lies. A lot of people get caught up in a maeltrom and join it after a while, you can even see it here. When that happens the whole structure falls apart and there is no other way to stop than to simply ban any subject that might cause such behaviour. That is why politics, religion and sex is closed areas as the forum simply exploded in what can be termed wars and it was soemthing that spilled over into all the other subforums.

There is a major influx of people over there all the time, that makes it a very fragile forum. If those new people gets confronted with aggressive and downright bad behaviour towards the devs and other patrons how do you think they will behave?
The fact of the land is that the com is the forum most people join first, then they become tired of all the newbies or the bad behaviour of the rest and either join here or TWC. The org itself suffered similar problems for a while and instituded the graded system where you started out in the Entrance Hall, you just can't do that with the com since the whole place is an entrance hall.

The baseline is that the com needs a much more strict moderator corps. Simple as that.

I find it funny that people here complain that the people at the com simply behave very badly, and at the same time complain at the moderators for acting against that. You can't have it both ways.

Puzz3D

03-03-2005, 00:15

I just checked RTW v1.1, and it has the siege/savegame bug. There is no question about it. Thrace sieges Byzantium (large rebel town) on about the 3rd turn in a Julii campaign. It can hold out for 5 turns. If I don't save, the siege continues after I hit end turn. If I save and reload that save, the AI calls off the siege when I hit end turn, and the Tracian army moves to the west and stops in the middle of nowhere. When I hit end turn again the Thracian army comes back and sieges Byzantium again. I tried this twice, and both time the AI broke the siege on a reload. So, this bug has been there from the initial release of RTW.

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 00:30

Bhruic

03-03-2005, 01:14

Yes, well censorship is not the answer to this problem. CA needs to step up and do the right thing by admitting the 2 patch policy is nonsense and committing to properly support the product. They don't have to like it, but if they want to survive in the consumer world, they have to DO it.

What "2 patches"? I find it hard to count something that merely fixes a gamespy bug and changes the strength of elephants (which could be done by any modder) a "patch". Basically, RTW got 1 real patch. And that seems to have introduced new bugs into the equation. At least if we got 2 real patches, there would be a chance the game would be in a playable state. As it is, this save/reload makes it pointless to play a game unless you've got 4+ hours to devote to the task.

Bh

Proletariat

03-03-2005, 03:26

I just don't get why some people claim they don't face the same strength of the Romans and the Egyptians.

This hasn't happened to you?

I remember in 1.1 the Julii would conquer Gaul, Carthage would get crushed, and Egypt would dominate the southeast. The rest would meander a bit but now I don't even see this. Carthage still gets stomped, but after the AI has taken up most of the rebel settlements, there's little conquering at all.

Since the siege/load bug was happening with 1.1, the 'broken orders' theory posted (I think in this thread on page 2) seems more plausable.

(Just checked, it was Jambo's post on page 2)

SpencerH

03-03-2005, 03:35

So, this bug has been there from the initial release of RTW.

Not from the initial release. I never installed 1.1 and actually had seiges playing vanilla. I've had zero with 1.2 (playing with the same 1 or two turns at a time style).

afrit

03-03-2005, 03:59

I did a fair amount of testing of AI expansion (I typically play as SPQR and watch AI factions duke it out for 40 years). I can definitely say that in 1.2 there is a LOT LESS AI expansion than in 1.1.

In 1.1, some AI factions (Egypt,Pontus, Thrace, Britannia) expanded after 20 or 30 years, until rebellions in distant provinces got them bogged down.

In 1.2, I don't see the same changes. It takes FOREVER for any faction to conquer anything other than rebel cities.

The only way I got the AI factions to expand at all in 1.2 is by eliminating all walls from the game. Then sieges became only 1 turn affairs, and provinces finally changed hands.

No doubt about it in my mind: the AI is horrible at finishing/winning sieges. And that is one reason it is weak.

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 05:10

This hasn't happened to you?

I remember in 1.1 the Julii would conquer Gaul, Carthage would get crushed, and Egypt would dominate the southeast. The rest would meander a bit but now I don't even see this. Carthage still gets stomped, but after the AI has taken up most of the rebel settlements, there's little conquering at all.

Since the siege/load bug was happening with 1.1, the 'broken orders' theory posted (I think in this thread on page 2) seems more plausable.

(Just checked, it was Jambo's post on page 2)
Well, given I play mostly very long streaks I don't suffer much compared to others. So I wouldn't see the same problems.
But my post was a question as to why it happened that people got the feeling that the AI was worse at expanding in 1.2 compared to 1.1 when it actually behaves in the same broken manner.

Now we should perhaps go back and check if 1.0 gives the same save/load results. Afterwards we will know where the problem came in for certain.

Proletariat

03-03-2005, 05:50

For instance, in my recent campaign, Egypt are at war with Parthia and nothing seems to be happening. Egypt have mobilised many stacks but these for the most just remain on the border of the Parthian province (the one at the bottom), but never crossing!? Why?! Similarly, in previous campaigns I have noticed large Scipii build-ups near Lepcis Magna when they're at war with Egypt. The problems also seem to exist in and around the Scythian and German provinces.

Is this related to the loading from saved game bug? I have no concrete proof, but since there's no other explanation for it, I'd argue that it certainly has a key role to play. Stacks get issued with orders to attack a far-distanced city. Somewhere in between the game is saved and reloaded and the orders are is lost. As a result we end up with stacks of troops idly sitting around with broken orders...

Kraxis, I think this is a possible explanation but I'm not able to test it where I am right now. I do agree about it being curious that these complaints weren't around during the 1.1 days.

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 12:43

Kraxis, I think this is a possible explanation but I'm not able to test it where I am right now. I do agree about it being curious that these complaints weren't around during the 1.1 days.
Yes, I think I mentioned before that I was afraid because we didn't know how big the bug was and how much else was lost, such as building orders and such. It could explain why the AI tends to have low tech units as well.

Jambo

03-03-2005, 12:55

It's worth bearing in mind that since 1.2 the AI produces far more agents than it did in 1.1. This includes diplomats. The more diplomats, the greater the amount of ceasefires and global peace. One can certainly see the increased amount of diplomatic actions since the patch. I constantly see factions making peace with the senate on one turn only for war to be automatically declared agains on the next turn. Rinse repeat, rinse repeat.

One thing to note is offerings of ceasefires from factions that have lost territory to the human player are often accompanied with "if you give back such and such regions that you stole...."

Now, we as human players, know these offers are ridiculous. After all, they're the troubled faction and they should be offering me something for peace, not the other way around. However, in AI to AI ceasefire negotiations, it's conceivable that these types of offerings, no matter how ridiculous, might get accepted.

This would mean that all the expansion and territory gained would simply be given up and returned to the losing faction. This hasn't been tested, but it's certainly a possibility.

EDIT: to test one could make diplomats more difficult to produce, thereby lessening their presence on the campaign map. Increase price, increase number of turns to build or move them back in the tech tree...

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 13:08

You know... I have actually noticed that too. Especially between the Brutii and the Greeks. Friends... not friends... friends... not friends... At some point they declared themselves allies over and over every turn. Apparently one of them could keep it within even the same turn.

Maeda Toshiie

03-03-2005, 13:25

I personally would like to make some comments on this entire episode.

1. The closing of the petition thread is not some unilateral action by Kill. It was in response against possible rabble rousing from a certain direction. This was in conjunction with the recent happenings in the .com forums.

Kill being a shareholder of Activision has absolutely NO relation with his moderating decisions.

2. Be aware that MikeB may not be at any liberty of speaking his mind or the current ongoings within CA. I do not have any inside information but I would guess that CA is investigating the issue and possibly in communication with Activision over it, along with the problems that arose with the 1.2 patch. Hence at the moment, MikeB was skirting the issue until he has concrete information and the green light to say anything.

3. Now I know this is a major bug, probably on the scale of the pri/sec bug. Can anyone confirm that it happened BEFORE 1.2? ie not something 1.2 introduced? I have seen some comments to the effect of saying yes, but nothing concrete.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Kraxis

Thanks for your explanation on the .com forums.

Jambo

03-03-2005, 13:51

I personally would like to make some comments on this entire episode.

1. The closing of the petition thread is not some unilateral action by Kill. It was in response against possible rabble rousing from a certain direction. This was in conjunction with the recent happenings in the .com forums.

Kill being a shareholder of Activision has absolutely NO relation with his moderating decisions.

2. Be aware that MikeB may not be at any liberty of speaking his mind or the current ongoings within CA. I do not have any inside information but I would guess that CA is investigating the issue and possibly in communication with Activision over it, along with the problems that arose with the 1.2 patch. Hence at the moment, MikeB was skirting the issue until he has concrete information and the green light to say anything.

3. Now I know this is a major bug, probably on the scale of the pri/sec bug. Can anyone confirm that it happened BEFORE 1.2? ie not something 1.2 introduced? I have seen some comments to the effect of saying yes, but nothing concrete.

1. Please don't bring this up again. Not only is it off-topic, it's completely uninteresting.

2. Likewise, we've been through this before. If what you "guess" is true then it would have been better for MikeB to refrain from posting in the first place. People take comments made by members of CA very seriously. Goes without saying really.

3. Puzz3d has alread confirmed this is the case above somewhere in this thread and in the one at .com.

Puzz3D

03-03-2005, 14:32

Kill being a shareholder of Activision has absolutely NO relation with his moderating decisions.
Actually, recent posts by Killmall54 confirm that his actions are motivated by his financial interest in Activision.

Now I know this is a major bug, probably on the scale of the pri/sec bug. Can anyone confirm that it happened BEFORE 1.2? ie not something 1.2 introduced? I have seen some comments to the effect of saying yes, but nothing concrete.
Read my previous post. It is 100% certain that it is there in v1.1, and it is 100% certain that I directly informed Creative Assembly's beta test team coordinator about the siege/savegame problem two weeks ago. So, how is it that MikeB doesn't know anything about it?

Doc,

Remember also that the probability of a besieged AI army sallying was increased in v1.2. I definitely see this happening because I can see the scorched earth where the battle occured.

Paul Peru

03-03-2005, 15:19

Remember also that the probability of a besieged AI army sallying was increased in v1.2. I definitely see this happening because I can see the scorched earth where the battle occured.
Sorry if I'm clueless here, but don't you get the scorched earth/devastation thingy from having a hostile army on your territory even if there's no battle?

tai4ji2x

03-03-2005, 16:13

Kill being a shareholder of Activision has absolutely NO relation with his moderating decisions.

what killemall54 chooses to do on the .com forums is of course his perogative. but let us be honest about what his personal and financial interests are, given that he has made them public on numerous occasions. he himself does not have to come out and admit "i'm doing this because i have a stake in CA/Activision's company image", but publicly denying the same would be disingenous at best. the same goes for colleagues of his. i believe most of us do NOT claim that being a stockholder in those companies makes him a "bad" person. just don't go deluding yourselves or outright lying about whether or not his investments have any bearing on his actions.

MacBeth

03-03-2005, 16:50

Surely this is nothing more than the behavior of a braggart - those with pretty minor financial interests tend to gob off in public.

Sorry completely OT.

Kraxis

03-03-2005, 17:48

Well the siege-bug thread has been opened again.

Puzz3D

03-03-2005, 17:55

Sorry if I'm clueless here, but don't you get the scorched earth/devastation thingy from having a hostile army on your territory even if there's no battle?
No. The scortched earth effect occurs if a battle has taken place and lasts for a few turns. The other way you can tell a battle has taken place is that the army stacks get smaller.

As far as .com, I think that's a liberal forum for a company site. I think this is because CA depends upon the player community to find a lot of the bugs in the game. So, they have to ride a line between leaving a critical thread open and closing it. The AI siege bug thread was stickied for a while. I notice it's not now, and the next step will probably be to close it. I'm not surprised to see the v1.3 patch petition thread closed because Creative Assembly doesn't want to make a v1.3, and it's not going to look good to have a petition with hundreds if not thousands of signatures on the official site for something that isn't going to happen unlike the v1.2 petition which had a PR value because CA was going to produce a v1.2 patch anyway.

tai4ji2x

03-03-2005, 23:14

No. The scortched earth effect occurs if a battle has taken place and lasts for a few turns.

actually, i think paul is right. if i leave an army at the same spot in a mountain pass in enemy territory for more than one turn, the ground will start to go black. no battle needed.

SpencerH

03-04-2005, 03:56

As far as I can tell, it doesnt have to be enemy either. Just placing an army onto land that isnt yours or your allies will start the process. Maybe its a 1.2 thing.

Kraxis

03-04-2005, 15:15

Well it appears that there might be something in the works.

"Date 2 March 2005

Further to your correspondence of 1 March 2005

This does appear to be an issue with the game which other users are experiencing. The good news is that the developers are aware of this issue, and will be addressing it in the next patch.

If you need further assistance in Europe, please call our technical support staff at
0870 241 2148 or contact us by e-mail at support@activision.co.uk . Also be sure to include all previous replies when/if responding to this message.

Best Regards,
Activision Technical Support"

It might not be a real patch but more of a small fix. But I think this is positive. Keep hoping.

Puzz3D

03-04-2005, 18:20

actually, i think paul is right. if i leave an army at the same spot in a mountain pass in enemy territory for more than one turn, the ground will start to go black. no battle needed.
Well, if that's true, maybe the AI is just walking away from some sieges.

Calmarac

03-04-2005, 18:59

Well, if that's true, maybe the AI is just walking away from some sieges.

I see the AI walking away from seiges about half the time anyway, let alone being forced into it just by loading a saved game. Sometimes there may be nearby enemy movement to account for it, or occasionally the defender has sallied and driven the beseiger away. But often enough there`s just no apparent reason and the AI can walk away from an established, multi-turn siege nearing its end - apparently from sheer boredom or amnesia.

That any seiges in progress are guaranteed to break when loading a saved game is just too much for the already handicapped AI to bear. It fully explains why some of my campaigns have seen a lot of AI progress while others have seen stagnation. The former have been long session games while the latter have been when reloads were used more. I thought I`d seen a pattern before 1.2 Now I`ve confirmed it for myself I find it just saps the will to even try to play the game as this is ruining the campaigns.

btw the blackened ground is a graphic representation of Devastaion I believe. It appears around stationary peasant or enemy armies, growing and speading if the army is allowed to stay put and live off the land.

Pode

03-04-2005, 19:21

tai4ji2x

03-04-2005, 21:03

or the rep could be mixing up the words "patch" with "expansion"...

Puzz3D

03-04-2005, 22:52

Just as I predicted. The thread at .com about the siege/savegame bug has been closed.

Edit: The thread has been reopened.

Kraxis

03-05-2005, 01:00

or the rep could be mixing up the words "patch" with "expansion"...
The mighty PATCHSPANSION or EXPATCHION. ~D

Anyway I'm surprised that noone commented on the email Tammy got.

Red Harvest

03-05-2005, 05:12

The mighty PATCHSPANSION or EXPATCHION. ~D

Anyway I'm surprised that noone commented on the email Tammy got.

It is pretty interesting. However, CA has done such a good job of crushing anyones hope of getting the game fixed/patch these past few days, that it is hard to get too enthused over the e-mail. I hope it is right, and that they do something substantial, but I won't hold my breath. At this time I assume it is a reference to the expansion pack.

Jambo

03-05-2005, 11:57

I've been playing a tiny bit with my no walls mod (as Scythia and Parthia, of course ~D ) and I have to say that it's helping the AI deal with this bug and pose more of a challenge. It's a drastic option, but it beats waiting around for a patch that may or may not come until the XP.
At the top of the buildings file, add the hidden resource walls. Add "and hidden_resource walls" to the requirements to build each level of wall. Since no province has that hidden resource, presto, no more wall building. Now go to descr_strat, search for defenses, and remove each of those buildings, being careful not to delete an extra brace accidentally. Start a new campaign, and watch the AIs conquer something for a change :)

I have actually just done something similar although not quite so extreme. What I did was remove the basic stone_wall from the tech tree and then shunt both the wooden_pallisade and wooden_wall back one level in the tech tree.

The net result is you can't build the first wall (wooden_pallisade) until you reach the large town size (2000) thereby prolonging the period of no walls a the start. Also, with the stone_wall removed, it gives the AI more chance to take cities from the player. By the time walls are present things like onagers, etc will be also be available...