some first impressions... mmmmhh

Did anybody see this over at TWCenter? One of the lucky people playing the game already posted some initial comments. Although he seems quite upbeat overall, I find most of what he describes not really that hopeful...

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...t=66893&page=1


Quoted from Smoke at twcenter:

Quote:

---

just had my first two hours of play and my first overall-impression is: good! The game feels similar to Rome but all the factions, merchants and the pope make it very very interesting and surprising. Alliances seem to be changing quickly and i no longer have the feeling everyone is after me.

I've played 30 turns or so as the Venetians and have yet to go on a crusade. I've conquered 3 settlements: Ragusa, Zagreb and Boedapest. That last one was during a little row i had with Hungary. We were neutral for some time, but i neglected Zagreb troop-wise. Hardly any garrison. All of a sudden they show up with a full stack and siege it. It seems the AI looks for weak settlements along its border to attack. Just like it did in MTW.

Anyway, for some reason the Hungarian stack go rebel and i grind them to a pulp. (I'll come to my first experiences with the battle AI in a minute). I then march on Boedapest and take it. The pope then sends me a warning to cease all hostilities and i decide to test the diplomatic AI and offer a ceasfire. A bit to my surprise (knowing rome's AI) the Hungarians except, gladly. I could have gotten more out of it than just the cease fire...

To me, this was a great experience. It shows the AI knows when it is weak (the rest of their cities had hardly any stacks in it) and should sue for peace. I have had my share of rivalry with Milan and Sicily. We were never friends, but at some point they blockaded my harbors. When Milan got into a fight with France they were also eager to except peace. But alliances and small-scale wars change each turn very quickly.

As for the battlefield AI; not too sure. Enemy units still seem to break quite quickly after initial charge. I haven't really been able to witness intelligent manoeuvering. But i do have to note that i've only fought 4-5 battles, most of which were against rebels and/or sieges. Furthermore, i think i set the game to med/med so i could quickly unlock the Byz...

Upgrading and building is quite different from Rome. I really needed to get used to it. The choice for castle or city is vital. You upgrade through expanding your walls, i found that surprising. Merchants seem to be really well used by the AI i've had several merchants of mine robbed by Milan, the Byz and the HRE. I really like moving the merchants around, you can harrass other factions without having to go to war with them. A nice feature.

Another thing that is abundant in the game: the missions. Usually these are about capturing settlements or meeting other factions. Sometimes the pope will ask you to build a church. I must say especially the counsel of nobles' missions annoy me. You really feel pressured into doing it. Before you run out of turns to complete a mission you get all kinds of warnings about not completing the task etcetera. It just seems too much of a chore.

The sounds and music are really great. Remember when in Rome the same song looped during a battle? Well, no more. I could hear at least 2 songs being played seemlessly after each other. You get the voices from characters on the campaign map, but on the battlefield general's speeches seem to be out (or at least in the this version)...Movies are nicely integrated, no lag. I'm still not bored with seeing my spy trying to get into the city. Those are great.

I had a quick look at the unit-rosters and i have to say: Scotland's are the best. Just amazing looking. Wait and see

---

Well I've got no problems with Smoke but he can't be serious about the Scottish units being amazing, they are truly wretched, and that's being kind.

Have you played as them Blind King of Bohemia, by the way I assume that the Scots will be able to recruit the Scots Guard unit as well as the French, but will it be recruitable by anyone who controls Scotland?

Just check some of the Scottish units, they suck completely. Forlorn Hope, what the heck is that? :inquisitive:

WHy should the scottish be able to recruit the scots guard? It was a purelu french unit. Its like saying the English should be able to recruit the Byzantine Varangian guard.

And I agree with BKoB. The scottish units all looked like Mel Gibson from Braveheart and seeing how bad that movie was both on its own as a movie and as supposedly being based on fact I find CA's choice to be a pretty bad stereotype. Kind of like the Egyptians in RTW.


Anyway. Overall i find Snoke's review to be very positive. It sounds like the campaign map will be alot more dynamic and interesting. He complains that the council of nobles is a bit pushy but I find this to be completely historically accurate and a nice touch. In such a feudal society it was really the nobles who held the majority of the power and therefore you as the king had to try and stay on the good side of at least most of them. THe medieval period is full of instances where the nobles managed to set aside their differences and band together and essentially force the king to do what they wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Just check some of the Scottish units, they suck completely. Forlorn Hope, what the heck is that? :inquisitive:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope

Something worthy of allot of respect.

well, I am not so sure yet whether these early impressions are really that positive:
- wars / alliances changing from turn to turn?
- the Hungarian campaign map AI as desribed doesn't really seem to know what it's doing
- battle AI...
- missions being a chore..
- general pre-battle speeches are no longer in?? (this was posted later in the thread).

I mean he did play 30 turns, I would have expected some more noteworthy (positive) experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProudNerd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope

Something worthy of allot of respect.

---

Thanks for confirming the fact that CA made a big historical mistake.

Quote:

---

This usage was especially common in accounts of the English Civil War, as well as in the British Army in the Peninsula War of 1808-1814.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parcelt

- general pre-battle speeches are no longer in?? (this was posted later in the thread).

---

CA and other reviewers confirmed that it was in.
Strange that he didn't get it :inquisitive:

I won't read anything into the battle AI comments, what version is he trying?

......Orda

Wars and alliances changing from turn to turn is actually very historically accurate. Medieval EUrope was filled with intrigue. OFten times wars only lasted a single battle. We dont hear about stuff like this often because it isnt as interesting as say the hundred years war (Which aside from Henry V's campaign was really more of just a collection of border skirmishes and raids as neither side could really muster the strength for a decisive battle). I find such changing alliances to be a good thing. It means the game will be much more historically accurate as to the diplomacy of the era and much more interesting.

Its not the Hungarians' fault that their full stack army rebelled. Really i would say that the hungarian AI knew exactly what it was doing. It saw a town with little to no garrison and it went in for the kill. Unfortunately for them their army rebelled but thats not something you can expect or plan for. Seeing that their chance was lost they then quickly sued for peace. Sounds like a pretty capable and crafty AI to me with a strong sense of its strength.

He didnt really say anything about the battle AI.

I already addressed the council of noble missions being a chore.

I couldnt care less about the general prebattle speeches. After a handful of battles I just started skipping over them in RTW.

I have a similar question as Orda, if he is playing the game already, what version does he have and how did he get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I won't read anything into the battle AI comments, what version is he trying?

......Orda

---

According to his subsequent posts he is using version 1.0. Since the anticipated 'Day 0 patch' hasn't been released I must assume he is seeing some unusually cautious tactical AI. Based on Palamedes' informative AI post I am guessing version 1.0 is based on build 52. Obviously the Day 0 patch would be based on build 53 or greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I have a similar question as Orda, if he is playing the game already, what version does he have and how did he get it?

---

He writes for a magazine or something hence got a preview copy.

Shifty, I guess I can agree with your views on some points.

However, the way the diplomatic situation is described really doesn't sound to me as being full of intrigue, but rather more like an AI that can't make up its mind. How are we going to have any major efforts, with big concentrated and balanced (for the occasion) armies, by an AI power if its at war with a different faction every turn?
And intrigue is also something that plays out in the long term, e.g. leading your 'ally' to believe that you won't attack by behaving trustworthy for a number of turns.... when suddenly you do!!

Regarding the Hungarians, well we don't know why their stack rebelled but the logical assumption would be that it had a low-loyalty general, right? Then there's the first AI mistake.
Secondly, it apparently put pretty much all its forces into that single attacking stack, leaving its homelands undefended. This means that the Hungarian AI did not account for the possibilities that i) its offensive actions may not be succesful and its stack destroyed, or ii) even if its succesful on the attack, other powers may sweep in through the backyard and take their homelands. Either way not very good strategic thinking.

About battle AI, he did say he hadn't witnessed any intelligent manouvering in 5 battles (although mostly sieges) and that units routed quickly. But I guess you're right that this doesn't need to mean anything as it was early campaing (low morale units) and playing on medium (and possibly an early build of the game). Still, would have been nice to see some of the spectacular improvements reported by people playing the demos return in the actual game.

"Forlorn Hope, what the heck is that? "

It's just a guy in a half-armour with a Zweihander. The "forlorn hope" reference is to the fact that they are supposed to be used to charge into pike hedges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parcelt

Shifty, I guess I can agree with your views on some points.

However, the way the diplomatic situation is described really doesn't sound to me as being full of intrigue, but rather more like an AI that can't make up its mind. How are we going to have any major efforts, with big concentrated and balanced (for the occasion) armies, by an AI power if its at war with a different faction every turn?
And intrigue is also something that plays out in the long term, e.g. leading your 'ally' to believe that you won't attack by behaving trustworthy for a number of turns.... when suddenly you do!!

Regarding the Hungarians, well we don't know why their stack rebelled but the logical assumption would be that it had a low-loyalty general, right? Then there's the first AI mistake.
Secondly, it apparently put pretty much all its forces into that single attacking stack, leaving its homelands undefended. This means that the Hungarian AI did not account for the possibilities that i) its offensive actions may not be succesful and its stack destroyed, or ii) even if its succesful on the attack, other powers may sweep in through the backyard and take their homelands. Either way not very good strategic thinking.

About battle AI, he did say he hadn't witnessed any intelligent manouvering in 5 battles (although mostly sieges) and that units routed quickly. But I guess you're right that this doesn't need to mean anything as it was early campaing (low morale units) and playing on medium (and possibly an early build of the game). Still, would have been nice to see some of the spectacular improvements reported by people playing the demos return in the actual game.

---

Bugs aside if he's playing on Medium he is obviously not going to see the best the AI has to offer. The developers have already stated that the AI will be at its best on Very Hard.

I can see how missions could get annoying. I suppose at times you just want to sit back, take the occasional provence and see how things turn out - or expand in your own time. With glorious achievements in MTW you needn't expand much if you didn't want to. But if you have generals rebelling (or worse) because you don't want to capture yet another chunk of land or wash their socks or whatever, then it might become annoying. Hopefully missions will be much easier to mod this time around so people can adjust them to suit their playing style if need be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Bugs aside if he's playing on Medium he is obviously not going to see the best the AI has to offer. The developers have already stated that the AI will be at its best on Very Hard.

---

I'm not sure the devs actually said that. What I read (paraphrasing) was that the AI would be the most challenging, i.e. hardest to beat, on Very Hard.

That could imply the AI is maxed out and using all possible combat algorithms at Medium, and the game is just stacking on advantages in reaction speed, morale, or stats at higher levels. It would help if we could get some clarification on this (unless I've missed a post where it's been described how the AI actually works at various difficulty settings).

Zenicetus, what you describe is how I understand all the previous TW titles worked, i.e. same AI but with all kinds of bonusses on higher levels.

Quote:

---

As for the battlefield AI; not too sure. Enemy units still seem to break quite quickly after initial charge. I haven't really been able to witness intelligent manoeuvering.

---

Uh, that's good :wall:

Still fast, always fast, never been changed, fast as always... I'm just insanely wondering what's wrong with longer battles?

actually, legioner, it wasn't that fast until Rome... previous MTW and Shogun titles had nice tactical battles. I never understand why some people keep saying they were too slow. They simply were not (and there was a SPEEDSLIDER!) But now I am repeating a signicant part of all the discussions on this and other forums ever since Rome came out so I'll just leave it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parcelt

actually, legioner, it wasn't that fast until Rome... previous MTW and Shogun titles had nice tactical battles. I never understand why some people keep saying they were too slow. They simply were not (and there was a SPEEDSLIDER!) But now I am repeating a signicant part of all the discussions on this and other forums ever since Rome came out so I'll just leave it.

---

I guess some clarifications:

STW is the first in the series. So, it is used as point of comparison.
STW battle is fast pace compared to MTW due to two factors:
- there is no pavise arbalesters, so missile duels ended quickly. Either one side successfully clear archers with cav raids, or both sides ran out of arrows/ammo, or one side won the duel, or one side decided that they need to rush. But when arbalester with pavise was introduced, the pavise gave +3 armor to the arbalesters. It is no longer possible to clear arbalesters with cav raid: I have seen and personnally used arbalesters to trap cavs. So it is no longer advantageous trying to clear out the arbalesters. So in battle, you have a long period of about 15 minutes to 30 minutes waiting for the slow loading pav.arb. to empty or get tired. So, MTW battles are longer, usually 30-45 minutes each battle, while STW battle lasts about 15-20 minutes each.
- The map of MTW is larger and the speed of infantry march is slower than STW, so it takes quite a long time to walk from one point to another.

RTW has faster pace than MTW (due to general demand to shorten the battle time). However, the speed was not calibrated so that sometimes you can have a situation where two armies are not marching, but the next second, they are already engaged. Thus there would be no time to react.

If we see a quicker pace of march than in MTW, with smooth movements, and reduction in pavise advantages (allowing cav to kill pavise and disengage when another cav come to the rescue) then it would be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parcelt

well, I am not so sure yet whether these early impressions are really that positive:
- wars / alliances changing from turn to turn?
- the Hungarian campaign map AI as desribed doesn't really seem to know what it's doing
- battle AI...
- missions being a chore..
- general pre-battle speeches are no longer in?? (this was posted later in the thread).

I mean he did play 30 turns, I would have expected some more noteworthy (positive) experiences.

---

i agree it doesn't sound good at all...

Where did you get the idea the Scots get Forlorn Hope? That unit is for HRE.

NOT Scotland.

Ithink short, limited wars for economic gain, changing allliances and an AI that sues for peace when that is opportune is a very good thing.

remember, medieval warfare was not WW2/WW1 where the sides were set, and everything was fought to the bitter end as some kind of total clash btwen ideologies and civilizatins. instead warswere short means to an end, and were seldom continued when there was nothing to gain from it. also, factions ability to conduct polonged campaigns were limited, as money was short, logistics were not to good, noble support not endless, and the farmer levies were needed back in their fields.

I was always infuriated by the med1/rome AI habit of fighting to the bitter end, no medieval royal family would do that, they would sue for peace before they lost their base of power, and when they knew nothing further colud be gained from war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woozie

Where did you get the idea the Scots get Forlorn Hope? That unit is for HRE.

NOT Scotland.

---

Hmm, I hope so. A Forlorn Hope (Verlorener Haufen) was a suicidal host of warriors in front of the vanguard (Vorhut) to take the first shock of attack or to charge first. In my opinion it was first used by the Swiss who were part of HREGN before 1499/1648. Never heard of it in case of the Scots.


Changing alliances: Maybe it is historical ok (which is debatable) but it sucks in game if it would be as in MTW. The reaction of the AI should be predictable in certain terms. For example weak and beaten factions accepting a ceasefire to attack the next round are ridiculous. Don't want this back.