View Full Version : German magazine review
Taken from this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1273593#post1273593
This info was posted by Kor Khan who is part of the Chivalry TW mod team.
A bit of info for you regarding reviews: Two German magazines came out today for subscribers (to whom I don't belong in either case). Both of them reviewed Medieval 2. GameStar Germany gave it 91%, which might (but not necessarily) put it at the very top of their list for strategy games. Rome got 89% btw.
I haven't read the review and noone's given me the gist of it, so I don't know what the stated pros and cons are.
The other magazine, PC Games, gave it 88% (Rome got 84% there). The stated Pros and cons are:
+ A perfect mix of turn-based strategy and real-time tactics
+ The so far best-looking epic battles of all time
+ Great immersion, length and replayability.
-Rare AI bugs in the battles (more below)
-Little variation during long campaigns.
About the AI: According to this thread (which is where I got all this info from) the AI in Medieval 2 is significantly better than in Rome and uses a range of tricks, but can sometimes cop-out completely during the real-time battles. One example: The AI (playing Milan) besieged the player's city. After taking the walls, the men just hung around indefinately and the player reloaded after ten minutes of absolutely nothing happening.
If you want to read more (and understand German), you can always look at this link
http://www.gamestar.de/community/gs...ad.php?t=236214
Furious Mental
10-21-2006, 18:04
Glad to hear about the AI generally improving, weird bug though. I guess I can live with it but really, I expect this to be picked up and fixed before the game is released.
shifty157
10-21-2006, 18:14
Yeah its definitly good to hear that the AI is significantly better from someone other than CA. AI bugs can always be addressed in a patch so im not too worried about those. CA is generally pretty good about fixing up issues like that in patches.
I am a subscriber of Gamestar and I have not yet seen any new article on the game yet (only some new screenshots). They are saying, however, that they will be testing the game thouroughly over the weekend. I am sure that the article will appear within the next few days.
I don't know where the 91% comes from. Some dude in the fora there has thrown that into the round. Perhaps he is a writer for the mag and has had a part in the discussion of the game. Could be about right, though.
Quid
Unfortunately AI sitting around doing nothing is an RTW bug that I'd have hoped would have been entirely expunged by now :thumbsdown:
& I'd gotten all excited about the AI from the podcast where they were talking about much smarter unit matchups, multi-ring castle defense, improved pathfinding & stuff like closing the range if they AI is losing a shooting match/hanging back if winning etc :juggle2:
A.Saturnus
10-22-2006, 01:45
I am a subscriber of Gamestar and I have not yet seen any new article on the game yet (only some new screenshots). They are saying, however, that they will be testing the game thouroughly over the weekend. I am sure that the article will appear within the next few days.
I don't know where the 91% comes from. Some dude in the fora there has thrown that into the round. Perhaps he is a writer for the mag and has had a part in the discussion of the game. Could be about right, though.
Quid
I got it yesterday. The 91% are correct. That's the second best score strategy games got in the mag (best was WIII - Frozen Throne with 93%).
Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to summerize the article (it's half three here).
They are overall quite pleased but report some bugs:
- none of the numerous children of the family was a princess
- factions refuse to accept cease fire even when in hopeless position
- units get stuck at bottle neck pathways
- cav sometimes refuses to charge runaways
Some of that sounds quite familiar
Polemists
10-22-2006, 07:49
well some of that seems quite easily fixed with a patch so i'm not to worried. I don't view those as major issues personally.
I got it yesterday. The 91% are correct. That's the second best score strategy games got in the mag (best was WIII - Frozen Throne with 93%).
Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to summerize the article (it's half three here).
They are overall quite pleased but report some bugs:
- none of the numerous children of the family was a princess
- factions refuse to accept cease fire even when in hopeless position
- units get stuck at bottle neck pathways
- cav sometimes refuses to charge runaways
Some of that sounds quite familiar
As stated above, it sounds about right. I gather they didn't have the final version yet but one that is being used for testing. With a bit of luck some of the issues will be resolved once the game goes gold.
However, some of the issues do sound familiar and that gives me a little to think about, to be honest. Clearly some of the problems are NOT as easily patched as they seem. Hopefully, though, they are being addressed and sorted out. Perhaps then the score will rise another notch...
How did you get the mag so early? I thought it was only coming out on 25th...
Quid
ai factions failing to see their own best interest, and refusig ceasefire when about to be mauled was the most infuriating fault in the strategic game of rtw. whats the use of getting " a lot more information about how the other part feels towards you" in a negotiation when the other part is totally incapable of making rational decisions?
Mount Suribachi
10-23-2006, 09:35
Yep, exactly. That was what many of us said when we first learnt about the new diplomacy screen *sighs* ~:(
As for units getting stuck in city battles, I had that the other night in RTW, but I thought it was cos I had the enemy stick between 2 sets of forces and they couldn't decide which way to go - advance and they get hit in the rear, retreat and they get hit in the rear. So they just shuffled around till the timer ran out. But thats the only time I've ever seen it.
- factions refuse to accept cease fire even when in hopeless position
That's the good old RTW classic. Sad that it hasn't been fixed.
Polemists
10-23-2006, 10:36
Maybe so but once again I am still of opinion that they can patch it. If not i'm sure someone in the mod community will develop countless mods where this won't be a issue for those of you who prefer mods. Personally I never had a issue with ceasefires, maybe because i never offered them once I was at war only my enemies did :laugh4:
-Little variation during long campaigns.
This is quite worrying, seems as though 80% of your single player time is spent in campaign! It seems bishops, princesses, merchants and the like; fail to make up for the lack of titles, depth of diplomacy and other role playing elements that kept me so addicted to MTW! :no:
I can tell from what I heard from someone who is a CA staffmember that they only worked for 3 months on the AI, and all other months on making it eye-candy. Furthermore you can still see the AI just attacking something, using 1 unit armies, not attacking over sea and the mongol invasion is unstoppable.
Well the thing about cease-fires is that some factions might be too proud to accept one. Anyways, in R:TW it always happened, so I hope it's not the same in M2TW.
Ituralde
10-23-2006, 13:22
How did you get the mag so early? I thought it was only coming out on 25th...
Quid
I guess he has subscribed to the magazine, that way you get it earlier, while the retail version hits the stores on Wednesday subscribers can get it as early as Saturday. However, since you mention that you are a subscriber there can sometimes be trouble with the mail, hope you got it by now!
I had the magazine in the mail on Saturday and read the article and watched a video about it. There wasn't anything too terribly new in it, which is why I won't bother to summarize the report.
Only important thing I can think of is that there's not going to be HotSeat campaign, as there has been speculation regardging this. Unfortunately the information on AI is pretty scarce. They just don't mention it, but say at the end that it's overall good but on rare occasions lacks completely.
The video is pretty short too, as I said they don't go into much detail, Muslim and Orthodox factions are not covered in their reports. Seems to me they just had time to play one large campaign with the HRE and probably did some Custom battles and some Multiplayer testing.
Nothing bad in the review, but nothing excitingly new either.
Cheers!
Ituralde
I read the Dutch Power Unlimited magazine last weekend when I was at my parents (my little brother gets it). It said that units will rout on their own now. No longer the entire group, but man by man, sounded cool and I haven't heard that before.
Darth Nihilus
10-23-2006, 14:59
The AI failing to accept a ceasefire was a very annoyong bug. I really hope its eliminated.
A.Saturnus
10-23-2006, 15:23
ai factions failing to see their own best interest, and refusig ceasefire when about to be mauled was the most infuriating fault in the strategic game of rtw. whats the use of getting " a lot more information about how the other part feels towards you" in a negotiation when the other part is totally incapable of making rational decisions?
Well, read my sig. What I find worrying about some of these bugs is precisely that they should be fixable. Because that means they haven't been fixed yet! Since they are well known from older games this leads us to the absurd but given the facts plausible suspicion that they may be intentional. Or at least intentionally not removed.
This is quite worrying, seems as though 80% of your single player time is spent in campaign! It seems bishops, princesses, merchants and the like; fail to make up for the lack of titles, depth of diplomacy and other role playing elements that kept me so addicted to MTW!
I would be to worried about that. I'm pretty sure that they don't mean little variation in comparison to Medieval I. Note that they gave higher scores for MIITW. Campaigns in all TW games could get a little unexcited over time.
Lol, i don't think any REAL staffmember would say anything in the lines of:
"So yea, we done practically zipp work on the AI, but we did spent most of our time, trying to amke it look pretty, so people will buy it''
DensterNY
10-23-2006, 15:42
This is quite worrying, seems as though 80% of your single player time is spent in campaign! It seems bishops, princesses, merchants and the like; fail to make up for the lack of titles, depth of diplomacy and other role playing elements that kept me so addicted to MTW! :no:
I agree because in MTW the campaign aspect of the game was just as fun as the battles.
One evil tactic I use is to take over an already conquered land by a rival nation, build up the city and let it go to rebellion. Sometimes there would be a resurgence of those conquered people and they'd be a strong threat and nuisance to my rival. How about provoking a Catholic ally to attack a weakened region so that they get excommunicated and you get a free pass to grab land. Or launching a Crusade just to walk through your allies' region to strip them of their troops.
... there are so many little things in MTW that made it fun, I hope they've kept some of it intact.
edyzmedieval
10-23-2006, 17:41
- factions refuse to accept cease fire even when in hopeless position
THat gets on my nerves. I can't stand that bug, it's soooo annoying.... :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
Nah I bet it's the same FEATURE as the Save/Load bug ~D
Mount Suribachi
10-23-2006, 18:02
I don't think its a bug though. I think its related to the "gang-up-on-the-human" way they designed the AI (and I've seen that from CA in plenty of interviews for RTW & MTW2)
I don't think its a bug though. I think its related to the "gang-up-on-the-human" way they designed the AI (and I've seen that from CA in plenty of interviews for RTW & MTW2)
I concur. My impression has always been that the AI's refusal to make peace when cornered is more of (as Stig put it) a "feature", and has nothing to do with faulty programming.
What's particularly annoying is that this has been a problem in every Total War game, not just Rome. Granted that while it made a certain amount of sense in Shogun (that the AI-controlled clans often refused ceasefires), it certainly didn't make sense in either of the other games.
I don't think its a bug though. I think its related to the "gang-up-on-the-human" way they designed the AI (and I've seen that from CA in plenty of interviews for RTW & MTW2)
I agree, it's not a bug; in-fact it's common practice to use the "gang-up" (as you so eloquently put it) or cheat technique in AI development, it would just be nicer if it wasn't so transparent!
A little role-play never hurt anyone! *says packing away Spiderman outfit*
I guess he has subscribed to the magazine, that way you get it earlier, while the retail version hits the stores on Wednesday subscribers can get it as early as Saturday. However, since you mention that you are a subscriber there can sometimes be trouble with the mail, hope you got it by now!
I had the magazine in the mail on Saturday and read the article and watched a video about it. There wasn't anything too terribly new in it, which is why I won't bother to summarize the report.
Only important thing I can think of is that there's not going to be HotSeat campaign, as there has been speculation regardging this. Unfortunately the information on AI is pretty scarce. They just don't mention it, but say at the end that it's overall good but on rare occasions lacks completely.
The video is pretty short too, as I said they don't go into much detail, Muslim and Orthodox factions are not covered in their reports. Seems to me they just had time to play one large campaign with the HRE and probably did some Custom battles and some Multiplayer testing.
Nothing bad in the review, but nothing excitingly new either.
Cheers!
Ituralde
Yeah, got it today but the DVD is broken (in two parts) so I wasn't able to have a look at the vids.
As you stated above, there isn't really anything new in the review. They seem pretty impressed with the game.
Graphics: 9/10
- boring battlefields
Sound: 10/10
Balance: 8/10
- already fairly hard on easy (but then, they thought that Rome was hard too)
Atmosphere: 9/10
- historic occurances - only in text form and at times difficult to comprehend? (nothing new there, then)
Game Handling: 7/10
- cumbersome handling of the camera in battle mode
- awkward menus
Amplitude: 10/10
Starting positions: 10/10
AI: 8/10
- some bugs
Specific bugs mentioned:
In the test not a single princess appeared in the entire campaign
Opposing factions would not accept a non-attack pact despite being hopelessly outnumbered and about to be crushed
Soldiers and horsemen sometimes got caught and were unable to be moved any further (bottlenecks and walls)
Cavalry at times ignored the attack order and just rode next to the fleeing enemies
Units: 10/10
Campaign: 10/10
Technical data:
Minimum requirements:
2.0 GHz Intel
XP 1800+ AMD
512 MB RAM
7.2 GB HD
Standard requirements:
2.8 GHz Intel
XP 2600+ AMD
1.0 GB RAM
7.2 GB HD
Optimum requirements:
3.6 GHz Intel
64/3500+ AMD
2.0 GB RAM
7.2 GB HD
Info taken from Gamestar (http://www.gamestar.de/index.html) Magazine.
Ituralde
10-24-2006, 18:33
Another thing to mention while reading their requirements:
No mention was made of SSE2 being required or Athlon XP not being able to handle the game and GameStar usually tests with a wide range of processor types and have up until Core 2 Duo always favoured AMD processors over Intel ones. This should be a major heads-up for people that were worried about their AMD CPU not handling the game.
Cheers!
Ituralde
Its been known for a while now that SSE2 will not be required for the full game. CA Oz made a statement relaitng to that after the demo was released, saying that SSE2 will not be requiree for the full game.
Ituralde
10-24-2006, 18:38
It's always good to have independent evidence. :yes:
According to another review, it seems the reviewers are trying build 47 of the game and here is Jason's response which is very good news.
Ok guys to be fair to those with concerns……………..
I will give you a slight insight into what we have done with the current AI. In previous titles AI's focus was target acquisition and movement, they would choose appropriate targets and move toward them. M2TW’s AI system adds a preference for maintaining formation.
From a developers point of view a balance has to be found between perceived intelligence and actual intelligence. For example a lone infantry unit guarding a village outnumbered by horse archers may withdraw to the plaza and hold its ground. It will continue to stand there and not move even though its being shot. This is actually intelligent because better to be shot in its plaza than run after horse archers in the open. However the lack of movement was perceived dumb or worse broken. To address this particular example a little movement back and forth was added to give the impression of thought.
As far as I know all you veterans out there should know that the way to beat battle AI in the past is to use a few units to draw off many AI units. You then stack the units that weren’t drawn away, route them and then move on the units now chasing your “bait”. Movement equals perceived intelligence so previously staying as a group was secondary to chasing a target that you knew you could kill.
It would have been very easy and safe to leave the AI in this state, however we took the risk to do what no previous title has done with battle AI. Once all battle mechanics were finalized Iain, Artem and myself worked like crazy to employ logic many multiplayer’s would know and appreciate. For human players it’s all about getting more men to the engagement first and maintaining a formation with the rest of the army. The players that don’t keep their units together loose, those that do keep them in formation win.
When we first introduced the new logic the AI became very cautious, players could not draw any units away from the main army but the army stopped and assessed its next move too slowly. This was then sped up but caused it to digress into not considering army formation any longer. We kept refining this until a good balance was found. Once this was achieved all related exploits had to be addressed. The last of which was that when the AI group moved toward its primary target you could keep charging lone cavalry units into the army’s rear and it wouldn’t respond at all. Unfortunately this last fix generated another exploit that made it into build 52 which is Gold. If you interact with the AI it does fine but if you don’t it will move to charge distance and wait for you to make a move, indefinitely.
This was fixed a few days later with many other fixes that will be available for the first update that as far as I know will be available on release.
I know for many what us developers say maybe seen as lip service so my best advice is listen to Epistolary Richard from the .ORG. We have flown him to our studio for 10 days as a community representative here to help us grasp how we can best support modding. He played build 52 today and while doing custom battle tests found the AI defect in question. I then asked him to try using the build with the update fixes installed, as far as I know he is yet to win a battle.
Anyway I picked him up at the airport at 6:30am today and his head hit the table with fatigue by 2:00pm, so we carried him to his hotel where I am assuming he is sleeping like a baby. Anyway I will ask him if he would like to respond to this thread tomorrow if he finds his way to the studio ;) (man should have given him breadcrumbs or pebbles hey it's Australia at most he will be an hour late drunk wearing shorts, singlet and thongs).
What you will love and ER is yet to see, is that when the AI has more missile strength than you it will ensure that its non-skirmish units all skirmish as a battle group so that it can continue to shoot you to pieces. For those that know TW battle AI you know that this change is major, previously when you lost the shootout you could just charge and the AI would oblige and charge back not using its missile superiority. Anyway tomorrow I will set up a custom battle between a Mongol hit and run army and a slow moving infantry heavy European army, ER can play it and I will ask if he can give you an accurate assessment of where AI is at.
So to conclude build 47 was still in very basic overly defensive form, 48-50 smoothed it out, 51 & 52 fixed exploits and introduced a silly one that you wont notice unless you go answer the phone come back and realize “hey, what’s it waiting for?”. The first update fixes this and smoothes out the movement even further. The battle AI has so much good stuff in it and more importantly it will continue to evolve. Already we are designing shootout phase logic with cavalry skirmishing, and better use of elevation and vegetation. This will continue indefinately untill we have a battle AI system we can say is the best out there.
Man this turned into a long post………… please excuse any lack of clarity its getting late and my Wife will kick my ass soon.
Jason
I'm wondering what build the demo is. As the AI in it is shite.
It stands in front of your archers getting shot, it runs into a wall of pikes, and all sorts of these RTW things.
I learned not to trust CA when they came with BI (around the time I joined .com), much stories but the game was shite imo.
It sounds promising, but no more then sounds.
The demo AI was probably finalised two weeks before release so it 47 or 48 but that's just a guess.
I'm wondering what build the demo is. As the AI in it is shite.
It stands in front of your archers getting shot, it runs into a wall of pikes, and all sorts of these RTW things.
I learned not to trust CA when they came with BI (around the time I joined .com), much stories but the game was shite imo.
It sounds promising, but no more then sounds.
The demo was a scripted game, not run entirely by AI.
Charging frontally into spears were partly to demonstrate that it is no longer possible to do so and still win (one of the flaw of old RTW engine was to have cav jumping over spears).
It also allows the average player to feel good and not be overwhelmed in first experience with the game. Everyone loves to win, and it is particularly true for newbies :)
The demo was a scripted game, not run entirely by AI.
not when you turn the scripts off.
According to another review, it seems the reviewers are trying build 47 of the game and here is Jason's response which is very good news.
Thanks for posting that very interesting response from Palamedes. I would have missed it.
The individual target acqusition system worked well in STW because the RPS was strong and the maps were small. It worked less well in MTW with the slightly weaker RPS, but the addition of cav flanking AI was a nice improvement. In RTW, the RPS was further weakened to the point where the AI breaking the army's formation to target individual units wasn't sufficiently compensated by that individual targetting; especially when it exposed the flanks of phalanx units. This weakening of the RPS is probably inevitable as the battle engine moves toward more of a physics model for melee weapons which 3D allows.
I think this addition of another level of AI where army formation is taken into consideration when entering into melee is an important step. I'm glad to see that CA has taken on the challenge, and that they are putting considerable effort into addressing possible exploits of the new AI system. Hopefully, the AI army will maintain formation when entering into melee, and for loosing matchups along the line, will put those units into guard mode so that they loose more slowly.
One thing I'd really like to see is the men using their shields to protect themselves from projectiles instead of the shield protection always being tied to the direction the unit is facing. For instance, if arrows are coming in from the right, the men should shift the shield to protect their right side eventhough they continue to face forward in the battleline.
One thing I'd really like to see is the men using their shields to protect themselves from projectiles instead of the shield protection always being tied to the direction the unit is facing. For instance, if arrows are coming in from the right, the men should shift the shield to protect their right side even though they continue to face forward in the battleline.
I definitely would like to see this as well, but it seems like it would be a ***** to code correctly. What if the unit was already engaged in melee combat when it was fired upon? Would the men keep their shields facing their current enemy, and just let the arrows strike them? I'm no programmer, so I have no idea how that would work. :shrug:
I especially like the idea of the AI setting its units to Guard mode, so as to reduce their lossess via attrition. (Plus, that ought to be somewhat easier to code, wouldn't it?)
I definitely would like to see this as well, but it seems like it would be a ***** to code correctly. What if the unit was already engaged in melee combat when it was fired upon? Would the men keep their shields facing their current enemy, and just let the arrows strike them? I'm no programmer, so I have no idea how that would work.
I meant if the infantry unit is otherwise unengaged and not taking fire. Right now in RTW/BI you can send an HA to the flank and shoot into the rightmost unit on the line and that unit will stand there facing front. If the unit has a shield they hold the shield to the front instead of protecting themselves with it from the HA's arrows which are coming in from their right side.
I especially like the idea of the AI setting its units to Guard mode, so as to reduce their lossess via attrition. (Plus, that ought to be somewhat easier to code, wouldn't it?)
This is easy because the AI can see the enemy's combat stats. All it has to do is compare its unit to the enemy unit. It already does that when it targets a unit for melee in STW and MTW. If the AI unit is weaker, it moves to make a flank attack. If the AI unit is stronger it, makes a frontal attack. I'm assuming from Palamede's statement that the new AI doesn't make individual targetting matchups when it advances a whole battleline, but keeps its line so the individual matchups are going to be however the units in the battleline happen to matchup when they close into melee with the enemy battleline.
the Stig, is it just me or are you a complete pessimist? Palamedes has just made perhaps the greatest ever post by CA in regards to the ai and your repsonse is very downbeat. I've tried the ai unscripted modded custom battles. I've been the victim of coordinated ai hammer and anvil tactics, the ai using cavalry properly, thinkng well(eg holding back extra units to commit to weak spots). And you say the ai in the demo is shite? its a damn bit better than the RTw ai, and with this further info from CA i am very, very optimistic about the battlefield ai of M2TW.
I meant if the infantry unit is otherwise unengaged and not taking fire. Right now in RTW/BI you can send an HA to the flank and shoot into the rightmost unit on the line and that unit will stand there facing front. If the unit has a shield they hold the shield to the front instead of protecting themselves with it from the HA's arrows which are coming in from their right side.
Ah, I see. Yeah, that was a problem in MTW/VI as well. It would be nice if units would shift their shields when under fire (as long as they weren't actively engaged, anyway).
This is easy because the AI can see the enemy's combat stats. All it has to do is compare its unit to the enemy unit. It already does that when it targets a unit for melee in STW and MTW. If the AI unit is weaker, it moves to make a flank attack. If the AI unit is stronger it, makes a frontal attack. I'm assuming from Palamede's statement that the new AI doesn't make individual targetting matchups when it advances a whole battleline, but keeps its line so the individual matchups are going to be however the units in the battleline happen to matchup when they close into melee with the enemy battleline.
But wouldn't that actually make it MORE difficult to program, since the AI must now balance between keeping its men in formation and looking after the individual units comprising the main battle line? Or is looking at specific unit-vs-unit matchups during battle simple enough that knowing when to activate a unit's Guard Mode would be considered a computational "afterthought", regardless of the AI's need to look at the larger tactical picture? (Again, I'm no programmer, so I beg your pardon if these questions are a bit ridiculous to you.)
the Stig, is it just me or are you a complete pessimist?
No m8, I don't deny the AI isn't better, but as said on .com it could have been better, for all sorts of reasons I'm not going to tell again. I can tell you that I had a pm exchange with someone from CA and he shared me some knowledge about the AI, what I heard from that isn't good.
Barkhorn1x
10-26-2006, 00:56
No m8, I don't deny the AI isn't better, but as said on .com it could have been better, for all sorts of reasons I'm not going to tell again. I can tell you that I had a pm exchange with someone from CA and he shared me some knowledge about the AI, what I heard from that isn't good.
Ooooh..the secret CA Insider has the real low down and Palemedes just posted to stroke everyone, huh? :laugh4: For all we know this guy could be mail clerk yanking your chain.
Let's wait to see what Epistolery Bob has to say as he was at CA - using his rreal identity I might add - and actually played the Gold code AND the fix code.
Barkhorn.
Well I can tell who it is, but I doubt CA will be happy, atleast I know that is true, as I know him from the forums, and know he is speaking the truth.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.