Creative Assembly Latest update on 1.2 patch from Sega/CA [Archive] - Page 2

Daveybaby

04-20-2007, 10:55

Even chess doesnt count, because the way chess programs work is that they simulate the outcome of every possible move for a number of turns ahead to see what move has the best outcome. This is feasible for a game like chess where you have a fixed (and relatively small) number of pieces and board size, a very simple set of rules and behaviours, and only one piece can be moved per turn.

In a game like total war (or any other strategy game) you cant simulate even 1 move in advance because there are just too many variables, too many options. There has never been a turn based strategy game or wargame where an AI has been able to compete with the player on a level playing field. The only way an AI will beat a player on a traditional RTS is by being able to 'out-click' them (which doesnt really work in TW because the battles arent really clickfests) and even then i've yet to see one that can win in a 1:1 situation (except maybe some of the AI mods for Total Annihilation, where after years of play people have managed to define optimum build orders etc).

Thats the key point, actually. At the point at which the game is released, even the developers dont know the optimum way to play the game - this is something that gets refined by 1000's of players playing the game for years - and if the developers dont know, how are they going to program an AI to play that way? Total Annihilation was pretty unique in the amount of access it gave to modders, to the point where you could write their own AI modules for it - admittedly its a much simpler game to write an AI for than TW, but the point is that players could figure out how they were beating the AI and rewrite it to counter themselves.

So what would be really nice would be if we had the ability to code our own AI modules - i.e. the developers give us all of the hooks in the the game code required, and we basically write and compile our own DLLs. Even better if they made the AI modules open source so we could use them as a starting point and tweak them. Never gonna happen, i guess - since the TW AI is pretty damn advanced (despite everyone's complaints) and CA are hardly likely to open source their trade secrets, but a guy can dream, cant he?

Temujin

04-20-2007, 11:12

I don't use my general to melee and always release prisoners (need the chivalry to compete with the AI pop growth bonus). I don't ally with anyone exceprt the pope never accept huge amounts of cash for ceasefire every 2 turns and I don't sally and use missile troops on passive foe. In other words i don't use cheesy tactics to win then complain about how easy it is.

Yeah, using the alliance feature of diplomacy is just cheap and cheesy. Also, raising armies and building settlement upgrades. Stop doing those things if you want a challenge.

Seriously, I know that AI is frequently poor in games, because it is hard to code. I've tried it myself, once, and it really gives some perspective on the awesomeness of the human brain. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't even try, though, and in my opinion M2TW barely tries.

Two things that're seriously missing from the tactical AI, or at least appear to be, is a plan and some variation.

Currently, the AI does not appear to have a plan at all, and simply reacts to whatever it is that you do, never trying to do anything of its own mind. This is what leads to passive behaviour, because if your own plan doesn't hit any of the AI's triggers, it just stands there. Secondly, it always, always deploys the same and moves the same, no matter what it's got and what you've got in your army. Without variation, the shortcomings of the AI become very easy to exploit. The original MTW AI wasn't too hot either, but at least it tried various deployments, and sometimes surprised you with attacks of it's own initiative. This simply isn't happening in M2TW.

Having the AI formulate a plan, no matter how half-baked, and varying it's posture, will make it more challenging to fight by simply increasing randomness and making it more unpredictable. Occasionally, this means that the AI will do something totally retarded, while very rarely it'll look positively brilliant by sheer luck, but this is still miles better than the consistent, dull stupidity of the current AI, and historically accurate too :2thumbsup:

Some simple randomness and initiative isn't any harder to code than what we already have, though certainly more time-consuming. It would, however, improve the game more than anything else that I can think of.

RickooClan

04-20-2007, 11:18

Nobody asked for that. We asked for a better AI, not to stand there and get killed by our Longbowmen. :no:

You are right and as i said, it is perfectly fair to expect better AI which are not doing silly or stupid thing, just like the passive AI suffering now.

RickooClan

04-20-2007, 11:39

The original MTW AI wasn't too hot either, but at least it tried various deployments, and sometimes surprised you with attacks of it's own initiative. This simply isn't happening in M2TW.

I agree that the battle game in STW/MTW is much more challenging. But i have little idea why was it as i am not a programmer.

Some have suggested that was because since RTW there are more variations in units and such which make the coding of game harder. If this is the only reason for that?

OR

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't even try, though, and in my opinion M2TW barely tries.

just as suggested, CA are lack of the enthusiasm anymore to bring the AI further, on an already established game series?? :juggle2:

Lusted

04-20-2007, 11:50

Latest posts by Caliban about the patch at TWC:

I can understand the frustration that some of you may have over the patch delays but we aren’t giving any official release date this time until it is known for sure (for obvious reasons). I won't be answering that question again
I can confirm for the modders that unit sprite generation has been included in the patch and is undergoing testing. The coders have been hard at work nailing down a lot of the passive AI bugs and other fixes. It looks as if we will be producing a build for testing in the coming days.

Jambo

04-20-2007, 12:02

Have to say, I too am also surprised by how someone could find playing England difficult. The first campaign I won was playing England on VH/VH, albeit under 1.1.

Now I play using an additional AI money script and a trait that gives the AI superior generals. I'm currently playing HRE under leaked 1.2 and finding it extremely challenging. In fact I've never been in the situation before playing any TW title where I've gained and subsequently lost so many cities to the AI. The attacking siege AI is so much improved over 1.1 that needless to say it's been great fun.

In my opinion patch 1.2 makes Med II into the best TW title by far. Rome never reached this level of competency despite receiving 5 patches, and if they manage to fix the remaining passive AI issues - siege sally and sometimes AI reinforcements - then we'll have a true game on our hands.

Lupiscanis

04-20-2007, 13:05

In my opinion patch 1.2 makes Med II into the best TW title by far.

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm having a bit of trouble at the moment. I started playing as Spain on M/H (I suck, I need all the help I can get =p) and everything was going fine. Allied with the French to provide stability on that border whilst I dealt with the portugese and the rebels in Iberia and started moving on the Moors.

I had taken all the provinces in Iberia apart from Lisbon, and decimated the Portugese army, as well as moving a half stack down to the city closest to the southern land bridge from Iberia (I forget what its called), when the Pope calls a crusade on Tunis.

"Great!" I'm thinking.. really close, I can have that! So I load up a stack army, and ship myself over to Tunis and lay siege, taking the city in a few turns, but neglecting to think about what was happening in Iberia.

Milan, Venice and HRE had all moved Crusade stacks into central Iberia otw to Tunis.. and as soon as I completed my Crusade - the next turn I find one of my cities under siege by Venice with Milan supporting (around 1600 troops vs 2 units of spear militia and a general's unit (I'm really light on city defense in early game stages)) - and another city under siege by a 400 or so HRE stack with much the same units defending. Needless to say I lost both cities and I'm having to scrape the barrel to keep Tunis from rebelling (religion problems) whilst recruiting like mad to keep Venice and HRE from taking the entire Iberian peninsula.

####

To echo what some other people have said - I notice a lot of people talking about reloading after spy/assassin deaths/bad sieges or defences etc. Or I notice them talking about rushing towns etc and winning in 48 turns or whatever.

That's fine, if you want to play it that way, but a lot of us don't and are really enjoying the game for what it is.

econ21

04-20-2007, 13:35

Have to say, I too am also surprised by how someone could find playing England difficult.

I'm starting an AAR to document one of my English campaigns just to prove that I am not delusional:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

I'm 14 turns in and already it is challenging. I've had a fun tough battle (vs Bruges) and two I have lost (around Caen). Strategically, I am facing a non-trivial challenge of getting an army to Antioch and evicting the French from Caen.

Now, I admit that my troubles are partly because I have made mistakes: I was hasty when Caen was threatened and got riled, making some moves that were in retrospect foolish. But I am pretty happy with a game that punishes you if you make mistakes.

I'm playing 1.2, but each of my earlier three (incomplete) campaigns (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) followed a similar pattern over the first 100 turns or so: slow progress both on the continent and in the Holy Land. I'm not saying I am going to lose the campaign, but it is going to be hard enough to make it worth playing.

Quickening

04-20-2007, 13:41

I'm starting an AAR to document one of my English campaigns just to prove that I am not delusional:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

Heh I had the exact same idea. I'll never know how people can find this game too easy. I get thrashed on VH/VH.
I mean you end up being attacked by every neighbour eventually even with 1.2 (and Im not saying it shouldn't be that way mind). And the AI always seems to have one more full stack somewhere. I afraid to take troops from my castles to advance incase the AI swoops in and takes it like it always does. Too easy? I'll just never know. Id love to watch one of the people who think this game is too easy play it because I must be doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

Darkgreen

04-20-2007, 14:18

Poppycock. I think I am going to start an AAR to show that M2TW can be a challenging game. I just started it this evening. It's only 1104 and already the French have defeated me twice, taking Caen and killing off one line of my family tree. The two battles were at 4:3 and 5:6 odds. The Pope's told me to back off France and crusade to Antioch. I feel like Napoleon ranting at Ney during Waterloo: "troops - you think I can manufacture them?!" It's all good.

If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.
Maybe you prefer to think of it as that is just your game style, but then again the game isn’t challenging, your game style is.
I have to object when you say that the game can be challenging. It is much more appropriate to say that you challenge yourself in the game. Which, I have to sincerely say is great for you.
A challenging game would be one that would give difficulty to all (or maybe most or many) game styles.

Quickening

04-20-2007, 14:30

If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.
Maybe you prefer to think of it as that is just your game style, but then again the game isn’t challenging, your game style is.
I have to object when you say that the game can be challenging. It is much more appropriate to say that you challenge yourself in the game. Which, I have to sincerely say is great for you.
A challenging game would be one that would give difficulty to all (or maybe most or many) game styles.

It's for this very reason that Im about to conduct an experiment. Usually I play ultra-Chivalrous. I always occupy cities, always release prisoners and always do as the Pope commands etc.
Im going to start yet another game as England on VH/VH except that this time Im going to be the most evil and selfish King on the planet. Im going to do whatever it takes to win.
Interesting to see how this goes.

econ21

04-20-2007, 14:34

If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.

Have a look at the AAR I'm writing, it's very early days but still:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

It's not clear to me that the challenge I currently face in that AAR is because I have limited myself. Compare it with your usual playstyle: what's different? I'm genuinely curious. Personally, I don't see how I have challenged myself - this is how I usually play TW and it does not seem too constrained.

Odin

04-20-2007, 14:42

dismal

04-20-2007, 14:45

Heh I had the exact same idea. I'll never know how people can find this game too easy. I get thrashed on VH/VH.
I mean you end up being attacked by every neighbour eventually even with 1.2 (and Im not saying it shouldn't be that way mind). And the AI always seems to have one more full stack somewhere. I afraid to take troops from my castles to advance incase the AI swoops in and takes it like it always does. Too easy? I'll just never know. Id love to watch one of the people who think this game is too easy play it because I must be doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

Generally, the AI will not "swoop in" and attack behind an advancing army.

If you siege it's cities it will tend to fall back and defend.

Often, when it does you can either beat it with a skeleton defensive force, or as a last resort, bring your advancing army back as a relief force.

On the other hand, if you sit passively the AI will send multiple stacks at you. It's hard to understate the importance of taking the battle to the enemy's cities.

FactionHeir

04-20-2007, 15:09

IMO its still kind of easy in 1.2 to cripple the AI early on by offering them: Alliance, trade rights, map information + 1-3k florins for 1-2 of their cities/castles. Usually the very first thing I do in a new campaign is send a diplomat/princess to HRE and buy off staufen and another city/castle from them, then go to venice and get ragusa, corinth from byzantines and bordeaux or angers from the french (depends on what faction I play). Ends up letting you expand towards any early rebel town you want and have a lot of regions early on with strong economy and troop producing capabilities.

Limiting that would make the game tougher, but I for one already limit myself by giving the AI extra flroins a turn (in addition to what they get on the difficulty level) and only attack factions that attack me first.

Darkgreen

04-20-2007, 15:56

Have a look at the AAR I'm writing, it's very early days but still:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

It's not clear to me that the challenge I currently face in that AAR is because I have limited myself. Compare it with your usual playstyle: what's different? I'm genuinely curious. Personally, I don't see how I have challenged myself - this is how I usually play TW and it does not seem too constrained.

Firstly, when you are quoting someone, you might want to include the whole quote, especially when what I said already addresses what you say here. Here is my full quote:

“If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.
Maybe you prefer to think of it as that is just your game style, but then again the game isn’t challenging, your game style is.
I have to object when you say that the game can be challenging. It is much more appropriate to say that you challenge yourself in the game. Which, I have to sincerely say is great for you.
A challenging game would be one that would give difficulty to all (or maybe most or many) game styles.”

As far as your AAR goes, even though I don’t know the composition of your armies, I find it hard to fathom why you would lose either of those two battles at those odds. If it is because of some imbalance in quality of forces, then I would have to ask why you would be fielding an army of mostly peasants.

Finally, just because you find this game challenging does not mean that this is a challenging game.
Let’s say I suck at Tetris, I even have trouble with the first couple levels. This does not make the first couple levels of Tetris challenging. It is only challenging for me.

This may seem like an unimportant distinction, and in 99% of cases it is. However, in a talking about the merits and problems of the AI in MTW2, where I think people are discussing ways to improve the AI against all or many playing styles, we should be more precise in the ways we use the words “challenging” and “challenge.” These distinctions and definitions are important because otherwise we just have people talking past each other. In other words, there needs to be a more communal definition of what is “challenging”, which I do not think you are using.

Puzz3D

04-20-2007, 16:15

You only made a serious error in judgment if you expected what you say to magically influence CA. You may have the right to say what you please in whatever country you reside in, but everyone else (most especially CA/SEGA) almost certainly has the right to ignore it. I don't mind anything anyone says on here, really, but I do think it's rather silly to go on a forum and expect to have real power over huge corporations, especially after you've already paid them.
You can have influence with potential customers who read the forum to decide if they should buy the game or pass on it. That's what Caliban is responding to. It's just the typical damage control that they've engaged in for years when the level of complaints is high. After the RTW v1.0 experience (I was on the RTW v1.2 beta team), not buying M2TW v1.0 was an easy decision. After the final M2TW patch and after additional fixes by modders, I'll consider buying the game for SP. MP seems like a lost cause.

Gaius Terentius Varro

04-20-2007, 16:23

Firstly, when you are quoting someone, you might want to include the whole quote, especially when what I said already addresses what you say here. Here is my full quote:

“If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.
Maybe you prefer to think of it as that is just your game style, but then again the game isn’t challenging, your game style is.
I have to object when you say that the game can be challenging. It is much more appropriate to say that you challenge yourself in the game. Which, I have to sincerely say is great for you.
A challenging game would be one that would give difficulty to all (or maybe most or many) game styles.”

As far as your AAR goes, even though I don’t know the composition of your armies, I find it hard to fathom why you would lose either of those two battles at those odds. If it is because of some imbalance in quality of forces, then I would have to ask why you would be fielding an army of mostly peasants.

Finally, just because you find this game challenging does not mean that this is a challenging game.
Let’s say I suck at Tetris, I even have trouble with the first couple levels. This does not make the first couple levels of Tetris challenging. It is only challenging for me.

This may seem like an unimportant distinction, and in 99% of cases it is. However, in a talking about the merits and problems of the AI in MTW2, where I think people are discussing ways to improve the AI against all or many playing styles, we should be more precise in the ways we use the words “challenging” and “challenge.” These distinctions and definitions are important because otherwise we just have people talking past each other. In other words, there needs to be a more communal definition of what is “challenging”, which I do not think you are using.
Erm that's because you play on M/M matey
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1503973&postcount=1

gardibolt

04-20-2007, 16:25

Thanks to the 225 turn limit I may end up losing this game as England on M/M 1.1. :inquisitive: I have 65 territories, but I've never been able to get Jerusalem. :embarassed: The situation: the Pope declared a crusade on Jerusalem and I packed up several stacks in ships +/- turn 175. My ships made it about to Asia Minor when a storm hit and they all died. :skull: :skull: :skull::furious3: I tried to assemble another crusade force and got part way there when the Pope himself took Jerusalem. :oops: So my crusaders took Gaza, Alexandria and Cairo so they would have something to do. Role playing a good Catholic, I couldn't exactly attack the Pope and conquer Jerusalem myself.:dizzy2:

Then the Timurids showed up and booted the Pope out of the city. Unfortunately that also meant that they've been beating on Gaza and Alexandria nonstop for 30 or so turns. :help: Through judicious use of trebuchets and the amusing penchant of the elephant artillery to go berserk and rampage through their own troops, :smash: the Timurids finally have been whittled down substantially, though my own troops aren't in very good shape thanks to repeated sieges.:juggle2:

My problem: at about turn 218, I see my chance at last. :idea2: Jerusalem is thinly defended with maybe 200 Timurid troops, the leftovers from the last stack hurled against Gaza's walls. :egypt: I prepare a somewhat ragtag force, everyone in Gaza I can spare, to go after it, when the city rebels. And it rebels in style, with a full stack of elite troops and cavalry and enough archers to wipe me out before I can get into the city. :skull: At turn 219, a half stack of Timurids leaves Acre to besiege Jerusalem. Seeing another opportunity, I send my half stack up to Acre and take it for myself, so I can at least have another citadel to train proper troops---and slow down the Timurid threat too. :2thumbsup: Alas, it's a red face and I have to exterminate if I want to hold it---and that means no troops available for several turns. :no: By turn 221 I have a force from Dongora and a supplemental army from Alexandria and Cairo coming :egypt: , and by my calculations they will reach Jerusalem about turn 224. The Timurid stack besieging Jerusalem is probably more than my men in Acre can handle, and then I certainly wouldn't have enough to face the rebel forces, but if they manage to take the city from the rebels they should be worn down to the point I can take it myself. But when will they do that? It's now turn 222, and they're just sitting there, building siege weapons, but aren't making any moves to take the city for themselves....they're probably as leery of those rebels as I am. :wall: If all else fails, in turn 225 I'll end up hurling everything I have in the Holy Land at the Timurids and the rebels and we'll see whether that's enough....but I kinda doubt it. :whip: :whip: :whip: And now there's another Timurid stack just come into sight from the East....:wall:

Anyway, from a combination of circumstances this has ended up being the most difficult endgame I've ever had in a Total War game. :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:

TinCow

04-20-2007, 16:30

IMO its still kind of easy in 1.2 to cripple the AI early on by offering them: Alliance, trade rights, map information + 1-3k florins for 1-2 of their cities/castles.

Uh... then don't do that? :idea2: What you're describing is essentially power-gaming; you're exploiting the weakness of the AI to beat it down as hard and as fast as possible.

You want a harder game, but you don't want to impose more limits on yourself. It would certainly be nice if CA developed a harder AI, but as I said before, the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI. That's more convenient than doing it manually, but in the absence of an automatic system made by CA, it seems like the logical alternative.

Darkgreen

04-20-2007, 16:49

Erm that's because you play on M/M matey
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1503973&postcount=1

I restarted a couple days ago and am now playing on battle VH and campaign H. Really, I only see a more aggressive AI, not a harder AI, which is what I expected. It hasn't been any more challenging, just more battles.
I guess that may be a sad comentary on the game, that my first experience with it I get bored right away on the normal setting. At least the first experience should be somewhat difficult, even for those (like me) that are familiar with the total war series.

Gaius Terentius Varro

04-20-2007, 17:12

I think that CA wants a more challenging AI as much as most of us they just can't make it since they laid 95 % of resources on eye candy. Since the new patch is gonna adress the passive siege AI among other things so I am happy with 1.2. The game is playable, addictive and fun challenging enough for 95% ppl that buy this game. I play EB and the Idea of using House Rules is something almost given in order to get a challenging game experience. We are way harder and unforgiving on vanilla than we are on the mods which is really unfair

econ21

04-20-2007, 17:44

Firstly, when you are quoting someone, you might want to include the whole quote, especially when what I said already addresses what you say here.

Or I might not want to. It's perfectly acceptable to quote part of a post when responding to it. Nothing is more tedious than ready debates where people block quote each other endlessly. The fact that your post:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1513049&postcount=265

was almost exactly identical to an earlier one you made

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1512249&postcount=245

added to my reluctance. You've now effectively quoted yourself twice now; you don't need help from me.

As far as your AAR goes, even though I don’t know the composition of your armies, I find it hard to fathom why you would lose either of those two battles at those odds. If it is because of some imbalance in quality of forces, then I would have to ask why you would be fielding an army of mostly peasants.

I disband peasants and never recruit them. But by turn 10 you don't have that much access to elites. Yes, I lost because of an imbalance in the quality of forces but that was because the French pulled a Pearl Harbour on me and I reacted in haste.

But the main challenge in the PBM so far is not winning the battles. Of course, I can win battles. The challenge as of turn 14 is how to get Caen back when the Pope has told me to hold off for 7 turns and at the same time, how to get a crusading army together to win the race for Antioch when I have combined field armies of only about two dozen units.

Finally, just because you find this game challenging does not mean that this is a challenging game.
Let’s say I suck at Tetris, I even have trouble with the first couple levels. This does not make the first couple levels of Tetris challenging. It is only challenging for me.

Yes, challenge is relative but I assure you I don't suck at TW (the mess at Caen not withstanding :sweatdrop:). From the kill ratios in our PBM campaigns, I surmise that I play the SP TW games as well as most people and if I find it can find challenging, I suspect 75% of those who bought the game can too.

It does help to play on VH/VH, of course. :wink:

Darkgreen

04-20-2007, 19:16

The significant difference between those two threads of mine that you reference is that one is more detailed and more descriptive, the reason for that being is because I merely thought you misinterpreted what I had said in the first. Now that you haven’t really addressed what I’ve said for the second or third time from either of those two threads, I take it you are just being obtuse (whether it is intentional or not, I don’t know).

Yes, I think you originally said that it is like people are playing two different games. I am beginning to agree. I just don’t know what you are doing differently from other people to make it challenging for you. I am not that good of a TW player. Or maybe I am. Or maybe you are not as good as you thought. Or maybe some combination of both. Or maybe there is some other explanation. I just don’t know.

Your estimate of 75% of players that bought the game find it challenging, I would think exactly the opposite. Though, I think at this point both of us would just be pulling those estimates out of our arses.

Yes, as you say, challenge is relative. But one of the reasons why I wanted to weigh in here (and I think this is the point you have been failing to grasp) I want to try and make “challenge” a less relative term in this particular instance by making it more definable and useable for more people in this thread and maybe in the forum. To do this, I think we have to define what “challenging” is for all players. When I use the word “challenging” I try to take into account how difficult the game is for all players. I think that it is not challenging for most players, and even though I could be wrong, it is a much better starting place than merely saying that it is challenging for yourself. If everyone were to use your definition of challenging, we would all be talking past each other.

TinCow

04-20-2007, 19:34

Your estimate of 75% of players that bought the game find it challenging, I would think exactly the opposite. Though, I think at this point both of us would just be pulling those estimates out of our arses.

I made a poll that is somewhat related to this subject shortly after the game came out. It's about battle losses rather than campaign losses. Keep in mind the poll was with the 1.0 AI, so the results should be oriented to a higher loss rate with the 1.2 AI.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72909

It's perfectly possible for people to find a game still challenging even if they win most of the time, if some of those wins are close. In that poll, about 30% of people lost battles 10 to 25% of the time. Being optimistic about the 1.2 AI, that could rise to 40%, perhaps 50%. (Remember the massive passive AI problems in 1.0). That seems like a good chunk of the player base.

Darkgreen

04-20-2007, 19:54

Thanks for the info.

Such a poll or similar might be interesting to see after the official 1.2 comes out.

hrvojej

04-20-2007, 21:03

... the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI.

I don't think that's the only way to do it, and I for one would not like to see that made too obvious. Custom battles with comparable armies on VH can be challenging. Though I still win almost all of them, I have to work for that and, most importantly, I have fun while I play them. The problem with sucky battles in SP is mostly tied to the campaign AI flops - poor recruitment decisions, not using generals to lead the armies, and having a dozen 2-unit stacks instead of a single powerful one. Some of these things can be made better with modding, but, other than the passive tactical AI, this is where the focus should be IMO to improve the game and the level of challenge. Giving AI unfair bonuses is a much poorer choice than improving its strategic decisions.

Gaius Terentius Varro

04-21-2007, 01:01

Keep in mind that 90% of the ppl who bought the game never visit these forums.
Example how to lose a campaign:
in one turn i lost 3 out of 4 remaining family members: one to a scottish assasin, one when the 5 ship flotilla he was travelling back from the crusade got pwnd by pirates and one when i forgot about the general chasing routers(to free them of course later) and he accidentally run through his own longbow poles:oops:
Now if you reload this is not an issue but if you don't this is a real disaster. The guy i have left is 61 so the game can be over next turn for me...

sapi

04-21-2007, 01:15

Okay, you've convinced me to download the leaked 1.2 patch :grin2:

econ21

04-21-2007, 01:45

Now that you haven’t really addressed what I’ve said for the second or third time from either of those two threads, I take it you are just being obtuse (whether it is intentional or not, I don’t know).

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Well, apparently you've been saying the same thing in four posts but I am afraid I am still not getting the significance. I have heard your insinuations that I have "low expectations" and that I "suck" at TW; now that I'm being "intentionally obtuse". :shrug: But beyond that, I'm only hearing semantics.

For the record, all I've been trying to say is that I find M2TW is challenging and therefore I suspect that most other players could make it challenging if they tried. I've never said:

...75% of players that bought the game find it challenging...

I said 75% could make it challenging. ie if they imposed some houserules.

I am not sure if you disagree with any of that; to be honest, I suspect you don't and we have been, as you say, talking past each other. It may be you think my experience irrelevant because I am such a God awful player, but honestly I am past caring. And/or you think the caveat about houserules irrelevant, because for some reason you won't countenance them. Your main point, if I am not being too unintentionally obtuse, is that you want to engage in semantic definitions of whether a game can be challenging. You are right I have not really been addressing that point because I find such semantic debates completely uninteresting.

On the substance, I admit I could well be wrong - I've never even completed a M2TW game. I know I finished my first RTW campaign as soon as that game came out and loved it, but then about a week later gave up on the game completely as I realised it had zero challenge (fortunately RTR lured me back in). The purpose of my writing a M2TW AAR is to see if the game could be challenging for me through to the end. As Odin said, it's very early days and this evening's play as been much less challenging than the Caen crisis I ended last night on.

Anyway, I will plough on with my AAR and suggest we agree to disagree as I fear we are in danger of generating more heat than light.

Okay, you've convinced me to download the leaked 1.2 patch

Don't get your hopes up too high, Sapi: I suspect you'll still beat the game by turn 50. The main value of the patch, IMO, is fixing the spear and 2H bug. This is very worthwhile (they became game killers for me). But I don't see why they should affect the difficulty of the game.

SoxSexSax

04-21-2007, 02:23

Wow. So many points I feel I must respond to. This could take a while...

Playing england VH/VH By turn 20 attacked by: France, Scotland HRE Portugal, Spain and Danmark and I just spotted a Moor ship off the Irish coast with a full stack on it (wander whar they want). I am getting murdered here. BUT...
I don't use my general to melee and always release prisoners (need the chivalry to compete with the AI pop growth bonus). I don't ally with anyone exceprt the pope never accept huge amounts of cash for ceasefire every 2 turns and I don't sally and use missile troops on passive foe. In other words i don't use cheesy tactics to win then complain about how easy it is. Oh yeah the AI sucks but i do not see it getting better anytime soon. I have never completed the long campaign either cos it gets soo tedious managing 30+ regions. I still think the game is great compared to RTW and much better after the "patch".

I don't use any tactic I consider cheesy. I NEVER sally (do I sound like someone who WANTS an easy game???), I don't use Merchant Forts, I don't use my general to lead attacks as you imply (although I do chase routers and sell prisoners, which I would say is nowhere near cheesy, frankly). If you haven't even completed a campaign, I question your experience to make these claims and I certainly don't know why you subtly implied that I only think the game is too easy because I 'cheese' it up...

Not reloading after unsuccessfull takeover/assasination/spying attempt or losing a general in battle also helps IMHO.

I never reload. Why would I? I hardly ever use assasins (no need when you're 90% to kill the enemy general in every battle), I hardly ever lose a battle and diplomacy on VH is still a joke in 1.2...again, I am disappointed to find you implying that those who find it easy are resorting to tricks to do so...I WANT a hard game!!! I don't enjoy steamrolling a "helpless kitten" AI. I am not going out of my way to make things easy...they just are!

in one turn i lost 3 out of 4 remaining family members: one to a scottish assasin, one when the 5 ship flotilla he was travelling back from the crusade got pwnd by pirates and one when i forgot about the general chasing routers(to free them of course later) and he accidentally run through his own longbow poles

And? That's not good AI, it's terrible, mind-numbingly silly play. My wife knows better than to do that and she's no gamer...

It would certainly be nice if CA developed a harder AI, but as I said before, the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI.

That is so untrue it's almost not worth responding. For that statement to be true ("the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI") then it is logical that M2TW has the absolute best AI scripts humanly possible. And I don't believe anyone who has any gaming experience would say that is so. Compare Civ 4 Warlords AI (which is more complex at the strategic level without a shadow of doubt) to M2 and then tell me M2 can't be improved. Completely incorrect statement IMO.

@econ:

As England, give up your french holdings, secure Britain, secure all Scandinavia. Continue until both Scotland and Denmark are eliminated. Once Scotland and Denmark are gone, play as you like. I promise that if you are competent (and I believe you to be) you will win the campaign from this start. If your AAR isn't using this start, well, you're using a rather suboptimal strategy (in my humble opinion) and perhaps it is why you may find the game more challenging? Using the above outlined start, losing as England is next to impossible...and this is (IMO) in no way a cheesy start either, it's one of the just two possible strategically sound starts England have (other one being take Britain then France).

@Nobody in particular

The major killer issue with the AI is an inability to conduct a siege. I just never lose any siege defence battle where I had even a 1% chance of winnng. If I have 37 peasants and 3 town militia against a stack of 1000+, well even the M2 AI can't screw that up. But if I have 2 dismounted polish knights, 2 dismounted polish nobles and 2 lithuanian archers (units of, not just 2 men, obviously!) against 1500+ then...bring it on AI. You're going down and you know it! And that's why the campaign is too easy. Once a province is mine, I'm not losing it to anything bar rebellion. The AI has no hope at all of ever taking back a city from me. And that's why the game is far too easy.

I'm still waiting for the AI defenders to post a replay from a custom battle of the AI doing something impressive. I'm not holding my breath though. And I'm yet to see anyone challenge my description of how the AI fights its field battles either. Maybe that's because it's pretty much right?

sapi

04-21-2007, 02:37

Don't get your hopes up too high, Sapi: I suspect you'll still beat the game by turn 50. The main value of the patch, IMO, is fixing the spear and 2H bug. This is very worthwhile (they became game killers for me). But I don't see why they should affect the difficulty of the game.
No, I won't - but I haven't played M2TW in a good while and am getting bored with every other game that I've got installed :grin2:

I might even play with house rules this time :laugh4:

Pity bittorrent + no tracker + australian time = practically no seeds ~:(

Budwise

04-21-2007, 03:51

Its not that I feel the game isn't challenging, I just never felt that - I better win this battle or my empire is gone - type of moment. I just feel that the AI doesn't hit you strategically enough to warrent more attention to detail and planned out thought. What I guess I am getting at is that when you play England and your at war with both France and Spain and Scotland is long since dead, you never have to worry about Edinburge or Nottingham getting hit. It would be kinda nice for the Danes to hit you on a second front and then SUPPORT THEIR UNITS VIA REENFORCEMENTS at least every other turn.

I have lost a campaign due to lack of heirs, even in M2TW. But I have never lost my entire empire in M2TW. Has anyone else?

hellenes

04-21-2007, 04:39

Ive been asking this question since 2003:
What is easier to code?
A MP campaign?
Or an equally challenging "AI"?

sapi

04-21-2007, 04:56

Foz

04-21-2007, 05:43

Ive been asking this question since 2003:
What is easier to code?
A MP campaign?
Or an equally challenging "AI"?

...And what's going to attract more players?

A single player campaign?
Or an additional multiplayer component?

I know what you guys are going for, but I really don't think it's an easy conclusion to draw, or even the right one necessarily. When I look at the gaming situation right now, I see MMORPGs everywhere. Other various multiplayer games abound, too. Isn't it safe to assume that for the most part, players with bigtime interest in multiplayer gaming have already found other games that they've completely latched onto? Everyone I know that has a large interest in multiplayer gaming is addicted to it, and likewise already has the game to suit their addiction. Certainly there'd be little chance of a TW multiplayer component luring away any such players: games like WoW seem to just consume people entirely, and in general the multiplayer fans I know would rather die than consider switching games. All the rest of the gamers I know who are currently not addicted to multiplayer games have little interest in them, or are actively avoiding getting hooked on something multiplayer. So for the people I know at least, there are two primary categories:

1. People who wouldn't care about TW multiplayer, because they already have an all-consuming multiplayer game in their lives.
2. People who would care much more about the singleplayer portion of the game, because they're not big on multiplayer gaming or are intentionally avoiding it.

So, judging from the trends I'm seeing in the industry, it's entirely possible that more and better single player action is exactly what the TW franchise should be focusing on to maximize its fan base, because IMO it's unlikely that it can capture a significant enough portion of the multiplayer market in order to warrant work in that direction.

What I'm essentially saying is that multiplayer campaigns fall into the category of "things the fans would like and sometimes use" and not "things that will grab everyone's attention and sell more copies." It's fans of the series asking for this... which means it results in few extra sales, because the fans are already very likely going to buy the title, whether that feature is in or not... and non-fans are less likely to be won over by a multiplayer campaign than they are by substantial improvements to the single player one (for the reasons I gave above). That makes it a low-yield endeavor, which in turn makes it low priority, which is probably exactly what it should be: there's simply a whole slew of better and more productive ways for them to improve the TW series.

Ars Moriendi

04-21-2007, 06:21

Ive been asking this question since 2003:
What is easier to code?
A MP campaign?
Or an equally challenging "AI"?

This question is a bit misleading. Both MP and AI are difficult, but not because of coding problems.

Artificial Intelligence is a hard problem, meaning it's not even conceptually solved. We can't know yet how difficult it is to code a smart, human-like opponent - not just difficult to defeat, but logical, creative and unpredictable enough to make the game fun, as in playing with another human.

MP campaign has another sort of problem : human players, unlike AI, have lives outside the game. How do you synch the turns ? wait for everyone to move ? let the AI take over after a set time ? It's either going to take too long or be unfair to some players.
There are only three solutions to this : hotseat or play-by-mail (which we already have) ; and realtime campaign, which would be nice, but not really TotalWar anymore (and there's still the problem of synchronizing battles).

sapi

04-21-2007, 11:42

No idea how - god knows I read enough about how not to patch the game to avoid things like this - but I've ended up with the 'unspecified error' crash in siege battles, despite a patch from a clean v1.0 install.

My bet's on the original speculation of localisation errors...

EDIT: rofl - I can see why - I've got a 359 line error log :grin2:

zaher

04-21-2007, 12:00

Hi.

First of all i want to say that i love MTW2 most of all TW games exept Shogun. No doubt that this game is most complex from all TW games. I cant play Shogun on setting lower than " very hard" too. And still, i see my future in TW only online, because you will never get AI to play like human. " Smarter AI" in ALL games mean not more intellectual AI :oops: but just AI gets more( kinda cheating)

The problem from my view is strategic decisions of AI ( Civ IV FTW !!). It cannot be so simple like programming opposite factions to just attack human player from start and use it like strategic AI. I hardly can understand why Sicily attackin Moors town Algier at turn 3 with all units they got from start and not taking rebel Tripoly. But why they attack Portugal on turn 3-4 with all their start units again, they came across the sea, they dont want to fight muslim Moors nor to take rebel isles or Tunis, just "attack the human" command?

Another poor thing dunno if other noticed- AI planning and making his turns several turns before ( you can see arrow of his turn ) and if , for example, AI wanted to attack your unit and path was blocked so you see him walking arround mountains just to execute this command, wasting several turns on it. Same thing with asassins or merchants. How about to think more regular, AI?

About battles i got a question- why stack of 12 archers, 34 spearmen and 22 cavalry looks exactly like stack of 48 archers, 60 spearmen and 32 cavalry? May be answer is here too? AI travelling with full stack of units, but in closer view this is just remains of army. Mongols moving like cowards, not like fearsome mighty warlords, but that is a question- can 2 stacks of regular army beat 1 stack of mongols with 10 star general in open battle? Why other factions even not dare to compile army like Mongols:smash: mongols got it like gift from the stars too:wall:

Well, for now, i waiting for patch only to play MP ( bored to play sword factions in SP:inquisitive: ) and my last question - why not to make patch that fixing major bugs to make game playable at least, and after that - patch with other improvements ( like hotseat ). Or may be better forget about games without bugs and to wait for new bugged TW series games and expansions - 2 on horizont !!!

sapi

04-21-2007, 12:24

Okay, the number of files missing from the patch is ridiculous.

There are even misspellings in the file names and paths :inquisitive:

There is a way around - to manually extract them all and/or create where missing - but it's just not a smart way to do things.

I'm interested now, though, so i'll give it a try, and see if I can get around the errors.

invalidopcode

04-21-2007, 16:08

The title says "latest update on 1.2 patch" but I have not seen anything related to news of when we can expect the new patch?

Anybody have any idea?

Bueller?

Bueller?

adembroski

04-21-2007, 16:21

The title says "latest update on 1.2 patch" but I have not seen anything related to news of when we can expect the new patch?

Anybody have any idea?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Read the first post, it's quite clear.

TinCow

04-21-2007, 16:55

That is so untrue it's almost not worth responding. For that statement to be true ("the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI") then it is logical that M2TW has the absolute best AI scripts humanly possible. And I don't believe anyone who has any gaming experience would say that is so. Compare Civ 4 Warlords AI (which is more complex at the strategic level without a shadow of doubt) to M2 and then tell me M2 can't be improved. Completely incorrect statement IMO.

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was wrong, but I stand by general point of my statement. As I see it, even if the bugs in the AI's battle and strategic AI were fixed, it would still be beaten regularly by humans. It might take a game or two for people to adapt to the new AI, but the most basic flaw with the AI is that it is predictable. In certain situations, it will use certain styles. All AIs are like this. It may get better (and it should, I'm not saying CA should stop working on it) but in order for it to be truly challenging, something more is required.

You mentioned the Civ 4 Warlords AI and I think that is the perfect illustration of my point. It is a very good AI, but on Noble level (AI has no bonuses or penalties) it is still very, very easy to beat. Few people regularly lose to it unless they are new players who haven't spent much time with the game. The levels of difficulty above Noble quickly become VERY difficult to beat, and that is entirely due to the bonuses given to the AI. The Civ AI systems have always relied on giving the AI bonuses at higher levels, and that is one reason why they have always been extremely challenging for most people at the higher difficulties.

Gaius Terentius Varro

04-21-2007, 17:08

Even in the so called pure AI program like chess the AI cheats. It uses a database( a book?) with different openings/variations and is the eqvivalent of playing against a human opponent thumbing through chess books between moves it just that the computer does it very fast. While the true skilled chess player has memorized those strategies so it actually is cheating.

FactionHeir

04-21-2007, 18:00

Isn't it safe to assume that for the most part, players with bigtime interest in multiplayer gaming have already found other games that they've completely latched onto? Everyone I know that has a large interest in multiplayer gaming is addicted to it, and likewise already has the game to suit their addiction. Certainly there'd be little chance of a TW multiplayer component luring away any such players: games like WoW seem to just consume people entirely, and in general the multiplayer fans I know would rather die than consider switching games. All the rest of the gamers I know who are currently not addicted to multiplayer games have little interest in them, or are actively avoiding getting hooked on something multiplayer.

I kind of disagree Foz. Games continually get produced and people's tastes change, so having a TW multiplayer component definitely could lead to many gamers currently latched onto other games converting to TW MP. Its basically the same question as why WoW is so popular. If everyone had found their niche, why did so many people end up with that game? In the NWN community for example which has a very strong MP element, over 30% of people switched to WoW as soon as it became available and more over time. So yes, I think multiplayer campaigns may be a way forward - for those who like strategy games anyway.

As for what's easier to code: AI or MP. I don't know. But I'd think it depends on which way you want the product to go. If you want a game that can still be played many years later, go for MP. If you are just looking for a quick buck and then release new games for a smiliar short period, you'd likely go for AI or maybe none of them...and just graphics, as many games nowadays are.

Quickening

04-21-2007, 20:04

Okay my browser (firefox 2) is constantly crashing on this forum now for some reason.

Anyway today I tried my experiment to see how well I would do by just doing whatever it takes to win. The results speak for themselves.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/jhhjdfj.jpg

The last time I completed a short campaign being honourable, I had just four turns left before the campaign ended! I succeeded by the skin of my teeth.

Here, it's turn twenty-two and I have only four more provinces to take and Ive won. And even that is only because Ive been giving provinces to the Papal States to form a wall between myself, the HRE and Milan.

One of the main differences was that usually I take all rebel provinces before going for the AI. This time I attacked both France and Scotland from the off and never gave them a moments peace.

So the conclusion is obvious. Nice guys finish last.

I have to say that although Im about to beat a campaign in my fastest time ever, I do enjoy trying to be honourable much more than doing whats best to win.

NOTE: I always play on VH/VH

EDIT: Oh wait I forgot half of what I was going to say. I also got excommunicated in my game but bizarrely, I havent suffered at all for it. My people don't seem to be batting an eyelid despite them also being taxed into the ground.
Whenever Ive been honourable and been excommunicated my peasants were up in arms despite the fact I had everywhere set on low taxes.

It seems to me that it's far too easy to win being a tyrant than it is being Chivalrous. I assume that excommunication and a bad reputation was meant to balance this out but in reality, neither of these things hinder you much if at all.

Quickening

04-21-2007, 23:00

Heh, looks like my evil antics have finally caught up with me. Despite me giving them about five regions, the Papal States attacked me! The Pope himself has come to combat the heretical England.

But Im not sure if they declared war on me because Ive been evil or if that's what the Papal States do if you give them land.

Either way, Ive never been at war with the Pope before. Nice.

hellenes

04-22-2007, 04:08

This question is a bit misleading. Both MP and AI are difficult, but not because of coding problems.

Artificial Intelligence is a hard problem, meaning it's not even conceptually solved. We can't know yet how difficult it is to code a smart, human-like opponent - not just difficult to defeat, but logical, creative and unpredictable enough to make the game fun, as in playing with another human.

MP campaign has another sort of problem : human players, unlike AI, have lives outside the game. How do you synch the turns ? wait for everyone to move ? let the AI take over after a set time ? It's either going to take too long or be unfair to some players.
There are only three solutions to this : hotseat or play-by-mail (which we already have) ; and realtime campaign, which would be nice, but not really TotalWar anymore (and there's still the problem of synchronizing battles).

Ive written an idea to solve any MP campaign hinderances....:

"A Gigantic map...that has every little castle, dutchy, county that existed in Medieval times. 100 factions (Knights of Honor has as much) so any player will have the choice to choose any faction he likes.
A living world that is in REAL time and runs 24/7.

Whenever a player starts he makes an account and chooses a faction.
Now he can pick up an army from the available pool depending on the buildings his faction has at that time. Hes allocated with set amount of cash to start. After that he has many options: Either manage his castle/province or engage in diplomacy with the neighbours or or even start a war by attacking a nearby settlement or army.

Any action he is doing is represented as his character as a general and his army as his tool of destruction. His army grows or dwindles depending on his actions.
Now the most important factor (IMO) is what happens when the player is absent? Well his army simply loggs off the game! And his castle is manned by the "PO" garrison of a decent amount of archers/crossbows and militia OR if his faction has more than one players (mostly the popular factions like Byzantium or England) that player is notified to fight to defend the castle. The diplomacy in the case of multiple players that picked up the same faction is treated on a presence/rank level meaning that any negotiations will be engaged with the highest ranking player (meaning clan/faction leader and lower) present at that time OR on a pre set basis or "guidelines" that are given by the absent leader.

All players will be free enough to go wherever they want in real time on a scaled movement rate however with the appropriate consequences like a war declaration or annoyance...
There will be rebel armies in a quide abudant numbers with plenty of little catsles and provinces to expand to...
The characters themselves would aqcuire parameters same as the SP game based on the player's actions with the death of the character the player would either get the heir of that character (so he must make sure that his character gets married) or if there is no heir the player gets to fight a mini civil war and pickes the side, and if that side wins he gets a new character spwaning from the ranks....

Also the world that surrounds the player can be set in the battle engine of the TW games WITHOUT any boundaries and if the sizes of armies are too big for the server to cope with it, the strategic layer can be used in real time as |I said before.
On the unit sizes the player can pick up ANY size he wants the cost of the units will be based on per soldier capita....So if 100 spearmen cost 100 florins to buy and 50 florins to upkeep, 200 spearmen will cost 200 florins to buy and 100 florins to upkeep.
Speaking of which the castle that the player is allocated with generates a fixed amount of money that pays the upkeep cost of anything that the player has in his army.
If the castle of the player is lost his army turns into "bandits" and he will not pay any upkeep for them until he recovers his castle or takes the castle from another player. In the case that the player belongs to a bigger faction he can become a general in the service of the monarch but his army will have to be paid from the crown's coffins but will have the option to recruit soldiers from the crown's castles/cities at his expense (the player generates wealth through looting enemie territories/castles or from booty from the battles and has his personal money).

The crown itslef is an entity thats allocated to the faction/clan leader it recieves a "crown tax" from the other clan members engages in state level diplomacy and generally operates the "big picture" of the clan/faction.
Naval battles will be made controllable and the troops that are present on board will participate in any engagement. No agents will be present in the game since the diplomacy would be dealt through a chat and any other character would be simply part of an agreement (marriage would be agreed through a chat no need for a princess character)...

If at any later point a new player joins the game he will be allocated soldiers/castle etc scalable to the point that the game is at that time so there are no phaenomena like a newbe with peasants against a veteran with gothic troops.
Armour upgrades and soldiers will be tradable, like the player can "upgrade" his byzantine infantry to varangians by "disbanding" the infantry in the castle and having the worth of that unit back (again based on per soldier capita) and by purchasing a unit of varangians the same size (or bigger with extra cost) as the byzantine infantry by paying any difference...

Events will take place in the game at a chronological time through "upgrades" that the developers will release (like chronicles in La2) like the high era upgrade after a year or the mongol invasion patch....
Speaking of UNPLAYABLE factions the mongols or the astecs will be mainly the PvE element that will require HUGE alliances to be forged to deal with them.
The Pope will be a GM character in the game regulating the catholic factions and launching crusades. The orthodox factions will have the patriarch of costantinople as the spiritual leader and most importantly will play major role in the reunification of churchers attempts that will be voted by orthodox players (players that control orthodox factions).
The crusades will be deal in the sense of raids with huge alliances forged to march to the holy land..."

This ^^^ IMO solves any problems...Both suitable for casual and hardcore gamer...No grinding or any leveling up...NO hinderous PvE element (just Mongol Invasion which even can be manned by random MP generals)...
You want to play couple of battles and log off? Fine...
You want to engage in dimplomacy? Fine log on and negotiate...
Youre a faction/clan leader and you need generals to man the battles? Just open a "reqruitment" announcement on the chat and any one that wants to fight a battle jumps in...
Of course this idea isnt perfect (nothing is) and will need refinement but its the only way to solve the "AI" problem once and for all...

SoxSexSax

04-22-2007, 13:17

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was wrong, but I stand by general point of my statement. As I see it, even if the bugs in the AI's battle and strategic AI were fixed, it would still be beaten regularly by humans. It might take a game or two for people to adapt to the new AI, but the most basic flaw with the AI is that it is predictable. In certain situations, it will use certain styles. All AIs are like this. It may get better (and it should, I'm not saying CA should stop working on it) but in order for it to be truly challenging, something more is required.

You mentioned the Civ 4 Warlords AI and I think that is the perfect illustration of my point. It is a very good AI, but on Noble level (AI has no bonuses or penalties) it is still very, very easy to beat. Few people regularly lose to it unless they are new players who haven't spent much time with the game. The levels of difficulty above Noble quickly become VERY difficult to beat, and that is entirely due to the bonuses given to the AI. The Civ AI systems have always relied on giving the AI bonuses at higher levels, and that is one reason why they have always been extremely challenging for most people at the higher difficulties.

The Civ 4 Warlords 2.61 patch AI on Noble is MUCH better than the M2TW AI on Normal. And when I say much, I mean so much it's not even comparable. And it's not a lack of bonuses causing the issue for the M2 AI...it's an inability to perform on the tactical map and it's inability to produce high-tech armies when it has the funds and facilities available that screws it, both of which are script issues not lack of resource issues.

Gaius Terentius Varro

04-22-2007, 19:27

The Civ 4 Warlords 2.61 patch AI on Noble is MUCH better than the M2TW AI on Normal. And when I say much, I mean so much it's not even comparable. And it's not a lack of bonuses causing the issue for the M2 AI...it's an inability to perform on the tactical map and it's inability to produce high-tech armies when it has the funds and facilities available that screws it, both of which are script issues not lack of resource issues.

This is what I found hiding in the bushes outside the city:

https://img455.imageshack.us/img455/678/armyhq2.jpg

AND

https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/395/army1nq0.jpg

Now I think that is as good as it gets around 1200 and that city is toast barring a minor miracle. Of course if you take all the AI's castles then you'll get spear militia armies (or fight the italians): the Danes and the French are sending about 50% elites in their armies too so mebbe you need to repatch your game install instead.
Edited to resize images

Durallan

04-23-2007, 06:56

they should be sending 100% elite armies if they can afford it, although those sword militia seem pretty nasty stat wise.

RickooClan

04-23-2007, 09:20

But even human player will have some "left over" old troops/militia, unless you disbanding them.

And for me i wont disband them by considering the recruiting cost i have paid. Instead, i will group them into a stack and use them in siege or auto-resolving the rebels camping around.

Sometimes i think the AI (post 1.02) will intentionally group up a stack of outdated troops to attack my city in order to clear the mantainance cost on them. Since i can see the AI stack have either majority of outdated troops, or majority of latest troops, instead of a mix of both.

Foz

04-23-2007, 23:44

they should be sending 100% elite armies if they can afford it, although those sword militia seem pretty nasty stat wise.
Not necessarily. By fielding some militia units as part of armies, the AI is actually able to have more units total floating around. That in turn means that its forces are more liquid, since a larger number of units inherently means it is easier to split them up to tackle multiple things at once. Especially for such endeavors as settlement defense, the AI is far better off having more units of a lower caliber: they can more easily react to multiple threats. If you've got 2 DFKs and have to defend against 2 siege towers and a ram, you can't. With say 4 spear militia, though, you actually have a chance to plug all the holes. It's worth noting that the AI really does think like that in defending a siege, too: it analyzes threats, designates different zones (with priorities assigned) to defend from those threats, and then allocates resources to do the defending.

And that of course is to say nothing of the increased production capacity an empire has if you utilize cities and castles both for military production. Granted some of the time the faction (human or AI) cannot afford to do so, but in so far as possible, it's clearly beneficial to recruit both since you'll have larger armies available sooner. I certainly agree with your sentiment about the value of high quality castle troops, but waiting around to build them exclusively is simply a waste of city recruitment slots.

It's also worth noting that even poor militias typically end up with 7 or 13 (the shield varieties have 13) defense when fully upgraded, which is more than enough to give them substantial bang for the low bucks you pay for them.

I don't contest that the AI often recruits far too many non-elite units, but it should recruits some to avoid wasting the resources its cities could be contributing to the war effort, and to help create more balanced stacks instead of the 1-dimensional stacks you can get from strictly elites.

edyzmedieval

04-23-2007, 23:49

It's kind of weird really. France spams those elites, same with the Danes, and Milan and Venice spams those militia sissies!

SoxSexSax

04-23-2007, 23:55

Lusted

04-24-2007, 00:15

the 10 geonese crossbow militia and 10 italian spearmen militia stacks are FAR more common.

That is only really a problem if the ai only has cities and no castles. If it just hasd cities, that is the best army it can produce.

TinCow

04-24-2007, 02:44

With a general, 3 horse archer units, 4 swordsmen and 4 spears I'd crush both those armies with 20% losses. And, BTW, the second army is feeble. It is nowhere NEAR elite. The first is credible granted. Do you accept that those are NOT the norm? Because we both know they aren't...the 10 geonese crossbow militia and 10 italian spearmen militia stacks are FAR more common.

Ok, Genoese Crossbow Militia and Italian Spear Militia aren't elite, but they're definitely not bad. Those units are as good as several factions best ranged and spear castle units. In fact, the entire strength of the Venetian and Milanese factions is in the high quality of their militia units. If you want to talk about the computer spamming weak units, you need to reference something else.

Gaius Terentius Varro

04-24-2007, 05:36

Let me get this straight, you think that two general-less half stacks are going to somehow survive a fight against any general led army I would actually march with?

With a general, 3 horse archer units, 4 swordsmen and 4 spears I'd crush both those armies with 20% losses. And, BTW, the second army is feeble. It is nowhere NEAR elite. The first is credible granted. Do you accept that those are NOT the norm? Because we both know they aren't...the 10 geonese crossbow militia and 10 italian spearmen militia stacks are FAR more common.

Providing one or two semi examples of competence on the strat map in no way changes the fact that the AI can't compete on the battlefield, especially when conducting a siege attack.

Yes but i don't have the 3 horse archer 4 swords 4 spears I got billmen and lots of left over archers that i plan to send in as shock infantry once the the enemy missile troops are destroyed :sweatdrop:I could slug it out in a siege and sally the crap out of them but I would miss a close, possibly exciting battle.
And yes I am getting elite half stacks thrown at me non stop by france and portugal/spain denmark: even tho i win most of the time I take horrible losses cos the billmen have 60-80% casualty ratio against DFKs. They are getting phased out but i only have 2 castles in europe so i have to make do with cheap cannon fodder. Besides horse archer warfare in heavily forrested northern europe strikes me as highly unnatural and possibly illegal.

RickooClan

04-26-2007, 20:23

Just checked that out at .com (no idea how to create a link to the .com forum...)

Anyway, its an excellent news!

Cheers. :2thumbsup:

RickooClan

04-26-2007, 20:33

Hi guys,

As promised - here is the latest news regarding the Update. The final release candidate is currently in testing at CA Oz and (all going well), is expected to be submitted to SEGA Europe so they can begin their round of testing within the next 24 hours. There is no word of release date of yet, but we will keep in touch with progress.

In other news, you might be interested to know that Brendan Rogers from CA Oz has taken the time to answer a whopping 31 of your questions in our Official CA Discussion thread. For convenience I have also posted this Q&A up on our official Blog.

Thanks,

Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)

This is the quote of the news from http://totalwarforums.com/

pike master

04-27-2007, 01:13

they only said that because everyone was getting :furious3:

Martok

04-27-2007, 01:42

Threads merged.

IrishArmenian

04-27-2007, 06:20

I saw this again and I thought the patch came out. Talk about bad shorterm memory.

RickooClan

04-27-2007, 12:11

The list will remain largely the same as the one posted on 22nd Feb, so that is a good starting off point to work on any feedback. If there any significant changes to the list upon release of Update 2, I will let you know.

Thanks,
Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)

A little bit worry isnt?

Since there are quite a lot bugs/faults found by the community after the 1.02 leaked patch. If the up coming fix list is pretty much the same with the list on 22nd feb, will they actually picked and fixed, such as the bugs on the buglist here? :no:

Bob the Insane

04-27-2007, 12:29

A little bit worry isnt?

Since there are quite a lot bugs/faults found by the community after the 1.02 leaked patch. If the up coming fix list is pretty much the same with the list on 22nd feb, will they actually picked and fixed, such as the bugs on the buglist here? :no:

I believe the issues with the patch where the install problem and that there was still issues with the AI being passive... I was not aware that additional items where being resolved...

Lusted

04-27-2007, 12:40

But we do know, thanks to Caliban at TWC, that the cannon/ballista tower bug will be fixed in the official 1.2.

I never expected them to fix all the bugs on the bug list for the unofficial 1.2 patch, that would take months, all i expected was them to fix the last of the passive ai, sort out the installer, and then release the patch.

FactionHeir

04-27-2007, 20:02

Hopefully they fixed the defensive attacker AI with reinforcements. Thats my main gripe at the moment. And the campaign map lag of course.

sapi

04-28-2007, 02:21

I'm happy that they're not trying to fix everything on the buglist, tbh.

The last thing we need is a tricke effect, delaying the official patch even more...

Slicendice

04-29-2007, 06:45

Ok I didn't really read all the posts here. I read about half and I skipped through haphazardly until I got to the end. Kind of like CA writes code? Oooh, wouldn't want to be mistaken for a troll now.

I hope the patch is as good as some have said. It will be nice to be able to play the game the way it was intended.

That said, I'm not happy with spending my money on a game and then waiting 6+ months to start getting full value for my money.

I realize there are around a million and a half lines of code, and bugs beget more bugs and whatnot. I realize that CA has a bottom line to make and releasing a game that isn't truly finished is the norm for game developers these days.

I am not going to blast them for what is the status quo. We all know this is what developers do and despite having access to the Internet and the countless forums, blogs, fansites, and official sites all giving us the scoop on games we are interested in and their problems, we still go out and buy the game bugs and all. If we all go out on the release day and buy them who can blame the developer if they sold us an incomplete product?

That said, I will never buy another game on release day. It took me a few times to learn my lesson. Now I'm going to wait until a game gets a couple of patches. I'm going to listen to the forums when people say a game is unplayable. And most importantly I'm going to save my money. In fact if I wait long enough I might even be able to get the game on sale. So not only will I get a game that works, but I will pay less for it than the poor schmucks that had to have it on the release date.

If enough people do this then what will happen? For starters games may not reach #1 in sales. The profitability of releasing incomplete games will decrease and badly needed cash flows will come in a trickle rather than a flood.

I realize if enough people do what I suggest it might hurt game developers, but given the choice of sticking it to them or letting them stick it to me I choose to stick it to them. Do they deserve better? They don't think we deserve better.

sapi

04-29-2007, 07:31

Whacker

04-29-2007, 07:58

Unfortunately for you, that idea is extremely unlikely to work.

A miniscule percentage of gamers read forums, and only a small proportion of those who do will boycot the game. Such actions simply won't make a big enough difference to change anything.

OK, this is starting to annoy me now. I'd really like to see some hard facts to back this up, about people not reading these forums. No "logic", hard facts and stats please.

Foz

04-29-2007, 08:12

Unfortunately for you, that idea is extremely unlikely to work.

A miniscule percentage of gamers read forums, and only a small proportion of those who do will boycot the game. Such actions simply won't make a big enough difference to change anything.
That's exactly the same false logic people use to justify the fact that they do not vote. "What difference can I possibly make?" It's bull. Elections are the sum total of each seemingly insignificant vote, just as a game's success is the sum total of each seemingly insignificant consumer. You just do not realize how much power we have, because no one has ever tried to exercise that power. Between us, the power of the Internet, and word of mouth, it's practically guaranteed that we could reach the majority of gamers out there for this (or any other) reason. For instance how many gamers do you know that are familiar with the "All Your Base" phenomenon? It's hard to find any that aren't, which is my point: the communication tools are in place and working. The biggest roadblock is not communication per se, it is rather getting the key elements (like forum mods and webmasters) to support the issue so they can actually get the communication engine working. A very small handful of the right people, if convinced to support it, could easily get (and keep) a large portion of gamers informed and involved, and empower the entire community as a result. At the heart of everything, I guess the biggest point is that we need infrastructure if we want power.

sapi

04-29-2007, 08:27

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

It's a simple fact that the vast majority of gamers do not visit online forums.

If you're looking for proof, consider the fact that only 847 members have visited these forums in the past 24 hours.

Take a very conservative estimate of that as 10% of the total number of people visiting these forums, and you still only have an audience of under ten thousand people.

Say, multiply that by two or three to take into account the other TW sites, and you're still looking at a tiny percentage of the hundreds of thousands of people who have brought the game.

All you need to do is have a look around your friends, and you'll see what I mean. Sure, around half of them play games semi-seriously. But of that half, only a handful would even consider visiting a forum for that game.

You can talk all you like about affirmative action and the tricke effect and so on and so forth, but you'll never get enough people to make a difference.

I can even use your example of the 'all your base' phenomenon as proof for my case: put simply, if I asked any of the rl gamers I knew, you'd be lucky to even get 10% who've heard of it, despite 'widespread' coverage.

You're welcome to try your strategy - no one can stop you from doing that - but it might be worth while taking a nice dose of common sense as you do so.

Temujin

04-29-2007, 10:35

It's a simple fact that the vast majority of gamers do not visit online forums.
No it isn't.

If you're looking for proof, consider the fact that only 847 members have visited these forums in the past 24 hours.

Take a very conservative estimate of that as 10% of the total number of people visiting these forums, and you still only have an audience of under ten thousand people.
What exactly is this "conservative estimate" based on, then? Because you can't multiply integers and hot air like that, it's simply not mathematically correct.

All you need to do is have a look around your friends, and you'll see what I mean. Sure, around half of them play games semi-seriously. But of that half, only a handful would even consider visiting a forum for that game.

I have a bunch of gamer friends, too, and with the exception of the one guy-with-no-internet-access, they ALL visit forums to keep up with the games they are playing. All of them.

My unsourced, empirical datapoint is bigger than your unsourced, empirical datapoint. So there.

You're welcome to try your strategy - no one can stop you from doing that - but it might be worth while taking a nice dose of common sense as you do so.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
So, how old are you, then? Time for an update, perhaps?

Husar

04-29-2007, 10:55

I realize if enough people do what I suggest it might hurt game developers, but given the choice of sticking it to them or letting them stick it to me I choose to stick it to them. Do they deserve better? They don't think we deserve better.
I don't think that's the case.
When I program myself, it usually takes some times before I get rid of all the compiler errors, then I have to see whether the function works the way I want it, which is usually done with test data, once that works, all is fine, but what if the "test data" somehow didn't cover all possible cases? Well, that's a bug... And I'm talking about "projects" with less than 100 lines, even the professors etc. at our university know that programming without bugs is almost impossible. Let me give you a common metaphor to underline that:

http://www.rootburn.com/pics/development_process.jpg

:sweatdrop:

sapi

04-29-2007, 11:02

No it isn't.Have you got any evidence to support that?

I can tell you that general statistics (sales numbers vs forum members) are on my side, so the onus of proof is on you

What exactly is this "conservative estimate" based on, then? Because you can't multiply integers and hot air like that, it's simply not mathematically correct.
Based on a known fact (the number of users who visited the forum in the past 24 hours)
Known data (members) adjusted to account for guests (which were 90% of currently online users when i posted)
And rounded up

I have a bunch of gamer friends, too, and with the exception of the one guy-with-no-internet-access, they ALL visit forums to keep up with the games they are playing. All of them.And that, I suspect, is because we come from different countries and different age groups.

My unsourced, empirical datapoint is bigger than your unsourced, empirical datapoint. So there.:laugh4:

So, how old are you, then? Time for an update, perhaps?
Nice quote, btw :beam:

Generals_Bodyguard

04-29-2007, 11:09

Actually he's right...majority of the customers dont come to the forums...

Moah

04-29-2007, 11:23

Just to use myself as an unrepresentative example:

I have only just started coming to the forum AFTER buying M2TW. So it was too late to boycott, but just in time to get all disillusioned as I read all the bugs and complaints.

RTW: I bought played and thought was fanstastic. i didn't come to forums and so had no idea how broken it was. I noticed a few things myself and jsut shrugged them off as glitches without paying much attention.

So although I now forum in neither case would a campaign have stopped my buying.

To be honest if such a campaign was started with the expansion i would probably ignore it anyway. I think some people are being a little unrealistic about what they expect from their games. IMHO CA & SEGA released a great game. They are trying to now beat the bugs that people have raised, without any new sales from it - purely out of support, NOT making a penny. They are working on an expansion, from which they will make money, that will incorporate feedback and requests from fans. It seems more than fair to me.

I work for a TV broadcast company and believe me when I say NOT ONE of the products we have ever had is bug free. And these are broadcast critical costing millions of pounds being sold to some of the most powerful corporations in the world not 30 bucks a pop to some know-nothing teenager
(not intended as insult but as comparison!)

P.s. Bizarrely enough I think I probably enjoyed RTW more (althoug m2tw is better). Ignorance is bliss.

Because I didn't know what I was missing and couldn't pick up hints and tips, I just enjoyed what it did do. And also enjoyed making noob mistakes and finding tactical answers myself. I can't undo my knowledge, so will probably forum from now on but in many ways regret discovering it....

Carl

04-29-2007, 11:47

I'd also point out that if anyone had bothered to follow the thread linked to in the very first post the CA PR guy that was posting admitted on the same day the patch was released that CA & SEGA are asking "serious internal questions" about why the game was allowed to be released so early when it was clearly unfinished.

They know and agree that it was released in too buggy a state and far too early, and "serious questions" probably means whoever was responsible will end up with the sack for sure.

But of course your all soooo busy flaming CA you couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on the other thread. AND, THEN you have the cheek to complain CA pays you no attention when you do exactly the same to CA :inquisitive: ???

sapi

04-29-2007, 12:24

I'd also point out that if anyone had bothered to follow the thread linked to in the very first post the CA PR guy that was posting admitted on the same day the patch was released that CA & SEGA are asking "serious internal questions" about why the game was allowed to be released so early when it was clearly unfinished.

They know and agree that it was released in too buggy a state and far too early, and "serious questions" probably means whoever was responsible will end up with the sack for sure.Only time will tell whether that is simply a PR stunt, unfortunately.

I can't see anyone getting the sack based on choosing what was likely to have been the most profitible option, and releasing at Christmas.

Butcher

04-29-2007, 13:33

RickooClan

04-29-2007, 14:33

@Husar

Nice picture! :laugh4:

Slicendice

04-29-2007, 15:08

Frist off I don't need half of all consumers to boycott a game. Even a 1 to 5 percent drop in sales is enough to do damage and prevent a game from going #1 or becoming game of the year.

Yes the traffic on the forums may not be that high (today), but everyone who participates in a boycott or delay in purchase ultimately talks to someone else, and believe me a person is more likely to convince his friends to boycott than a forum is to convince a stranger. Boycott wasn't my term, however, delaying a purchase should become more of good "common sense" rather than a movement. It should be a personal choice of gamers who accept the reality of the business and have decided to save themselves the frustration and disappointment of buying half completed games at full price only to wait 6 months to play what they paid for.

Whether my plan works or not ultimately is moot. I'm making a personal choice and I'm sharing that choice with others in the hope they might also consider the same action. I realize without the support of the forums as well my idea probably won't get very far. But in the end my goal has been achieved. I have been changed and I will be better for it.

BTW I keep seeing a common theme about how nice CA is for making a patch and listening to the community even though they won't make any money on the patch blah, blah, blah. . .

Frankly I think it was very nice of the community to BETA! test their game for them, and to pay full price for that BETA!. I consider the patch and any patches to come to be the actual game and the money I paid to get a copy of the BETA! was nothing more than a pre-purchase. They owe me the patch because I paid for it 6 months ago.

Noneless, I think we all know that if CA/Sega didn't patch there would be a lot of customers who wanted their money back. I can tell you I wanted my money back 6 months ago.

I won't have this problem next time.

Temujin

04-29-2007, 17:49

Have you got any evidence to support that?

I can tell you that general statistics (sales numbers vs forum members) are on my side, so the onus of proof is on you
Uhm, No. You were the one making claims and backing them up with pseudo-stats and handwaving (what my stats-prof at uni called "lying with numbers"), so the onus is on YOU to actually back that up with real data and math that doesn't require magic to work. Asking me to prove a negative isn't going to make your claim ring true to anyone with a sense of logic in their heads.

Based on a known fact (the number of users who visited the forum in the past 24 hours)
Known data (members) adjusted to account for guests (which were 90% of currently online users when i posted)
And rounded up
Even accepting these numbers (which I can't verify), that's still a far cry from proving that "It's a simple fact that the vast majority of gamers do not visit online forums". Here's some questions to help you on your way to make that claim more than an unfounded assertion:

1) What's the size of the general population of gamers?
2) What percentage of the online forum attendance goes to totalwar.org?
3) Was yesterdays attendance stats representative of the activity of this forum?
4) Is this forum representative of the general population of forums in terms of attendance vs. memberships and daily activity?
5) Is the membership and unregistered attendance of this forum representative of the general population of gamers?

There are more, but this is just a handful to get you started. Either prove your claim or acknowledge that you used pseudo-stats with no backing to reinforce your point.

Having an opinion is fine, but trying to raise it to fact with no basis is a sort of bullying I particularly dislike.

pike master

04-29-2007, 18:07

Foz

04-29-2007, 20:26

First off, #338 is a great post, Slice. It's true that it isn't necessary to completely crush a game economically in order to have accomplished something meaningful, as a group or as an individual. I particularly like how you realize that you yourself benefit tremendously from employing this strategy, regardless of the impact it may or may not have on the industry.

Next: to all the comments about the forums and forum attendance. They are largely irrelevant. I cited the Internet as a primary means of information, and it is not necessary to restrict that to simple game forums like this one. The question to ask is how many gamers, even occasionally, visit gaming-related web sites? Theoretically the infrastructure I'm talking about could include review sites, forums, fan sites (think wallpapers, skinning, etc), video sites (like YouTube), and yes even the dreaded crack sites perhaps. In short, there are quite a large number of places where I'm sure a substantial number of gamers visit. The point is not what this site alone could accomplish (which still might not be insignificant) but rather what a majority of gaming-related sites could do. I also point out here that Slice's notion of this seems a much better way to go about it than simple boycotting: actually educating gamers and turning them into better, smarter consumers. If this can be accomplished in some measure, then the boycott-like trends will naturally surface, without any further orchestration.

To be honest if such a campaign was started with the expansion i would probably ignore it anyway. I think some people are being a little unrealistic about what they expect from their games. IMHO CA & SEGA released a great game. They are trying to now beat the bugs that people have raised, without any new sales from it - purely out of support, NOT making a penny. They are working on an expansion, from which they will make money, that will incorporate feedback and requests from fans. It seems more than fair to me.

Actually, it's pretty deluded to think that CA & SEGA make nothing from the support work they do on this game. The support work CA does on this game is in turn selling copies of their next release. You can clearly see this because the number one result of them cutting off support for the game after release, aside from endless complaining in the community, would be decreased sales of their next release. So in reality they make plenty of money from the post-release work they do on this game, and in fact it may have the most influence on how their next title sells of anything that affects that title's sales. So, I think we can safely do away with this "look how nice CA is to patch the game for us" attitude, as clearly they have very selfish economic reasons to do so. I'm not saying that's wrong or bad: simply that it is fact. They patch precisely because it DOES make them money.

pike master

04-30-2007, 06:38

not to veer off the discussion but does anyone know if the armor stats will be fixed in the patch?

Yun Dog

04-30-2007, 07:16

That said, I will never buy another game on release day. It took me a few times to learn my lesson. Now I'm going to wait until a game gets a couple of patches. I'm going to listen to the forums when people say a game is unplayable. And most importantly I'm going to save my money. In fact if I wait long enough I might even be able to get the game on sale. So not only will I get a game that works, but I will pay less for it than the poor schmucks that had to have it on the release date.

If enough people do this then what will happen? For starters games may not reach #1 in sales. The profitability of releasing incomplete games will decrease and badly needed cash flows will come in a trickle rather than a flood.

I realize if enough people do what I suggest it might hurt game developers, but given the choice of sticking it to them or letting them stick it to me I choose to stick it to them. Do they deserve better? They don't think we deserve better.

Yeh I rarley buy games on release now, having said that I think if you do 'listen to the forums' then your going to be playing very few games, because whatever the game youll find a heap of 'Buggy unplayable beta' threads of guys crying cause the game wasnt made the way 'they wanted'

That said, Im going to be thinking long and hard about buying the Kingdoms Add on , in fact it may be the first TW title i dont buy, and should the developers continue on the who needs gameplay - look at all the fruit line of development - M2 will prob be the last TW for this black duck - I mean really when the battles are laughable and teadously frustrating because the AI cant find its own shoelaces and most the units dont work as intended??? Then the strategy could be defeated by 'the angry german kid' - this isnt the game it used to be - for me anyway

and the late game is so boring/frustrating/sameness its like the into movie - once youve played it once, its unlikely youll suffer it a second time

maybe with the patch I will be able to spark my interest enough to get past the frustration - I guess what Im saying is... powerup Generals - has confirmed my fears

Ars Moriendi

04-30-2007, 09:05

What I can never understand are the 'open letters to the developers' and the fact that people seem to think they have a 'right' for the developers to listen to their every whim, complaint, moan, 'game breaking' bugs and the fact that a pike is 2ft longer than it historically was on 4th March 1546 in a small hamlet outside Flensburg.

I understand that this is intended as sarcasm and exaggerated for rhetorical purposes, but I think you're taking it a bit too far. I'm aware that people on this forum (me included) tend to bicker endlessly about some inconsequential detail, but remember that M2TW is a game, not just a toy or a simulation, and as any other game doesn't really work without a set of rules that are fair to all players, known & understood by all and equally enforced on all, either by mechanics or by arbitrage.
For example, one of the (unwritten) rules in M2TW - and most other videogames too - is that if the graphical depiction of an item resembles something in the real world, then it's behaviour is expected to be similar to its real counterpart. Now, I see the soldiers in M2TW carrying things that look a lot like shields. I expect those things to act as a kind of protection. Instead, they act like slabs of kryptonite, crippling my "little supermen". Thus, a rule is broken or misrepresented. No rules, no game.

If anything, the discussion in these forums helps making a better product by raising customer awareness and helping find the problems in the finer details of the game. It's true, a lot of the talk here consists of moaning and complaining, but, ye know, nobody's forcing you to read it if it bothers you. If you do though, you might emerge somewhat wiser.
An unpleasant side effect is the "losing of innocence", which does indeed reduce the enjoyment, as stated previously in this thread. For my part, I'd rather take the information, since knowing things is enjoyable in itself ; "ignorance is bliss" is like saying "I wish I was dumber so I don't realize when people lie to me or try to rip me off, so I don't stress about it".

Von Nanega

04-30-2007, 15:58

I see dealing with the bugs in a differant way. Take the Armoured Swordsmen from England. With the shield bug I quit deploying 'em at all. Played some fun games. Maybe harder since I relied on levy spearmen lots more. Got the unofficial 1.2 Got it to work. Now almost having a whole new game using the Armoured Swordsmen. Its all good.

nookie

04-30-2007, 17:35

I agree - totally better game with the shield bug fixed and the cavalry able to actually kill the enemy during the rout... That with the fact that you can actually create an alliance and sustain it with some TLC let you employ strategy...

Playing venice used to suck because you would not be able to do anything because your alliances meant nothing... i was surrounded on all sides and constantly attacked... In 1.2 i was able to hold an alliance with milan for many rounds (they did attack me once - i dessimated a full stack of theres and then we made up and allied again - so far it has held up 30 turns...

Alot of people beat on this game but i like it better than rome NOW... the assassins guild is the greatest thing ever... I dont like expanding the empire quickly. My assassins allow me to grow my technology and conduct covert ops on my enemies...

with regard to the cannon/ballista tower bug... Are my ballista towers causing cannon damage on the enemy? Not sure if i want to upgrade when gunpowder hits...

dismal

04-30-2007, 17:43

a pike is 2ft longer than it historically was on 4th March 1546 in a small hamlet outside Flensburg.

O, if only the pikes had been 2 ft longer in Flensburg that day!

Quickening

04-30-2007, 17:45

with regard to the cannon/ballista tower bug... Are my ballista towers causing cannon damage on the enemy? Not sure if i want to upgrade when gunpowder hits...

Nah you'd know if your ballista towers were firing cannon balls. It isn't just in the damage they do. It doesn't appear to happen all the time though so you may have got lucky. I remember when I first mentioned this bug ages ago few people believed me because they had apparently not experienced it.

nookie

04-30-2007, 17:51

My last battle was definitely shooting cannon from my towers becuase it was a huge fireball being shot at night... Yet the last campaign i know i had my cannon towers going...

Agent Smith

04-30-2007, 17:53

O, if only the pikes had been 2 ft longer in Flensburg that day!

Some men are longer than others.

[/Braveheart]

pike master

04-30-2007, 18:54

im still somewhat confused what he based his information on. was it by size ratio? if so one must remember that average height for a man up until modern times usually hovered around five and a half feet.

based on my judgement i would think they are between 16 to 18 feet in length. i saw a 21 foot long pike with the original furniture on it at the frazier armory museum in louisville kentucky. but i would say 16 to 18 feet was usually the norm for most of the history of long spears such as pikes or sarissas.

Alexander the Pretty Good

04-30-2007, 20:10

To bring this back on topic (the original topic), anyone hear anything about the official patch recently? :book:

Doug-Thompson

04-30-2007, 22:06

To bring this back on topic (the original topic), anyone hear anything about the official patch recently? :book:
:2thumbsup:

Lusted

04-30-2007, 22:53

The official patch has gone back into testing, check the News and Announcements section at www.totalwarforums.com for the latest news.

Gaius Terentius Varro

05-01-2007, 12:09

Weird... If the leaked 1.2 was meant to be distributed from the mirror it got "hijacked" from then why does my game say 1.02? Smells free beta test to me.

sapi

05-01-2007, 12:13

It didn't get 'hijacked'; they had to delay the patch at the last minute after critical problems were found in it

Lusted

05-01-2007, 12:14

Well thats what 1.2 is, 1.02, like 1.1 is 1.01. Thats the game version. And as Caliban/SenseiTW/Alex SEGA have said countless times, it was not released on purpose.

Kaldhore

05-01-2007, 12:50

It would be nice now to have a separate sticky thread with no posting allowed to give us updates about the patch releases. I Came to this thread just to see if there is any recent news about it and had to wade through 12 pages of moans gripes and retaliation posts back and forth, when all I wanted to know was - is it out yet... or what stage they were up to - jumping to the last page (as I figure thats the response I'll get) sometimes you miss important posts. I dont use any other TW forum cept this one cos its been the best for me since shogun. So please can we just have one thread with no non-admin posting?

sapi

05-01-2007, 13:01

A separate sticky?

What a strange idea!

Why, there's been one at the top of this forum for, oh, 10 minutes now ~;)

Generals_Bodyguard

05-01-2007, 14:09

Sapi,

you missed a post by Caliban at .com.....He said:

Administrator/Administrator

Posts: 82

04/30/07 20:00

CA Staff

"The Patch has embarked on its epic journey from Australia to England. From my understanding it's now being tested by SEGA UK. No amount of whinging or whining is going to make it come any faster. It's in the pipeline now so all we can do is wait. And besides, Jonny Blademan said he's going to cook you all ribs!

*creeps away slowly*"

Generals_Bodyguard

05-01-2007, 14:20

Im very sad...none of the guys there answered me if it involved flying kangaroos!!! sigh...

TinCow

05-01-2007, 15:30

I would again like to emphasize that advocating piracy is against Org rules. Please do not do it.

Doug-Thompson

05-01-2007, 15:33

A separate sticky?

What a strange idea!

Why, there's been one at the top of this forum for, oh, 10 minutes now ~;)

:2thumbsup:

pike master

05-01-2007, 16:37

I would again like to emphasize that advocating piracy is against Org rules. Please do not do it.

https://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s286/hunterhornet/pirate5B35D_1.jpg

Lorenzo_H

05-01-2007, 16:49

wrong type of piracy mad cat mech ~:)

Gaius Terentius Varro

05-01-2007, 18:26

Jesus I always thought you ppl hated buccaneers... now I am enlightened:
http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/kidantipiracy.htm

hellenes

05-01-2007, 18:32

Sadly Im from a country (Greece) that piracy runs rampant...
The whole leftist hatred towards capitalism and corporations in general leaves no room for remorse... :embarassed:

sapi

05-02-2007, 08:12

@Generals_Bodyguard, TinCow - thanks for pointing that out and fixing it respectively :bow:

@all
Now, lets not get too carried away with the piracy analogies :grin2:

I would like to remind everyone, as TinCow did, that advocating piracy is against the Org rules, not to mention the law, in most countries at least, and will not be tolerated here.

This isn't an issue to most, of course, but it's a good thing to remember in general.

Daveybaby

05-02-2007, 10:18

I would like to remind everyone, as TinCow did, that advocating piracy is against the Org rules, not to mention the law, in most countries at least, and will not be tolerated here.
Yes its against org rules, which is all fair enough, but despite the RIAA/MPAA/etc's best efforts, its not illegal to advocate piracy in most countries. Yet.

Odin

05-02-2007, 12:56

Weird... If the leaked 1.2 was meant to be distributed from the mirror it got "hijacked" from then why does my game say 1.02? Smells free beta test to me.

SSSSHHHHH!!!!! we dont want any conspiracy theories dude, the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt must be given to CA at all times, shame on you :laugh4:

TinCow

05-02-2007, 13:48

Yes its against org rules, which is all fair enough, but despite the RIAA/MPAA/etc's best efforts, its not illegal to advocate piracy in most countries. Yet.

Encouraging someone to commit a crime is itself a crime in the United States. That would be applicable to software/media piracy.

Now, let's get back on-topic, shall we?

Midnight

05-02-2007, 14:21

Well, if it's being tested in the UK now, it can't be too much longer (though I thought that last time, and they pulled it!). I'm hoping for this Friday!

FactionHeir

05-02-2007, 15:13

Probably next Wednesday. Just a random guess of course

gardibolt

05-02-2007, 17:18

Given the embarrassment over the last go-round, I have to believe SEGA will be taking their time on this QA testing. I'd guess next week Friday at the earliest.

pike master

05-02-2007, 17:21

if piracy is an international crime than what court would you stand before?

the hague?

Doug-Thompson

05-02-2007, 17:46

if piracy is an international crime than what court would you stand before?

the hague?

Whichever country catches you.

PutCashIn

05-02-2007, 23:00

Everything in the world can be improved by the addition of Monkeys, Ninjas and/or Pirates.

(Just ask Sid Meier)

nookie

05-03-2007, 00:11

how embarrassing... The initial patch was supposed to be relased mid march... LONG LIVE THE UNOFFICIAL PATCH...

Foz

05-03-2007, 00:21

Encouraging someone to commit a crime is itself a crime in the United States. That would be applicable to software/media piracy.

I suppose you're referring to conspiracy law? If so, it allows an awful lot of gray area. It requires an agreement to commit the crime between the two parties, and also implies some sort of planning behind the crime. Simply mentioning the possibility that someone could commit a crime and allowing them to act on that as they see fit, for instance, does not fall inside the bounds of conspiracy. There is a world of difference between pointing out the possibility of committing a crime, and actually suggesting that it be done, most especially under the law. The former cannot really be considered "advocating piracy" either, as hypothetical speech does not actually advocate anything, it simply explores possibilities. However, I'm not in much of a mood for treading so near the bounds of forum policy myself: just wanted to point out that forum policy, like the law, leaves plenty of room for discussion, provided it is done carefully. For the moment though, I'll leave it to braver or more motivated souls to cheat that line.

TinCow

05-03-2007, 00:42

I suppose you're referring to conspiracy law?

No, I'm referring to solicitation (http://law.jrank.org/pages/2134/Solicitation.html). (And before any Brits reply, it means something different on this side of the Pond.)

hellenes

05-03-2007, 01:42

No, I'm referring to solicitation (http://law.jrank.org/pages/2134/Solicitation.html). (And before any Brits reply, it means something different on this side of the Pond.)

Piracy isnt a crime in EU...Its a Copyright infrigment which is dealt in civil courts...If a company wants to pursue a pirate they have to sue him...
There is a fine balance between the rights of the companies and the private rights of teh individual...

Foz

05-03-2007, 02:08

No, I'm referring to solicitation (http://law.jrank.org/pages/2134/Solicitation.html). (And before any Brits reply, it means something different on this side of the Pond.)
Similar enough. This is from the site you linked:

Elements of the crime. Since solicitation, like the other inchoate crimes of attempt and conspiracy, is a specific-intent crime, every state solicitation statute requires that the solicitor's menial state be either an intent to cause the solicitant to commit or attempt to commit the object crime, or be sufficient to establish the solicitant's complicity in its commission or attempted commission.

So, my previous points largely apply. Hypothetical speech is still perfectly acceptable, as one must demonstrate a desire for the other person to commit the crime or at least attempt to do so in order to be guilty of solicitation. So if we were so inclined, we could lawfully discuss how to commit piracy, the merits of doing so, the drawbacks or risks of it, or any other facet of piracy, provided we don't actually tell anyone to do it, or try to influence them to do it. It's really a facet of the law you see in practice in many ways, and is a distinction that seems specifically motivated by the idea of free speech. Horrible as it certainly sounds, we could also discuss how to build atomic devices, how to deliver them to cities, how to hold the world at ransom w/ nuclear weapons... and we'd be fine doing so as long as no one expressed intent to actually carry out the plan, nor try to have anyone else carry out the plan on their (our) behalf. Entertaining and discussing criminal ideas is not criminal in and of itself - it always requires a desire or willingness (or of course an actual attempt) to act upon those criminal intentions in order to become criminal.