Where is the game going?

There do seem to be people who like the game as it is now, but I just don’t see it.

All of the challenge is in obtaining enough income to slaughter the weak pathetic masses.

Once you have a stack and a half not relegated to garrison duties you can conquer the world.

The biggest challenge the AI mounts is all the little subterfuges it mounts from a god like position to deprive the player of money. All the world works in concert to cut your income…not one faction at a time, but all the world in background.

I say this because there is no good reason why trade partners allow them selves to be blockaded, go to war with out cause, or hope, and why common enemies are now left alone to harass the sea lanes.

The individual AI factions are weaker and more impotent than ever, in any TW game. Even rebel cities in previous games would challenge them.

In fact the current trend from CA is to make everything weaker. I think it is a mistake.

Despite the criticism I am leveling at them, I think CA is doing a good job. They are trying to bring the players the game they think that they want. In the face of conflicting viewpoints they are doing what is easiest. And who can blame them for that?

The original was loaded with subtleties and depth even if it was a bit easy to raise money. You had some feeling of 18th century to it. Now except for muskets it is more like the early iron age, the player vs. everyone and nothing is to be relied upon.

I liked the deep complexities of the first and not just a slug-fest with everyone near and far.

Not everything was working right, but you could see it coming along.

I for one liked the depth and complexities.

I also like some of the changes. That allies don’t blindly jump into every conflict, but they should have reasons to fallow or fall out.

I am not sure that the balance changes are justified, however. The Austrian Jaegers didn’t upset the balance. Mortar range was not exploited in single player to the extent it needed to be changed. Halving the range of steamships has made them only a prestige unit and nothing of value.

When the game was released there were two camps. Those who loved what they saw and its potential, and those who hated it. I loved it. But now I find my self in an increasingly critical role.

Total War is about a blending of infrastructure, production, government, diplomacy, and war. As of now it is seriously slanted toward war, to the neglect or even near exclusion of some of the others.

We hear about proposed changes or new code but we have no idea how it will play out. We don’t know why some needs changed or what the finished product is intended to be like.

It would not hurt to know some of the philosophy behind the changes.

We all want an enjoyable game. And I for one would like to be a supporter of CA’s efforts…

I just don’t know what direction it is going and with the little I know I find my self in opposition to a lot of it.

i think that TW is starting to lean towards the folks who dont like to think about economy and diplomacy and only like to fight battles.
but i will say that with the latest change with unit cost and upkeep, its a lot harder to maintain armies, thus the outcry of the people to remove that change because they can no longer afford huge and powerful armeis to roll across the map with.

I have to disagree, in part. The upkeep costs may prevent the play from fielding huge armies, but at the same time it prevents the AI factions from fielding much of an army to defend its self with. The AI much more than the player is dependent on numbers and quality of troops.

Even a fairly new player can manage to defeat a force 1 and a 3rd to 1 and a half his army’s size. Without the extra cash the AI is particularly impotent.

didnt realize the up in costs also affected the AI. i think CA needs to implement soemthing which the EB team put in place: every faction thats controlled by the AI gets a huge monetary bonus every turn. it works for EB, and i am usually fighting huge AI armies. what they lack in skill they make up in number.

I don’t actually favor AI cheats to beat the player. The AI generalship needs to be better at almost every level of play. It could use more cash so perhaps removing administrative costs for the AI factions, up to a certain level would be best, (say around 15 to 20 regions). The MC might prove the exception as they seem to have little trouble raising armies and cash.

The random DoWs should stop and go back to the diplomacy model we started with. Once at war however, the Campaign AI needs to be more aggressive and not sit and wait to be attacked.

Each AI faction should have some kind of self preservations built in. Refusing offers until eliminated for most factions is unreasonable. There should of course be exceptions, and mad rulers who can surprise you without the whole game conspiring to disrupt your campaign.

I don’t think anyone would complain if blocked ports resulted in a marked percentage drop in trade rather than its complete secession. At the same time AI factions should place a priority on keeping its own ports free of blockade. I think this has been used as a cheep trick to deprive the player of revenue rather than the AI’s inability to cope with the enemy.

It may not prove as challenging is some respects, but it doesn’t make the AI look so foolish and incompetent, which is a major problem for a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

didnt realize the up in costs also affected the AI. i think CA needs to implement soemthing which the EB team put in place: every faction thats controlled by the AI gets a huge monetary bonus every turn.

---

What's the point in playing a game if all the other players don't have to follow the rules? It's CA's system, if they can't code the AI to work within that system why does the player get punished?

Can't give the AI financial bonuses, it would be impossible to get started. It's difficult as it is, with the AI being programmed to destroy the player at all cost and not accept peace ever, but you can handle it because once you destroy their army they can't make another for a while... but neither can you, you're as bankrupt as they are for quite a while.

If they got bonuses then they could just pump out army after army while you are a sitting duck.

the system that the EB team puts in place is very good. they dont get a huge bonus, only enough to make sure they dont go under in debt.
i think its a bit late to make major changes to the AI, so i think this is the next best thing.

The EB system was horrid, but necessary, and there were no alternatives.

The AI throws 4 full stack armies of good and/or decent troops at you every single turn because they get tens of thousands in aid from a script every turn, resulting in a very boring game once you get 50 or 60 turns in.

I can't say this enough... the series may be called Total War, but with everything else that has been implemented, like diplomacy, the option to strangle your opponents economically, sabotage, isolation, everything, is proof that these games aren't meant to be just about constant warfare and huge battles being fought every single turn.

Don't know about anybody else, but if i have to fight a battle every turn, i abandon a campaign very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

The EB system was horrid, but necessary, and there were no alternatives.

The AI throws 4 full stack armies of good and/or decent troops at you every single turn because they get tens of thousands in aid from a script every turn, resulting in a very boring game once you get 50 or 60 turns in.

I can't say this enough... the series may be called Total War, but with everything else that has been implemented, like diplomacy, the option to strangle your opponents economically, sabotage, isolation, everything, is proof that these games aren't meant to be just about constant warfare and huge battles being fought every single turn.

Don't know about anybody else, but if i have to fight a battle every turn, i abandon a campaign very quickly.

---

Yeah, that hit it dead-on.

As much as many people would hate to hear it. I think that if I had to choose between the real-time battles, and an actually realistic working and complex political system in which the AI behaved sanely and logically, I'd go with the politics. Sure fighting massive battles is just plain awesome, but battles that have no meaning, to me, are completely arbitrary and boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

As much as many people would hate to hear it. I think that if I had to choose between the real-time battles, and an actually realistic working and complex political system in which the AI behaved sanely and logically, I'd go with the politics. Sure fighting massive battles is just plain awesome, but battles that have no meaning, to me, are completely arbitrary and boring.

---

I wholeheartedly agree!

Yet the trend has been in the opposite direction.

Some of this has been a simple misunderstanding of what the players are looking for, and CA has seemed to be listening.

I pray that they still are and can move the game back to a political, economic, & military model, in that order and not just all war all the time.

Players who like all war are free to declare war on everyone as they choose,(something everyone seems to forget), however, those who want something else can not turn off the idiocy and play a different kind of game in its current state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Some of this has been a simple misunderstanding of what the players are looking for, and CA has seemed to be listening.

I pray that they still are and can move the game back to a political, economic, & military model, in that order and not just all war all the time.
.

---

C'mon guys, you're talking like MTW1 was Europa Universalis. In which TW game have they had a "political, economic & military model, in that order"? 'Cos I sure as Hell must've missed it.

I found the last two games a complete & utter turn-off meself, because there was nothing to do apart from micromanage vast amounts of frankly boring stuff. Which I suppose is why I like Empire so much, because it sort of kinda maybe a bit feels like MTW1 with Caravel's (late of this parish) Pocket Mod installed: levelled playing field & simplified unit-building tree that even the computer can manage, so you can quickly get into some fights & kill some stuff against decent opponents.

With ETW, for all the criticism & the bugs I think they've got the battles back to a standard where you actually have to, you know, concentrate, which I think is why they've only paid lip-service (though a flashy, possibly intriguing lip-service) to the Empire Total Accountant side of the game. The Empire Total Accountant side of the game is there but it feels bolted on. You can tell, it's not the point of the game. It plays sometimes like some kind of cut-down shareware Windows 95 strategy game. Which is fine. If I wanted a game like that, I'd have bought one without the word "WAR" in the title.

Sorry to go on but sometimes I feel like you guys are making a category error, in that you are saying "This part of the game is underdeveloped, it should be changed". Whereas I've got the feeling it was meant to be that way from the start. Which is fine. I didn't develop the game, so I really can't comment on what it was meant to be like. Who can?

Not saying that my opinion is right, but just mentioning that maybe the party line isn't necessarily unanimous either.

I've got this creeping feeling reading the forums that most of the problems are not with this game expressly, but rather the image people had in their heads of what the game was going to be like, & the disconnect between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbosatan

C'mon guys, you're talking like MTW1 was Europa Universalis. In which TW game have they had a "political, economic & military model, in that order"? 'Cos I sure as Hell must've missed it.

I found the last two games a complete & utter turn-off meself, because there was nothing to do apart from micromanage vast amounts of frankly boring stuff. Which I suppose is why I like Empire so much, because it sort of kinda maybe a bit feels like MTW1 with Caravel's (late of this parish) Pocket Mod installed: levelled playing field & simplified unit-building tree that even the computer can manage, so you can quickly get into some fights & kill some stuff against decent opponents.

With ETW, for all the criticism & the bugs I think they've got the battles back to a standard where you actually have to, you know, concentrate, which I think is why they've only paid lip-service (though a flashy, possibly intriguing lip-service) to the Empire Total Accountant side of the game. The Empire Total Accountant side of the game is there but it feels bolted on. You can tell, it's not the point of the game. It plays sometimes like some kind of cut-down shareware Windows 95 strategy game. Which is fine. If I wanted a game like that, I'd have bought one without the word "WAR" in the title.

Sorry to go on but sometimes I feel like you guys are making a category error, in that you are saying "This part of the game is underdeveloped, it should be changed". Whereas I've got the feeling it was meant to be that way from the start. Which is fine. I didn't develop the game, so I really can't comment on what it was meant to be like. Who can?

Not saying that my opinion is right, but just mentioning that maybe the party line isn't necessarily unanimous either.

I've got this creeping feeling reading the forums that most of the problems are not with this game expressly, but rather the image people had in their heads of what the game was going to be like, & the disconnect between the two.

---

The feel of the game when it was released, and the feel now are two different animals.

Sure you are in a fight from the start. Improvements are so expensive they don’t get built. The economy is tanked and building troops will put you in the hole. Running an economy in the red results in all units loosing half their men.

There are three factions that start conquering off the bat but that is all. Most of the people who want only to kill troops play those factions. But that is not the sum total of the game.

The AI is no challenge because it is as financially broke or more so than the player. It feels like you are beating up on a kindergarten class.

The AI makes stupid meaningless declarations of war and stands no chance of doing anything but providing a convenient target. There is no strategy. It only leaves you with an operational decision as to which target to take out first and some minor tactical decisions on how to fight the battles you had won before you even attacked.

I usually find the war part of the game the least challenging though at the moment most of the rest has been locked away behind the more aggressive AI to where it is simply something to click but has no other function.

:laugh4:

I don't understand why there is this perception that economic development is pointless or inneffective. There are some golden rules which I've now hard-coded into my game play and with them it is possible to build up to a large income. Improvements are most certainly worth building, but they have a mid-long term effect, mostly on taxable town wealth.

I would tend to seperate the economic changes (with which I am ok) from the AI changes in v1.2, although they do have some areas of transitions which I would argue are only apparent due to the AI being unable to handle these conditions adequately.

I can but agree with you though Fisherking on the flimsy campaign strategy, I however put it down to the confused AI. I interpret what you say as the feeling that the challenge in a campaign lies only in overcoming small hurdles, that do not scale as the game progresses. ETW's scope really is one hell of a lot broader than it's ancestors' and it seems to me the AI is simply underequipped to deal with the variety of options and decisions it has to make or are on offer. Discussing how the game plays is, IMO, to jump beyond the more pertinent questions of why the AI can't play the game itself.

Unfortunately, as with the end of turn pause attributed to the AI negotiating those 'tricky' land-bridges, the AI simply seems to stall when faced with the plethora of options at its disposal.

At best I have seen 1 or two factions really get an upper hand and form a significant enough land-block accross the 3 theatres (and only ever those isolated to one continent e.g. Prussia, Russia, Austria, Maratha, Mughals...) and these are those for whom the game is arguably simplest! They have more or less centralised resources, are present in only one theatre and are those least reliant on sea power or trade (beyond trade agreements) for income.

TW games have never reflected the kind of strategic AI found in anything like civ or galactic civilizations. Upping the anty with the addition of everything extra to MTW2 seems to have proved too much -so far.

The economy is certainly worth building up! I hope I didn’t say that it wasn’t. The trouble is that the resources (money) are not available to do it in a timely manner and the cost beyond the third level is so high as to present a problem for the player and far beyond what the AI can spend.

The AI has war as a priority. Troops are required for that, any troops, so it builds what is cheapest to recruit and maintain.

I have taken regions where it had not been developed from its at start position and any new towns or ports were still undeveloped. Taxes seem to be set so that most of its troops are required just for garrisons. Few will develop towns until captured. Some regions will actually reverse their previous developments when they rebel. In a couple of regions schools and other development disappear and are replace by other building when captured.

This was most certainly not the case pre-patch. The AI did build massive armies of cheap troops of low quality for the most part but it was able to handle the economy also.

As to the AI being unable to play the game, it does not do the best of jobs. But again it is the programmed priorities that I would blame.

It needs a broader set of instructions and a better sense of what the troops do. You would hope that it could flourish rather than stagnate and give a feel of competent competition with the player and not a fumbling pawn to be exterminated.

The AI factions should be the challenge, not the game mechanics throwing random events and declarations of war at the player. Not monetary constraints, or game cheats that harass the player or cost more time and money.

There is no strategy in randomness. No negotiations the computer god. No way to proactively anticipate where to go. It is all reaction and damage control.

There should be some things the player can have a positive effect on other than who dies next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The AI factions should be the challenge, not the game mechanics throwing random events and declarations of war at the player. Not monetary constraints, or game cheats that harass the player or cost more time and money.

---

I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I have taken regions where it had not been developed from its at start position and any new towns or ports were still undeveloped. Taxes seem to be set so that most of its troops are required just for garrisons. Few will develop towns until captured. Some regions will actually reverse their previous developments when they rebel. In a couple of regions schools and other development disappear and are replace by other building when captured.

---

I'm not sure I've seen this much tbh. What difficulty are you playing on?

Generally on H I've found that the AI (almost all factions) is able to more or less keep up with research (i use 3 schools) and often will upgrade farms, roads and govt buildings well before me. Maybe the Ai runs with higher taxes though -delaying town appearance?

I have to say though that the general rule is for factions to capture a few regions and then stagnate.

For whatever reason, the AI factions don't ever seem very decisive in their action. Because the area where I've seen the most decisiveness (read: ruthless pursual of conquest and annihilation of enemies) is India -which I'd consider the least complex theatre, I think the AI already has too many options.

This is especially the case in central and northern europe where factions are provided with such a complex web of possibilities that the AI tries to deal with all of them (most crudely, attack whilst ensuring defense, Military power without compromising economic development).

I'm getting to the stage of advocating the kind of scripted AI behaviour that was used in MTW2.. e.g. the free for all over Corsica and Sardinia.

Well as my Trade Theatre Usage Analysis shows the AI is not even programmed well enough to expliot trade resources when the player leaves them open for it to do so. So, basically, if the AI factions can't even earn comparable revenue from trade what hope have they actually got of being a challenge for a player who does. The nearest competitor I have in my current campaign is Portugal which is managing to make 1,600 a turn from trade compared to my revenue of over 11,000.

And Portugal already had that fleet at the beginning of the game. It was given the fleet by CA, it didn't recruit it...

That's a very good point Didz & anweRU... It goes a long way to explain why "naval powers" (France, GB, Spain, UP, Portugal) never live up to the moniker and are in practice a bit limp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I wholeheartedly agree!

Yet the trend has been in the opposite direction.

Some of this has been a simple misunderstanding of what the players are looking for, and CA has seemed to be listening.

I pray that they still are and can move the game back to a political, economic, & military model, in that order and not just all war all the time.

Players who like all war are free to declare war on everyone as they choose,(something everyone seems to forget), however, those who want something else can not turn off the idiocy and play a different kind of game in its current state.

---

agreed, this series has always been about the strategic map to me.

From my point of view I've been very disappointed with the last patch and the changes it made to the economy. My main gripe initially was with all the campaign killing CTD's (which were largely fixed with the last patch, the naval movement one being the only remaining one I still consistently come across) but the actual gameplay wasn't that bad. Ok, the economy did need to be toned down slightly, but it has gone far too in the opposite direction with this patch, to the point where I'm clicking end turn a few times just to get the money to build something...and that just isn't fun.

I'm confident the AI improvements will come but the way the economic aspect of the game has changed is very clearly a design decision, rather than due to any bugs or AI programming, and I'm hoping it will get reversed or I may just have to give up on the game, which would be a shame really.

What Boohugh, the pretty new units aren't enough for you? Shocking. And how ungrateful of you.