Some Positives especially the graphics!

I have to say after reading so many negatives there are some positives. I am sure the developers would like to read some at times.

1> I haven't met any Peasant Armies. Sure lots of those with Basic Troops like Warband, but those guys aren't bad, just average and they seem to always have 1-2 units of above average. Good structure. I don't build an army of just best types myself to make it more fun and true to life with mostly base troops myself tiere dup to good troops but in a pyramid or level amount. By this I mean a Roman Army of 1/3 Had, 1/3 Prin, and 1/3 Tri with some support 1-2 Vel, 1-2 Arch and 1-2 Cav, so my battles are good. I do some some Rebel and occassional Barbarian Peasants, but mostly it is after I defeat some really good armies, so I know they are hitting the bottom of the manpower and money barrel.

2> I am usually evenly numbered except for Rebels which I usually hunt down with small Armies of Town Guard and 1-2 better units to make it better matched. My Legions are usually tie dup on the frontier anyway.

3> My battles have been very close. I have lost Characters and held on to cities with maybe 10% Survivors. I have rarely seen a huge edge in my favor, maybe a slight, but I watch a lot of close ups for the enjoyment of the graphics and the troops have a good match.

4> Graphics a major plus. I love closeups. Last night I saw two Carthage Spear Types Close in on a seperated Hadasti, and he took the blows of one on his shield, lashed out and dropped one, then exchange a few blows before dropping the another and then was slain from behind by a new arrival. I have watched a Gaul faction Leader slay five Hadasti before being overwhelmed and it was awesome! Horses crashing, guys being pushed down then getting up someties. Major Bonus!

5> I have some things I 'd like changed but nothing major..some names...making Druids and similar unique specials more like the MTW size units of napatha throwers or beserker size.....Just small issues.

I would ask that you actually gain some skills in the game before you try to judge the AI's competency. This is by far the easiest Total War game so far. I routinely have 10:1 kill ratios without even trying very hard.

I agree that many parts of the game are brilliant and I am ever so glad that CA developed it, but man! they need to work on improving the AI so that it presents a little challenge.

easiest TW game i dont think so, playing with the roman factions i tend to agree...

one thing that sucks is the AI way of building armies it mass builds what ever it can heh ive been attacked by 12 light lancer units 12 warbands etc..stuff like that makes it kinda boring when you keep fighting one group after the other..

if you want a challenge try thrace on vh/vh

I think you misunderstood his point. There are factions that are more difficult than other factions. But mainly because of limits that are placed upon the player. For example, when playing Thrace, you're right, it can be hard, because you have less resources to work with. But as long as you can manage to get a decent economy going, the game is extremely simple, because the AI hasn't been designed to provide a challenge. This is especially true in the battle map, where, as Satyr said, 10:1 kill ratios are extremely common.

Even when fighting the "peasant challenged" AIs in MTW, 10:1 kill ratios were fairly rare (excepting situations with lots of reinforcements, as they were handled poorly).

Bh

BY its nature RTW will always(and the other TW series ) be susceptible to being "too easy" those that want to micromanage everything will always have a huge advantage, but CA rightly IMHO have gone to make the game fun above all else and here they succeed in spades!. I'm sure the modders will come out with much harder versions if thats your style.... but for the present I'll keep sending my wardogs to hunt those screeching women..

I see. And how much "fun" do you derive from watching the AI send it's family members off to war - by themself? How much "fun" do you derive from watching the AI continually walk up to your walls, stand right next to your tower, and not move as they are all whittled down? How much "fun" do you derive from moving your cavalry unit to the flank of the enemy, and having them not twitch a muscle?

There are elements of the game that are fun. And yes, the AI will never be a true match for a human under these conditions. However, that in no way excuses some of the gross stupidity that the AI currently operates under. I have some confidence that CA will address these issues, I just hope it's with a patch, not an expansion.

Bh

I actually have started doing 2 things in an effort to provide myself some challenge that I never had to do in STW or MTW. I am bringing small stacks into battle and I have almost quit using archers.

When the AI is so stupid it just wanders spear units back and forth in front of my archers so that they can all die before ever engaging my lines there is something wrong. Especially when it will leave it's cav in the backfield or let it get shot to death too.

I am finding that if I enter battle with about 1/2 to 2/3 the number of troops the AI brings, and limit myself to 1 or 2 archer companies then I can sort of get a good battle. But even then, I pretty much need to employ almost no tactics because the AI can't react. The scripting is that bad.

However, with all that said, I am still playing and having fun. I was just expecting so much more.

Good topic, ericostermann! As you've now discovered, however, no positive threads are allowed here. Any attempt will be hijacked.

Gee, 10:1 kill ratios not realistic? I think some people need to read up on their classical history. It was common for the defeat of an army to cause the said army to dissolve. Saving a losing army is a recent phenomenon. As recent as 200 years ago, it was common to lose up to 50% of an army in a defeat.

For what it is worth, victors tend to come through battles with a 5-15% casualty rate.

Some battles that bear this out are Carrhae, Cannae, Zama, and Taginae.

Also, when playing on VH, I have found that when evenly matched (and not pausing) it can be very tough to hang with the AI due to their valor advantage. However, I am willing to give the AI that on a hard level. I think it would be much harder when the AI uses its generals more effectively and makes larger forces rather than the 4 and 5 unit armies it seems to love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think it would be much harder when the AI uses its generals more effectively and makes larger forces rather than the 4 and 5 unit armies it seems to love.

---

I am going to be a lot more careful the day they fix the AI. Particularly when I go after the Greeks. I like playing on N/N Huge. The Greeks decided to bring their whole army to the party once. I think they had 3500 troops (original army and reinforcements) against my 1600. If the Greek general had not done the suicide charge at the start I would have been flooded by a horde of pikes and cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Gee, 10:1 kill ratios not realistic? I think some people need to read up on their classical history. It was common for the defeat of an army to cause the said army to dissolve. Saving a losing army is a recent phenomenon. As recent as 200 years ago, it was common to lose up to 50% of an army in a defeat.

---

I don't recall seeing anyone saying it's not realistic. It just doesn't make for a very challenging game. In MTW, even when you defeated an army, the fact that a large number may have retreated meant that the faction wasn't going to be destroyed in one or two battles. And the reason for the high casualty rates isn't simply that the winner is able to rout the loser, it's because the AI doesn't make competent decisions. There is absolutely no way that I could beat a human player with the tactics I use, but I'm not required to come up with anything better for the computer - this isn't just a "AIs aren't as good as players" situation, it's because the AI does some really stupid things. As this is an area that can be improved, I suspect doing so will really help the game out. I'd be thrilled if they managed to make the AI mildly challenging on medium (ie, with no valour bonuses), but I'd be satisified if they made it challenging on very hard. Which, in general, it isn't now.

Bh

The original poster just tried to make a positive post in regard to the number of negative posts. He didn’t mention AI, he mentioned graphics, the general feeling of fun in playing the game.

One respondent got it and said, "Good topic, ericostermann! As you've now discovered, however, no positive threads are allowed here. Any attempt will be hijacked."

I agree.

This was an opportunity perhaps for people to mention the things "they like" about the game. Instead people bash RTW.

Yes the game is relatively easy if:

1) You spent a considerable amount of time playing MTW: not everyone has or did
2) You play Romans, which is understandable from a game design point
3) You go into battles outnumbering the enemy 3:2 or greater and "attempt to exploit" the AI limitations, which is relatively easy

Interestingly not everyone looks for, or wants to know, take advantage of, doing things, which exploit the AI. It’s not really necessary to win the game, and shortens its appeal.

This is where mods come in and possibly a future patch.

I can add to the positives off of the top of my head:
1) I like the campaign map, its functional and nice to look at
2) I like moving armies and sieging towns, setting up forts, watch towers
3) Cities are functional, and provide a sim lite atmosphere in building and construction
4) The units are well designed; provide great graphics and eye candy
5) I like the music, the pre battle speeches
6) The retinues and character lite rpg elements are a nice touch

For example I had a General who was born with “lily-livered” attribute. Although he had 4 stars by 24, 8 by 31, and 10 by 34 on one occasion he sallied out with 200 men just to get some Carths away because they were bothering me. For no reason he got “doubtful courage” attribute. At first it bothered me.

Then the next battle, he is going on and on about how he feels the troops are ready for battle and he has confidence in them but that he is going to stay back with his “Generals Calvary” because, “Not because I am scared or a coward but because I am prudent,” speech. LOL, funny stuff.


I have had a army lost at sea, attacked by pirates early in the game.
I have been ambushed by Germania and lost the battle.
I have been attacked enforce my large armies, lucky I was ready too.
I have made alliances, broken alliances.

Some of the better battles I recall were one of my half stack Roman armies beating a full stack Gaul army and it was not so easy with half my army being Velites.
I was ambushed by Germania and lost. I attacked Germania next turn out of revenge and lost again. My mistake, but I lost, fair and square.
I landed on some Greek island, with half a stack of Roman and was attacked by almost 2 full Greek stacks, and lost.
Landed another army full stack on same island and beat Macedonia, which also was on the island, and a full stack.
Took same army and took the Greek city on the island, although outnumbered and lost my general and had a guy promoted on the spot, "Man of the Hour".
Good stuff.

Countless other battles, so many they merge together.

Want it harder? Play one of the lesser factions. Work with modders, to create more aggressive factions that keep family members in big stacks and attack, often.

There has to be away, I am sure, confident this game can be made as hard as you want it.

As far as the AI, little tweaks here and there and I think it will be ok. I just wonder myself where the line is? If you are superior army, which you might just be, because of technology city advancements, number of provinces, etc, then you should win and not take too many losses. It’s mathematical.

People who proclaim to have all this experience, knowledge, and understanding of the AI should work to create a mod that attempts to modify any incorrect AI behavior as much as possible.

I want to stay positive, work to be constructive; I see no gain from just pointing out the obvious.