View Full Version : What should be fixed first above alll others?
Which is the #1 improvement that you are looking for in a future patch/expansion/new TW game? I hear so many and I hope CA pays Attention. I am now going to make a different pool asking which IS NOT A CONCERN FOR YOU.
Oh, I also voted for the Diplomacy because thats the heart of the game. The battles are a great addition and the reason why I picked TW over other Civ like games but sometimes, I feel I would have more fun if the Diplomacy was more "Well to do" in the head.
Monsieur Alphonse
07-16-2007, 07:12
Better campaign AI.
phonicsmonkey
07-16-2007, 07:24
agreed, I think better campaign AI would have a flow-on effect to improve some of the other problems like diplomacy (better sense of strategic position and goals would make for more consistent negotiation from AI-controlled factions) and battle AI (because it's hard to judge at the moment when the AI so often fields desperately inferior stacks)
FactionHeir
07-16-2007, 07:30
I don't think such a poll is necessary as the buglist already categorizes by priority as agreed upon by TWC and ORG communities.
Also, there are several more that could be included in such a poll, which currently is very subjective in what the OP feels is more important (as seen by putting almost everything else as minor for instance)
Definitly AI, but having more variety between each unit, so it's not just generic chainmail men in every nation with the only difference being colours
I want the bugs fixed. That norse axemen doesn't whoop DFK's asses isn't right. I mean, they have HUGE attack *and* AP
Deutschland Uber Alles
07-16-2007, 11:10
Just need better campaign AI and more troops..
I don't think such a poll is necessary as the buglist already categorizes by priority as agreed upon by TWC and ORG communities.
Also, there are several more that could be included in such a poll, which currently is very subjective in what the OP feels is more important (as seen by putting almost everything else as minor for instance)
I couldn't disagree more. I haven't seen a poll yet that I could respond too so I thought others haven't seen one yet either. Second, every TW game gets prettier but the AI stays the same or gets more retarded in some way, I feel if more time was being developed fixing various glitches and less time on eyecandy, people would be happier. And lastly, CA will probably use this in some way because its exactly in the right format and directly to the point in the future. So yes, I feel it was needed enough to learn how to make a poll in the first place to post.
I voted for the better campaign AI but this should be one with the diplomacy. One won't work without the other.
This would be greatly enhance the strategic challenge of the game (which I would appreciate very much).
Shaitan
I'll leave the poll options as is, but it should be noted that they are leading.
2-handed + shield bugs minor? :laugh4:
Agree campaign AI should be priority, though.
campaign ai, let it be agresive like in 1.1 but let it have some faction targets like in rtw bi.
Galapagos
07-16-2007, 14:06
Campaign AI
Ramses II CP
07-16-2007, 14:58
Campaign AI. It makes me sick to sack an AI capital when they have multiple full stacks wandering around nearby, doing nothing.
I voted for the better campaign AI but this should be one with the diplomacy. One won't work without the other.
Shaitan
I agree, diplomacy should be tied into the capaign AI, Its far to easy to get the AI to give castles and cities in deals. It shouldnt make deals impossible, but unless you have dealt the AI a serious blow militarily, it shouldnt be simple to buy thier lands.
Also, the reputation thing I never fully understood, but it should be faction specific. I might be a wonderful neibhor to the HRE As poland but a right pain the butt for the hungarians, so why should they view me the same?
PseRamesses
07-16-2007, 15:54
Voted for an improved battle-AI although a sane campmap-AI is second on my list.
The whole reason I play this game, and has since Shogun was released, is the battles. In S I thought WoW! this is great, the AI is acting almost human and is making pretty sane strategical decisions on the battlefield. Through MTW, RTW and M2 this has deterioated to a fragment of its former glory, sad to say.
In S it was easier: take it all! Maybee that´s why its so good and easy. The AI is more in sync with a conquer all mentality. In M2 nowdays there is so many ways I can play this game and still win but the AI is just making worse decisions than ever:
Why send one ship to attack my empire and not have the troops or even the intentions to follow up with some attempt of an invasion or landwarfare?
Why send priest/ imams to foreign lands when your own provinces is howering between 30-70%?
Why send spies abroad when his own cities are littered with foreign spies that incites one rebellion after another?
Why declare war on an empire that outnumbers you, by any criteria, by 10:1?
Why do the AI expand in a stright line rather spiraling outwards from its centre?
Why do the AI cross a bridge when I´m attacking them?
Why does he move down from a hilltop just because I cirled around his flanks?
etc etc etc
PS. I´m actually afraid what CA is going to come up with for the next title. :sweatdrop:
Why send one ship to attack my empire and not have the troops or even the intentions to follow up with some attempt of an invasion or landwarfare?
Hahahaha, the bloody portugese, it never fails as sicily, england, scotland basically any faction with a costal province east of budapest and the Portugese seem to love to DOW, blockade my port.
Then come to find out there armies are busy trapsing around Rennes wondering if they should attack it, or march to me.
:gathering:
Nice post mate.
Doug-Thompson
07-16-2007, 20:53
Campaign AI. I'm tired of clobbering a stack of Mongols outside Antioch every turn on the same battlefield.
Askthepizzaguy
07-16-2007, 21:50
Campaign AI!
By now, my destruction of the AI in campaign mode is notorious. I agree that the game needs to have the units retooled so that they function as expected in battle, but of even greater concern is the fact that the campaign AI is predictable, stupid, illogical, and sooooooooooo easy to destroy.
Give pizza guy something more meaty to chew on, and build a better campaign AI. Different maps and different units may add to the challenge, but if the campaign AI is still stupid, it won't matter.
Great game though. Any criticism is out of love.
Monsieur Alphonse
07-16-2007, 22:30
I voted for a better Campaign AI. Here are two examples of my Milan campaign.
I had wiped Venice out of Italy and out of the Balkans. All they had left Iraklion and Rhodes. We made peace and next I captured Egypt. At that time the Venetians attacked me at Alexandria. They were so desperate to capture Alexandria that they left Iraklion undefended. All I had to do was to send a small task force and capture Iraklion. I left a small garrison and attacked Rhodes that was defended by the faction leader, while the Venetian fleet with two stacks was still at sea heading to wards Iraklion. Next turn Venice was out of the game.
A couple of turns later I captured Cordoba from the Moors. Next I attacked Lisbon (held by the Moors). I left Cordoba defended by a couple of militia units because I thought that the Spanish wouldn't risk their last remaining stack to attack me. Nobody could be that stupid especially as we were at peace at that moment. How wrong was I. The Spanish send a very strong stack to capture Cordoba (DFKs, FKs, Pavise crossbows). After a heroic defense of my outnumbered militia units they captured the city. The attack had severely weakened the Spanish so I could recapture Cordoba the next turn. Two turns later Toledo (weakly defended) was in Milan's hands. All that was left of Spain ware Leon and Zaragossa and hardly defended.
The AI which programmed to attack the human player at all costs is actually weakening the AI itself, making the game easier. :wall: :wall:
Askthepizzaguy
07-16-2007, 23:31
Gotta love the dismounted English chefs.
Campaign AI most definitely. The minor bugs was a good second but I can live with those were the AI improved. AI should 'prioritize' certain map points, especially cities/castles. I am left very much so lacking when I go to siege a settlement and the AI factions leave one family member + bodyguard or one unit of something utterly useless. As if sieges are easy enough with all the options you have as the attacker including (and do not get my started on) spies opening the gates.
Whilst the one unit is sitting in a very important settlement you have the rest of the entire faction's damned armies marauding around occasionally attacking something. But most of the time doing nothing important, simply wandering about aimlessly. If the AI at least had to prioritize settlements and maintain a certain amount of units to garrison that would be an efficient stopgap measure.
Tschüß!
Erich
A few notes to the poll that I should have added.
Dear Moderator, I didn't really mean that the two handed or the shield bug were minor. They are quite huge but I was trying to refer to all the other minor bugs that interfear with the games playability. Off hand, I can't remember that many but there were quite a few that needed to be fixed for a long time, too many to list from memory.
Also, I split up Diplomacy and Campaign AI on purpose because I feel that they should be seperate. With Diplomacy, I meant JUST THAT, nothing to do with the AI building this instead of that or how they build endless stacks of weaker, inferior troops, or even how they fail to take over an entire faction but instead take a province and just stay at war doing nothing. I understand that the two topics are linked and I should have specified what I meant as the difference better to avoid confusion in a possible vote.
Diplomacy wasn't supposed to include the possible war starts due to a moronic blockkade. It was supposed to refer to relations, bribing, keeping alliances, breaking them, helping an ally in need, and being more of a friend for the long run instead of just quick gains.
Now I will put this in bold so CA skimming through will read it.
NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT GRAPHICS - YOUR GRAPHICS ARE FINE - PLEASE SPEND FUTURE DEVELOPING TIME MAKING A GREAT GAME EVEN BETTER. WE DO NOT, ACCORDING TO EVERYONE IN THIS MESSAGEBOARD AS OF 4:05PM ON MONDAY THE 16th OF MAY CARE AT ALL ABOUT A GRAPHICAL UPDATE. IN FACT, SOME OF US ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE EXTRA HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN A HIGHER GFX VERSION!!!
Askthepizzaguy
07-17-2007, 03:18
Woah! Hello!
LOL
I'm not sure the shouting was necessary. I hope the moderator doesnt lock the thread because of this.
edit: FuBball- Typing in all caps is widely considered to be shouting, especially when in bold face, with exclamation points, and when using the word "damn". I think I am on very firm ground here. I don't think there's actually any other way to interpret it.
Just pointing out in bold and caps, do not think he meant yelling per se. Anyway, back to topic.
Tschüß!
Erich
Nebuchadnezzar
07-17-2007, 05:15
Well I voted bugs, not b/c I don't think the AI needs work but how can one expect campaign AI, battle AI & diplomacy to function without first addressing the bugs in the very code we want improved?
PseRamesses actually made a very valid point regarding the campaign and diplomacy AI and a few of them I would consider bugs.
Why do the AI cross a bridge when I´m attacking them?
Why does he move down from a hilltop just because I cirled around his flanks?
and why does the AI after rallying their routing siege units decide to re-man their rams and carry them off to god knows where even if the gates are already down! Seen this 6 times.
I notice a bug almost every turn. The majority are minor, nevertheless they are in plague proportions and its so very stupefying to behold. Don't they even know how to use a spellcheck! lol
Post 1.2 I have managed to fix over 120 to my own files but I imagine there are hundreds (maybe more) that go unnoticed or are unmoddable.
So, a working core game to build on is my vote.
Kadagar_AV
07-17-2007, 06:40
I think CA deserves some shouting, nothing vulgar of course, but some shouting. Why? Because their game is broken and we haven't even seen any sign that they understand this.
I dont see it written anywhere in the threads about kingdoms that they will fix the real problems (on a sidenote, I dislike paying for something they should have patched/had ready from start with THIS game).
Askthepizzaguy
07-17-2007, 06:47
Meh.
I politely disagree with you folks. I don't think it is necessary to shout.
You can accomplish more with a polite word than you can with an insulting one. Shouting can rub someone the wrong way who might have otherwise been open to listening to your point of view. I don't know of a single case in my entire life where if someone shouted at me it made me more open to their point of view.
I'd even go as far as to say that I'd ignore even a reasonable request made of me if it was delivered in a shouting tone. Maybe that's just me, but in my experience it is not. Almost everyone reacts this way.
I even agree with you guys about the issues you are discussing. But if I were CA and I read such shouting I'd deliberately ignore it. That's human nature.
I honestly don't mean to be so picky or disagreeable, but I have to differ with you guys on this one, respectfully. Diplomacy is always the best first step towards achieving your goals.
If you're looking for cooperation from someone, it rarely hurts your position to ask for something before you demand it.
To clear up my "shouting"
It wasn't really to shout but more to make sure that if they scanned the page looking for a quick bit of information that they would see and read that. Yes, I believe its to the point that a little shouting would come in handy because I read more about future graphics than I do for other fixes which clearly isn't necessary from the results of my two polls. I just want to love my favorite game more and I feel that time investing in GFX features instead of where its really needed will hinder and not help. Sorry if I upset anyone.
NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT GRAPHICS - YOUR GRAPHICS ARE FINE - PLEASE SPEND FUTURE DEVELOPING TIME MAKING A GREAT GAME EVEN BETTER. WE DO NOT, ACCORDING TO EVERYONE IN THIS MESSAGEBOARD AS OF 4:05PM ON MONDAY THE 16th OF MAY CARE AT ALL ABOUT A GRAPHICAL UPDATE. IN FACT, SOME OF US ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE EXTRA HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN A HIGHER GFX VERSION!!!Not strictly true; but also not your fault ~;)
It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll not restricted by the vB board features (ie one in which members could rank their wants).
It's not so much that we don't care about graphics, but that there are other priorities.
I doubt the special effects are everyone's lowest priority (the general public, that is)...
Meh.
I politely disagree with you folks. I don't think it is necessary to shout.
You can accomplish more with a polite word than you can with an insulting one. Shouting can rub someone the wrong way who might have otherwise been open to listening to your point of view. I don't know of a single case in my entire life where if someone shouted at me it made me more open to their point of view.
I'd even go as far as to say that I'd ignore even a reasonable request made of me if it was delivered in a shouting tone. Maybe that's just me, but in my experience it is not. Almost everyone reacts this way.
I even agree with you guys about the issues you are discussing. But if I were CA and I read such shouting I'd deliberately ignore it. That's human nature.
I honestly don't mean to be so picky or disagreeable, but I have to differ with you guys on this one, respectfully. Diplomacy is always the best first step towards achieving your goals.
If you're looking for cooperation from someone, it rarely hurts your position to ask for something before you demand it.
Well said.
Gotta love the dismounted English chefs.
If they've been trained by Gordon Ramsey their bound to be scary.
Lanugage/content warning ~sapi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYdHPjDhQA&mode=related&search=
[Warning: Not suitable for viewing by children]
Kadagar_AV
07-17-2007, 13:23
I also 100% agree that shouting is the first step, and second and third.
But we're not at step one, or two.... This is the fourth TW title and counting the patches, they should have had plenty of responce to help them design the game, I know I contributed with a lot through the years.
So yeah a lil' bit of shouting should be tested, to show them that the consumer base is unhappy with the bugged up game of today that doesnt deliver what's promised.
And on a sidenote, I dont even think the example was as much shouting as a way to highlight the main issue, as the OP posted.
phonicsmonkey
07-17-2007, 13:33
Diplomacy is always the best first step towards achieving your goals.
hey, who are you and what have you done with the pizzaguy?
Askthepizzaguy
07-17-2007, 13:44
hey, who are you and what have you done with the pizzaguy?
Oh dear lord, I've upset my followers!
As stated previously on my merciless conqueror thread, who I am in real life is the polar opposite of my in-game persona. What you've just read is a rare example of the real me addressing another poster.
You can get mister nice guy to rear his ugly head by swearing extensively without the usual self-censoring gobbletygook ($#!^), insulting or defaming another member (even those you think had it coming), angry shouting (typing in all caps not intended for comic effect), or misspelling weltanschauung.
Don't worry. The brutal dictator you all know and fear will return shortly.
What the hell is a weltanschauung.???
Not strictly true; but also not your fault ~;)
It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll not restricted by the vB board features (ie one in which members could rank their wants).
It's not so much that we don't care about graphics, but that there are other priorities.
I doubt the special effects are everyone's lowest priority (the general public, that is)...
Its funny that you said that because my opposite poll, which is the option everyone wants to see fixed the least. Graphics and Special Effects are at the top of the list by a landslide victory. Yeah, they are nice but I would rather be challenged.
I don't want to keep talking and talking but I wish CA would make a comment so I know someone read this. That way, I felt like it was appreciated.
Askthepizzaguy
07-17-2007, 16:35
What the hell is a weltanschauung.???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltanschauung
"World view".
Not strictly true; but also not your fault ~;)
It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll not restricted by the vB board features (ie one in which members could rank their wants).
It's not so much that we don't care about graphics, but that there are other priorities.
I doubt the special effects are everyone's lowest priority (the general public, that is)...
Yeah, I kinda hit this on the head on the parrallel thread, I don't feel like posting it again here. On second though, I will post it as a spoiler just so people will know what I am talking about with graphics. To simplify, graphics are very important but CA did that job VERY WELL, few complain about it. I just feel other things are more important now, thats all.
I understand and kinda agree. We are no longer in the 8bit Nintendo range anymore. The graphics are actually appleasing and very entertaining to watch. Although I would like to see improvements, there are so many other ideas I like more.
But with a graphical update (Which I voted Least Important out of all updates), I would appreciate seeing some of the following: the grass on fire when flaming arrows being used, bodies in the water on a bridge fight, Mud on the uniforms (I read it on the PCgamer article but I haven't really seen it yet.), destructible buildings, blood, civilians helping or running in a seige battle, or even more camera options. I think that those would be great improvements but if I had development time restraints, I would have to cut them to make the features (as advertised) that make the game enjoyable were at least installed or enhanced to be "Better than expected" if not Legendary. I would like people to look back 20 years from now and say that M2TW is the "Legend of Zelda" or "Final Fantasy 1" of the computer age. No one I have ever heard sticks with a game just because it looks cool, I understand people BUY games for that reason but to stick with it you need more. Its like Lust vs Love. Sure, everyone wants to bang a hot girl but if shes dumb in the head and you can't stand how she is but just love the "private time" or looking at her, the relationship won't last. But, if you marry an ugly girl that treats you good and cares about you and you care about her, it doesn't matter that others thinks shes ugly, (If you would care, perhaps M2TW is too advanced for your mind and you should go back to Counter-Strike) odds are you would marry her or at least stay with her for the long run.
In conclusion, Please CA - treat the followers of your games with the joy of what we are begging you to fix, word of mouth always gets more sales than a good advertisement (especially on a back of a box.) or someone hard up on graphics would enjoy. As my conclusion, the people begging for graphics and really nothing else are the type of people who play simplistic games are busy playing NON STRATEGY or even Console games. People who play this like the graphics but want so much more in a relationship with a game.
Can someone give me an email for CA so I can email these two polls for them to read.
Can someone give me an email for CA so I can email these two polls for them to read.
We do read the forums you know.
Although programming a decent AI is a hellava lot harder than figuring the tragectory of a bullet or programming a splashdamage effect toward a cannonball but this is a strategy game and the AI is VERY important to making this game more enjoyable.
Yes, the votes were more scattered on this poll compared to the poll about what not to fix but it seems that the AI should be the dominate thing that your group at CA headquarters works on.
Thank you all for posting, I believe that this poll as well as the other one is dead because I found this on page 2 as well.
Askthepizzaguy
07-20-2007, 11:08
Although programming a decent AI is a hellava lot harder than figuring the tragectory of a bullet or programming a splashdamage effect toward a cannonball but this is a strategy game and the AI is VERY important to making this game more enjoyable.
Yes, the votes were more scattered on this poll compared to the poll about what not to fix but it seems that the AI should be the dominate thing that your group at CA headquarters works on.
Thank you all for posting, I believe that this poll as well as the other one is dead because I found this on page 2 as well.
It is always sad when a thread dies. At least people responded. I've seen some threads just sit there with a bunch of views and no responses.
Wait... were those my threads?
The internet forum kind, not the slang for clothing. I felt it necessary to clarify, just in case of confusion.
___________________
Blatant plug: None at present.
Since nobody has commented on this poll in a while, I consider it closed. CA, please take note of this on the next staff meeting on what to do or not do on future products/patches/ect.
The Stranger
08-18-2007, 17:45
where is the everything option?
Zenicetus
08-18-2007, 19:50
Campaign AI here too. It was close between that and better tactical AI, but as others mentioned, the follow-on improvements would fix some of the things I find annoying about tactical battles. Better campaign AI would keep me from steamrolling the map with huge overpowering armies, and I'd be facing fewer half-stack enemy armies with bizarre unit composition. That's really one of the big flaws in the game right now... how the AI factions put together their armies before they even reach the tactical combat phase.
trickydicky
08-20-2007, 14:14
Campaign AI.
Although this made me chuckle.
Updated Graphics Engine and Special Effects
The graphics aren't good enough already then :beam:
Bob the Insane
08-20-2007, 16:18
hmmm...
I have to disagree with the group here and say Battle AI...
I think it harks back to the roots of the game, and so much more would be forgiven if the battles where genuinely challenging more of the time... Sure decent campaign AI is necessary to ensure that the AI is chosing to fight at appropriate times and sending appropriate forces but the enjoyment of the battles are the key I think (IMO of course)...
To expand on the point, when I give up playing after a long session, it is not because I am in horror of the next silly thing the campaign AI mmight do, it is because I can't stand another large cookie cutter battle today. Build a solid defensive (or offensive it does nto really matter), trade missile fire, attack the main line, flank with cavalry, win... It is not a matter of worrying about losing, just about how bad your casulaties will be....
trickydicky
08-20-2007, 17:51
hmmm...
I have to disagree with the group here and say Battle AI...
I think it harks back to the roots of the game, and so much more would be forgiven if the battles where genuinely challenging more of the time... Sure decent campaign AI is necessary to ensure that the AI is chosing to fight at appropriate times and sending appropriate forces but the enjoyment of the battles are the key I think (IMO of course)...
To expand on the point, when I give up playing after a long session, it is not because I am in horror of the next silly thing the campaign AI mmight do, it is because I can't stand another large cookie cutter battle today. Build a solid defensive (or offensive it does nto really matter), trade missile fire, attack the main line, flank with cavalry, win... It is not a matter of worrying about losing, just about how bad your casulaties will be....
Good point Bob, but surely having a smarter campaign AI would automatically help improve the battles. The AI would field better armies, and would attack at much more appropriate times. This may not "fix" the battlefield AI, but it would at least improve the game, and I imagine it woul be easier to implement.
I agree however that the Battlefield AI does need some serious reworking, epecially on the VH setting. Very Hard is after all suppose to be hard ~:)
Zenicetus
08-20-2007, 21:29
Well, one thing the battles need very badly are different AI "personalities" for the enemy general, so we aren't facing the same cookie cutter battles BobtheInsane mentioned.
Imagine how nice it would be, if sometimes you'd face an enemy general who feinted and flanked, another time the general would pour all his resources into a wedge drive towards your center. Some generals would be cautious, others would be maniacs, constantly on the offensive. And the passive/aggresive thing wouldn't necessarily be tied to who had attacked whom on the campaign map, the way it works now (that's another thing that makes these battles too predictable). Ideally you wouldn't know which style and tactics you'd be facing with each battle, unless you had already fought that particular general before, and he had survived.
We do need better generic battle AI overall, but I don't think we'll ever avoid that "cookie cutter" feeling until there's some randomness and variation in combat styles for the enemy generals.
I voted for campaign AI first, mainly because I think it's probably an easier area to improve than the tactical side, being turn-based instead of realtime AI. But obviously we need better AI in both areas.
Well, one thing the battles need very badly are different AI "personalities" for the enemy general, so we aren't facing the same cookie cutter battles BobtheInsane mentioned.
Imagine how nice it would be, if sometimes you'd face an enemy general who feinted and flanked, another time the general would pour all his resources into a wedge drive towards your center. Some generals would be cautious, others would be maniacs, constantly on the offensive. And the passive/aggresive thing wouldn't necessarily be tied to who had attacked whom on the campaign map, the way it works now (that's another thing that makes these battles too predictable). Ideally you wouldn't know which style and tactics you'd be facing with each battle, unless you had already fought that particular general before, and he had survived.
We do need better generic battle AI overall, but I don't think we'll ever avoid that "cookie cutter" feeling until there's some randomness and variation in combat styles for the enemy generals.
I voted for campaign AI first, mainly because I think it's probably an easier area to improve than the tactical side, being turn-based instead of realtime AI. But obviously we need better AI in both areas.
Yes, I totally agree with that and that would be a top pick for me too. However, I couldn't have put every option possible to fix so I just kinda figured I would generalize it the way that I did.
Freedom Onanist
08-21-2007, 10:13
Although I am with Bob in seeing the battles as the core of the game I voted for better campaing AI. As someone mentioned, if the campaign AI was a bit better I wouldn't be fighting battles against hordes of peasants.
That whole post about
Why does the AI:
send priests to my territories when his are on the verge of heresy
send spies to my territories when his are virtually inopen rebellion
keep moving insignificant armies back and forwards on the raod to nowhere
send useless armies to invade. Either too small or ineffective troops.
invade when clearly outnumbered
not accept ceasefires when they have been consistently beaten and are now facing complete disaster
bother to attack over bridges
move from a tactically useful position (high ground / bridge) for no apparent reason when threatened
Things that are broke or don't really work:
Merchants get my goat. The AI obviously has the bandwidth to train every single one of his, I don't since I am playing total WAR, not total market.
Princesses - more micro management. I just kill all foreign ones I can see as they slow the game down during the AI turn (all that standing around and bowing...)
Diplomats - in that they rarely seem to achieve a coherent result
Diplomacy - when was the last time you saw an "ally" come to your aid?
Assassins - his work, yours don't. Just make them much, much, much more expensive but get hem to work
To be fair though I think a lot of the later are the result of the "community" requesting some of these features. The whole Campaign side of the game has got overblown and the elements now don't interact properly anymore in my view. Forget anbout half the campaign distractions and concentrate on getting it right so that we cna enjoy the battles. Less borked strategy and more sorted tactics.
locked_thread
08-22-2007, 03:47
edit
The basic mechanics of combat (charge, hit, miss, pursue, etc), are the core of the game. If the fundamentals aren't working, there's no sense slapping lipstick on that bimbo and sending her onto the street with a fancy campaign map and a bejillion unit types. :dizzy2:
I guess you could put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig. Would explain how I was conceived though.
The number one problem for me is still the lethargic fighting and bogus unit cohesion in the battle map. As it's not a problem from your list, well I'd like more moddability to be able to correct this myself, as it's for now hardcoded.
All the rest is faaaar below this one on my list.
The number one problem for me is still the lethargic fighting and bogus unit cohesion in the battle map. As it's not a problem from your list, well I'd like more moddability to be able to correct this myself, as it's for now hardcoded.
All the rest is faaaar below this one on my list.
I would say that that could either be
More Units to Choose From (More Variety Between Factions)
or
Easier Modability (Less Options Hard Coded, Maybe a Mod Kit Relieased to Assist)
Not the former, because the beef isn't against units themselves, but the mechanics of battle.
I obviously chose the latter ^^
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.