If they finance more patches with some DLC that's actually somewhat useful and fun(and not overpriced, the first one was about right compared to a sackboy costume for 2.49EUR), then I won't complain.
Printable View
If they finance more patches with some DLC that's actually somewhat useful and fun(and not overpriced, the first one was about right compared to a sackboy costume for 2.49EUR), then I won't complain.
I suspect, this will be a standalone expansion, not an add-on onto the current map. For one, Napoleon era is quite short so, they'd need to go to multiple turns per year (instead of 2 for ETW) to make it meaningful. The European map should be more detailed too. So, more forecast is: something similar to Alexander expansion for RTW.
I wonder how they will handle Switzerland this time around...
That economic model doesn't work unless a majority of players are happy with the original game. I bought every one of the DLC's for Fallout 3. Some were better than others, but I was willing to take a chance because the core game was playable, without any major flaws (assuming you liked the game at all). That's not the case with Empire. I won't buy any DLC's or expansion until they fix the core game, and I suspect a significant portion of the customer base feels the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
There, fixed it for you. :yes:
Unfortunately we are overall a minority - and CA will promise you heaven on earth and patches with the expansion and yet again (after RTW and M2TW) not deliver.
Yeah, thanks a lot. :juggle2:
i agree you dont buy DLC for a game you are not playingQuote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
That's right, I was thinking more long term, I'd play the game again once the diplomacy and black knight AI are fixed. If they would then decide to further bugfix the game and release, say, the whole african continent DLC for 5 bucks along with the patch, I'd seriously consider it, unless they broke something else in the process that would ruin the game. I would prefer that over sega saying it's too expensive and won't be supported anymore at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by crpcarrot
Ignore the country and add some merc units? Most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Quid
I wish they would make an expansion that features less AI-turn CTDs, less CTDs when selecting fleets and less out of video memory CTDs. I've lost my third campaign today, not because my armies were destroyed and my land was conquered but because the program wont run anymore. This is the hardest total war game ever, I haven't been able to win a single campaign. This... is... not sparta.
out of curiosity what kind of computer do you have dead guy? I have a really old computer but I have only had the fleet clicky CTD the occaisonal other CTD but not recently, this link will give you a good idea how well your computer could handle ETW http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest
I bought new components for my rig right when ETW was released, because GTA IV wouldn't run on my old AMD Athlon something-or-other. It's ironic how the intro video says it runs great on an i7 processor, cause that's what I have now. Well, it could be a number of other things of course...
Nifty tool, that. Thanks for the link.
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/srepl...he-Update.htmlQuote:
18th August:
Hello everyone, today's update is about the upcoming 1.4 update.
The focus for the update has been AI, both campaign and battle along with improvements to sieges and the naval rebalancing. A lot of work has been put into the campaign and diplomacy AI, focusing on how it wages war, makes alliances and peace as well as use of naval invasions. Battle side improvements have been made to most areas of the AI with the focus on the siege AI which has had major changes made to it. Sieges have also had a lot of work done on them with a lot of bugs fixed, improvements made to pathfinding and how guns and troops on walls work.
Below is a list of some of the fixes that will be in 1.4:
- Fix for auto unlimbering causing the attack order to terminate prematurely resulting in an inability to stop the unit from firing.
- Fix for troops on fort walls not using fort gun range when judging when to fire on enemy troops.
- Fix for fort guns using wrong targeting formula.
- Fixes to fort pathfinding and use of ropes.
- Multiplayer soft lock fixes.
- Fix crash in quotes table.
- Cumulative updates to improve AI invasion behaviour.
- Bug fixes and improvements to AI counter offers.
- Improvements to AI diplomatic valuation of military access and alliances.
- Fix for wind sounds not working in naval battles
- Fixed ship wakes not always working.
- Fixed potential crash disembarking agents from navies.
- Fixed armies not being booted out of regions when losing military access gained by joining an ally in war.
- Improved AI diplomacy valuation of technologies.
- Fixed reinforcements from unreachable positions.
- Balance of power fix for attack of opportunity.
- Fixed bug that was causing issues with embarking an army containing multiple characters.
- Minor tweak to stop some ship sails endlessly play furling sound.
- Fixed path blocked bug (pathing into ZoC).
- Diplomacy counter-offer improvements.
- Fix for fast forward not working as intended on some PCs. Will always speed up if camera is still, if camera moves fast forward will be as fast as possible on each PC.
p.s. Mark say's hi everyone
Some CTD fixes and Diplomacy changes.
I can't believe they are still intending to rebalance the naval game. There was no request to do so and a significant outcry against it.
Stopping the sloop/brig spam was about the only thing that I expected them to do.
and that didn't even have anything to do with the naval engine itself, just the AI pumping out redundant ships lol, if they want sloops and brigs to be more useful, they should have started the game in the 1600's and then everyone would have more time to play with them
A lot of rebalancing of the diplomacy but unfortunatly I can't find a mention of something done about the 'black knight' behavior. I'm still hopefull but it doesn't look good.
Seconded. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma
CA, fix the diplomatic triggers! :furious3: A faction should NOT get a global diplo hit for "dishonoring treaties" when it joins a defending ally. Especially, there should be no such hit applied to the very ally the faction is defending...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Its meant to be fixed for 1.4... but that remains to be seen at least they have now said the upcoming 1.4 patch which means it must be getting closer, although its going to be hard to upgrade because while the AI and diplo and that is meant to be getting a fix, we will be losing our ship battle stuff, still its a case of whats needed more desperately to make the game enjoyable and AI sits above their naval battle rebalancing.Quote:
20th July:
Hi guys,
We have stopped the "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors being applied when joining an ally in war. We have also checked in the first pass of diplomacy improvements. This consists of updating some of the diplomacy calculations to use new functionality that has been added to the AI since release and tweaking some of the factors. In addition, we have made changes to increase AI counter offers.
Thanks,
Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)
The initial paragraphs sounded good for CAI and DAI improvements, but the bulletted list didn't. I'm assuming that perhaps I just didn't understand their lingo. In case it's not clear to CA yet, at least as I see it, the Black Knight issue is the most pressing. The core features of the Black Knight DAI that need to change are:
- AI will declare war on you without the means to gain anything from it. Sometimes they can't even reach you. For example, the emergant nation of Hungary declares war on Great Britain, even though Hungary is landlocked, surrounded by nations it's at war with, and has no port or a navy. GB has no continental regions. In this situation, it is physically impossible for Hungary to do anything to GB. Thus, this DOW is pointless. It is a problem of ability. In situations like this, the AI should not have declared war in the first place. In addition, if war is already being waged, and the AI gets put into this position, it should seek peace.
- AI will declare war on you and then not do anything. It has armies, and they could march on your regions, but they don't. The most often experienced example I get like this as GB is the Huron. When the game starts, they attack Rupert's Land. Once you take Huron Territory, they still have that other region way to the northwest. They build up armies there, and could march them down to Rupert's Land, but they don't. This is not a problem of ability, it's a problem of willingness. Again, if the CAI is not willing to attack nations it's at war with, the AI should not declare war in the first place, and if war is already joined and the AI hits this position, it should seek peace.
In short, the DAI should have to pass the following tests before it declares war, and should seek peace whenever it can't meet these tests. In them, "I" is the AI talking to itself.
Test 1) The other nation has something I want.
Test 2) I've tried to obtain the thing I want through diplomacy (trading techs, money, etc.) at least once in the last X turns, but my offer was declined.
Test 3) I have the military means to take what I want, including sufficient, excess (as in, not needed for defense) land forces to take and defend the region I want and sufficient, available naval forces capable of delivering my land forces to the target (if necessary).
Test 4) My CAI will actually use the aforemention land and naval units to execute the forceful capture of what I want.
Test 5) I am currently Hostile towards the other nation.
NOTE TO CA: I don't actually know if there are two different AIs (one for diplomacy and one for campaign unit movement). This assumption is based on situations where a nation will declare war on me, and seemily have the military power and physical access to attack me, but won't. That, to me, seems to be a disconnect between a decision-making AI (diplomatic) and an executive AI (campaign).
Associated DAI issues include:
- Faction disposition towards you provides no reliable guidance about the liklihood they will declare war on you. For example, nations that are Very Friendly towards you, will DOW you. If the dispositions don't reflect the liklihood of DOWs then they're useless. This is addressed in Test 5 above.
- Rejecting AI proposals (like, to trade Region A for techs B and C or something) should lead to worsening dispositions between those two nations.
- The disposition penalites applied to expansion should be somewhat balanced by disposition awards under 'The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend'. For example, GB and France are at war with Spain. If GB takes Grenada, France won't like GB as much because it fears GB's territorial expansion. That's understandable. But at the same time, France should be happy with GB for weakening Spain. Right now I feel the penality for expansion is far greater than the boost you get through 'The Enemy of My Enemy...'. I think those two should be closer in value.
From that Sensei's post of July 20th it seems, CA is doing it "with a sledgehammer" again (NO "dishonoring treaties" and "backstabber" when joining an ally)...
I do not see, why "dishonoring treaties" and "backstabber" should not apply in the cases when a faction joins an ally who is an aggressor in that particular conflict. Of course, these penalties should not apply in the relationship with the ally that the faction is joining, but I do not see why there should be no global diplo-hit (sparing that one ally) for joining an aggression. A defensive war would be a different matter. That's when no penalty should be applied.
The devil is in the details. And it's not too complicated to code these cases for applying/not applying the trigger. Games like Europa Universalis prove that.
For some reason, in 1.3.1 (playing on VH and H), I do not see much in terms of "territorial expansion" penalty. For example, playing as Austria, I have 30 provinces by 1760. My expansion-related diplomatic penalty with the European factions that I am not at war with is in the range of -4 to -10 (negligible) and shrinking (since I am not expanding anymore). Maybe I tend to expand too slow for the penalty to really kick in, but that's my experience with playing other European factions too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
I agree with the whole list except the bolded part. I think, there are plenty of historical examples when friendly nations went to war because the other had something that the nation declaring war wanted. Of course, attacking a friendly nation should have penalties (like public discontent at home, at least).Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
I can already see it, for 1.5 they will fix the naval battles because everybody complains about the rebalancing and then announce that they want to "streamline" the tecnology tree or something else nobody wants. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Durallan
lol this will probably be true Husar,
The only thing with a nation you thought was friendly going to declare war on you is you don't want it to happen a whole lot, there are alot more AI's out there than the player, probably a 25% chance on the friendly routine or just some way that its not too often unless the friendly AI forms an alliance of nations to crush you and divide your territories amongst themselves.
Pretty much, I'd even think when you have an ally and your relations are friendly and you may even have fought some wars together(you know, like wars that are actually over at some point before either side is annihilated...) then it should be very, very unlikely that they'd just go and declare war on you out of the blue.
If they really want to introduce something new and fresh instead of rebalancing naval battles, how about non-aggression pacts that run for a certain amount of turns and mean that both signatories either:
a) cannot attack the other at all
or
b) get a really big hit on relations across the world and are thus likely to end up in a multi-front war, making this very unlikely.
Compared to an alliance the signatories would not help eachother out in war though and would be considered neutral towards eachother.
Do you guys think there will be a fix after 1.4? Given that they have a new game coming out in February which will undoubtedly need fixes of it's own, I could see this being the final patch or near final patch while they refocus on their new product. Except perhaps some additional DLCQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Unfortunately, that's exactly what I think too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyavash
Actually, I'm thinking the opposite. Since it's practically the same game there is a good chance that some improvements or fixes for NTW will be retrofitted back in to ETW.
Well, improvements made in the Kingdom's version of the MTW2 never made it into MTW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma
Has anybody from CA posted anything anywhere about the AI?
nope! and until it is confirmed that significant work has been done on the CAI and DAI i will be taking a pass on this one(NTW). I have been a firm supporter of CA for a long time and have faithfully purchased every game and expansion on release day without hesitation, but with the prospect of more shoddy game play merely repackaged with a shiney new map and units, that streak maybe over and I fear my blind trust has been compromised.:thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Clearly not all features of Kingdoms would have gone towards the patch. They'd want people to buy the expansion. Yet there was a patch released hot on the heels of Kingdoms release that contained some of what had been improved in Kingdoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Having said that, I will require a great deal of patching before I can consider purchasing NTW. CA, if you are reading, more then the current figleaf of support for ETW is required.
Quote:
Having said that, I will require a great deal of patching before I can consider purchasing NTW. CA, if you are reading, more then the current figleaf of support for ETW is required.
It seems to me they are doing a great deal of work. Give them time, they're trying to sort things out. I think that sooner or later they're going to end up with some competition and therefore start trying to fix all these things.Quote:
The focus for the update has been AI, both campaign and battle along with improvements to sieges and the naval rebalancing. A lot of work has been put into the campaign and diplomacy AI, focusing on how it wages war, makes alliances and peace as well as use of naval invasions. Battle side improvements have been made to most areas of the AI with the focus on the siege AI which has had major changes made to it. Sieges have also had a lot of work done on them with a lot of bugs fixed, improvements made to pathfinding and how guns and troops on walls work.
Unsurprisingly, I'm less interested in what they tell me of improvements then in the improvements they show me. It's been too many months, too many claims made and not realized.
Give them time? It would seem I have no other option.
being the game was released in march, it is now august, quite a few people would have hoped by now the AI problems were fixed, CA take note, there is alot more discontent out than anyone obviously first previously thought, I think there will be more patches after 1.4, at least because they will be releasing the multiplayer campaign mode before Napoleon TW
I think lots of people are waiting for the multiplayer campaign. I'm planning to team up with someone and just conquer the entire world :) I can't do it alone.
The alternative to waiting for patches is of course modding; I'm sure there are tons of threads about tutorials.
Fixing the CAI and DAI, and multiplayer campaigns, are the two biggest things I'd like to see. Both would be a significant improvement to the game. However, fixing the CAI and DAI are far more important than an MP campaign in my view. This is because fixed CAI and DAI would affect all players and not just those interested in MP. Also, improvements to CAI and DAI would have a value-added effect on said MP campaign. For both reasons, fixing the CAI and DAI should be the priority.
Regarding my last rule in fixing the DAI...
I think that is very important. The reason is that, right now, the disposition of other nations seems to have no impact on the game at all. When Very Friendly nations can declare war on you, the disposition system is useless. I'd be willing to say that an AI could be Hostile or Unfriendly towards you before they can declare war, but they can't like you and war with you at the same time. It's completely illogical. Also, you can't compensate for the lack of such a rule by saying that DOWing a nation you're Very Friendly with will come with a big reputation hit because, as I said above, if friendly nations can declare war on each other, then disposition means nothing, and thus you can make the reputation penalty as high as you like because it doesn't mean anything anyway.Quote:
Test 5) I am currently Hostile towards the other nation.
I disagree. Things are not white and black in life. There are no certainties, but there are likelihoods. I suggest making "a friendly nation declaring war on you" very unlikely, but still possible as long as your items 1-4 are satisfied. So, you, as a player, would like to build friendly relationships with the nations that you are scared of to minimize the LIKELIHOOD of them declaring war on you. That's very different from CERTAINTY of having peace. With the "no war on a friend" certainty, the world would be the player's oyster (it already is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
Let me give you an example. If I play as Britain and take French Guiana, I do not see why my very friendly ally, the Dutch, would not declare war on me at some point to take that territory (if they have the military capacity to do so). French Guiana is one of their game winning goal provinces. Actually, I have seen it happen very reasonably in 1.3. I take French Guiana, in the next turn the Dutch offer me a province and some techs for it. I refuse. The Dutch declare war on me. I see nothing unreasonable in this case.
I also do not see why declaring a war on a friendly nation should have any diplomatic reputation hits (unless some treaty was broken). Declaring a war on a friendly nation should cause significant public discontent at home. And that discontent should grow as long as the nation is fighting the friend.
So long as the way other nations feel towards you has clear, significant, logical impacts on things like...
1) Liklihood other nation will DOW you
2) Liklihood other nation will accept trade proposal
3) Liklihood other nation will accept offer of alliance
4) Liklihood other nation will accpet offer of protection
5) Liklihood other nation (if allied to you) will maintain alliance with you in the event war breaks out between you and another ally of theirs
6) Terms other nation offers you for things like regions, techs, etc. (the better your relations, the more such offers will be tipped in your favor)
...then I'm fine with disposition not being a Yes/No switch and instead being a liklihood thing.
I still believe that if a nation is your ally/protectorate, they should not be able to declare war on you. If an ally/protectorate wants to declare war on you, they should first have to cancel the alliance during one turn and declare war on you the next turn.
I would say something like this:
1: Do I have a reason to attack (X)? (Territory, money, historical grievances, etc.)
2: Can I reach (X)? (By land or sea)
3: Am I a match for (X)? (Will their land forces instantly crush my single town?)
4: Is my army deployed in a fashion suitable to attack (X)? (Is my single stack of militia on the wrong side of the continent?)
5: What are my current relations with (X)? (Am I hostile to them? Friendly? Neutral?)
The last check shouldn't be a complete deciding factor, of course, but the probability of the AI declaring war on you should drop significantly the more friendly you are.
Theoretically such an AI would still declare war on you even if there was little reason to attack, they could only reach you via a long and dangerous route, they were no match for you, their military was on the wrong theater, and they were quite friendly, but it would be the sort of thing that happens once in a hundred games, not every other turn.
They should borrow some concepts from Knights of Honor, having things like "White Peace" (when you are at war, but nothing has happened for ages) and asking an ally to join you in a war (if they didn't join initial, or you allied later, for example).
IMO the friendly nations things or whatever shouldn't affect much (a little still, but not that much) whether or not the AI makes a decision such as declaring war. Declaring war on a friendly nation should have some diplomatic penalties if treaties are broken and the main problem should be public unrest.
Another thing that would be cool but likely too complicated for the current CAI would be to have multiple nations together at once. This way, you can arrange world wars between alliances and also make treaties.
Better yet, they could just adopt a thing or two from the diplomatic approach of Europa Universalis :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I agree. In addition, protectorates should lose all their alliances + cease all the wars at the time of becoming a protectorate (unless they are at war with someone the "master" is at war with). From that point on, the foreign policy of the protectorate should be the same as the protector's. The protector should be able to sign all peace deals on behalf of the protectorate with nations that have declared war on it. In order to get out of the protectorate deal, protectorates would need to 1) cancel the agreement, 2) possibly go to war with the protector but for the #2, there should be an option for just letting the protectorate go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
Today a long update
Quote:
24 August:
Dear All,
The reaction on the forums to the recent announcement of Napoleon has suggested there is a level of misunderstanding about a few points. I'd like to shed light on a few of these, directly, if I may.
Why are you releasing another TW game without fixing Empire?
We have not given up on supporting Empire. The major AI upgrade patch is still very much being worked on and is coming shortly. It will be with you a good while before Napoleon's release. Napoleons development is ongoing, just as our support of Emprie is ongoing.
We recognise Empire had problems on release and we've dealt with the vast majority of stability and performance issues people are having. We now need to balance and address gameplay issues. The AI particularly. We have listened to everything you have said and are looking to address as much as possible. Empire has not been forgotten and a major gameplay upgrade is coming, and coming soon.
Why did you lie about releasing an MP campaign? Where is it?
The MP Campaign for Empire has always been a beta product. However, despite it simply being a test of the technology we still want it to be fun and enjoyable, something that's worth your time and our effort. So we've been working on it since release, building it to a state where its stable enough to beta test by you all and is indeed a great deal of fun to play. The MP Campaign Beta has not been forgotten, work is ongoing and it will be released before Napoleon allowing us time to absorb your comments and feedback (Which is ultimately the point of a public beta). To stress: Empire's MPC Beta is still under development and will be coming shortly it has not been dropped or forgotten and will be available soon.
Why do you never give dates for anything? I want to know when I can get my hands on these things!
Wer've learned about giving dates to the community. The understandable anger we've faced when we've given specific dates and not met them is not worth the little comfort given by us mentioning a specific date (Which you must still wait for). All development has a level of risk attached to it, that is the chance that it will not make a specific day for delivery. We've stopped communicating exact dates as a result of feedback from you. The Empire patch and the MPC beta will be released a significant while before Napoleon, which is scheduled for a first quarter 2010 release.
Why are you releasing Napoleon seperately when all it's content should have been in Empire?
The simple answer to this is that Napoloeons content shouldn't and couldnt have been in Empire. Napoleon is a game in it's own right. It spans three full campaigns, not missions or theatres, three sperate campaigns each with their own maps, factions, missions, opponents, story and unique features. In short: It is big.
Napoleon focuses on a man and his destiny and how this is tied to the rise of a nation, a man who defined an era. Empire was a very seperate theme, defining the interplay of actions between nations over a turbulent period of history.
These are two very different games.
We couldn't, nor would we, have added Napoleon into Empire. It's a huge piece of work worthy of its own title.
Admit it, you're going to give up on Empire and try to sell us another game aren't you?
Not at all. After the major AI upgrade patch that is coming we're going to announce another major piece of DLC for Empire, adding more content to its universe and expanding the game even further. Empire is a title into which we put a lot of time and effort, and to which you all gave a great deal of patience post release. We won't walk away from that. So there is more coming.
You do not need Napoleon to enjoy Empire or play Empire, they are two seperate games. Naturally we'd like people to go for both, but we recognise that choice is yours. Whether you chose one, none or both we want to make your experience reflect our time and energy and be as enjoyable as possible.
Does the community reaction to CA's announcements make any difference?
Yes, and always yes. The point of a public beta to the Multi Player Campaign is to get your feedback, the reason for this post is because we're reading and listening to what you say. There's a lot of reaction to what we've announced with Napoleon and some of it is based on misunderstanding. That's because we're at an early stage of development, we only announced on Wednesday last week and there are a lot of different facts and theories floating around. If you have questions post them here or bug a website or magazine to ask us and we'll answer. Please understand some of what is written is speculation and unless its a specific quote from us it may simply be informed opinion.
Finally, sometimes the community reaction is uplifting and othertimes it is demotivating. We recognise that there's a lot of desire out there to see us do better, given some peoples Empire's release experience. We hope that given the sheer amount of attention we've paid to Empire since it's release and the extras we're looking to provide that we will prove by our action that we're not just here to sell games. We love TW, thats why we make it, and we want you to enjoy it too, as that is ultimately it's purpose. Criticism is always welcome, if its positive and constructive we're far more likely to take ti on board and listen.
As always any further questions please post them here and look out for further Napoleon coverage as it comes.
Kind regards,
Kieran
I wonder what the DLC could be.
Hopefully a new theater, or faction.
Since Napoleon:TW is stand alone. What will be the expansion for ETW, if any?
Given how fervently we've all been grousing, that's a remarkably diplomatic Daily Update. Well done, seriously, well done. And it's a relief to hear that the AI is being addressed.
woohooooooo!!Quote:
The Empire patch and the MPC beta will be released a significant while before Napoleon, which is scheduled for a first quarter 2010 release.
Anyway, yeah, this update is trying to calm my fears of the core game not being good enough for the expansion. This patch and MPC is hopefully going to restore my faith in this game which I am desperately trying to get back. CA, fingers crossed, please don't be a bunch of disappointments like with what you did with *certain* aspects of ETW. I will say I was impressed enough to expect much more from CA.
On the pessimistic side (which I am trying to ignore), CA is just trying to tell people to quit complaining and that they're still working on it. I do like the fact that they've learned that release dates just bring in criticism. If it was me, I wouldn't give a release date until the final product is ready.
I am impressed with the post, but all they have to have realised is that SEGA should have been told (not that i know if sega even care what a bunch of people say on a forum) that the AI must be working before the game shipped. Like I said CA, Empire is an impressive game and I have had some fun playing it, the first campaign normally is, but if people intend on replaying it, the AI needs to shine, shine quite alot, and it isn't, and thats why people complain. Again we appreciate that you listen to us, I know alot of people would have moved onto other games had there not been any of this kind of feedback in the first place.
but like we said, if the AI hasn't been fixed, and can be on par with most people (being a fair challenge to win on normal, a hard challenge on hard, and almost inhuman on very hard) and has its own chance at beating other AI's to win or at least it is made more entertaining then most people will take their money elsewhere.
I know I have not played Empire as much as I have played Medieval 2 Total War, I don't know, it is very hard to make countries in the game challenging (thats why alliance groups would be a good idea if you can form alliances and can then suggest a larger alliance group) and at the start of the game (if players choose), the AI's could give state gifts to say 3 random other AI's (not indian nations or the pirate one though) just to mix up the relations in the game, and not make it as historical. thats just my idea though.
Anyway nice post, but the results will be the kicker.
As we Dutch say: "Praatjes vullen geen gaatjes".
So there won't be any naval rebalancing anymore? :mellow:Quote:
Does the community reaction to CA's announcements make any difference?
Yes, and always yes.
Does anyone know if the MPC will use RT battles? If so are the maps going to be smaller, like more focused? Say the UK or Russia or just India.
I dreamt with the DLC last night :laugh4:
They were six new units and they appeared to be wearing uniforms similar to Sgt.Pepper's Loney Hearts Club Band :dizzy2:
And if that't not crazy enough, all six were sold individually for $2.99.
:laugh4: ah, you crack me up husar, Incredibly good point! However seeing their reluctance to mention that, I think we will be better off doing this :furious3: or this :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
LOL Mailman, did Ringo drum enemies on the head badly, Lennon fire pianos from a piano shaped cannon, mcartney talk them to death and harrison prance around them and sing hari krishna to distract them?
Good post. And it does qualm some of my fears. But on that note, please don't botch this release like the last one. Please, for the love of God, give us a completed game that works on arrival...please?
Finally some news about the patch:
:2thumbsup:Quote:
1 September:
Hi,
I am pleased to confirm that update 1.4 will be out in late September.
First off, some new items that will be going into 1.4:
- 2 new historical battles: Battle of Rossbach and Battle of Fontenoy. Both available in single player and multi player.
- Missile cavalry can now fire and reload whilst on the move.
And previously announced, the update will contain the following fixes and balance changes.
Balance changes:
- Overhaul of naval balancing as talked about in 9th July Update.
- There is now a cap on how many of some units you can take in MP. Examples of such units are Ferguson Rifles, many of the Elite Units of the West, and other unique units such as Royal Ecossais etc.
- Dragoons are available from higher building levels and now have fire by rank to allow them to better fulfil the role of mobile infantry.
- Light Dragoons have gained longer range guns to allow them to skirmish better.
- Reworked cavalry costs to better reflect their value on the battlefield.
- Increase in cost to Windbusche Jaegers and Ferguson Rifles.
- Some improvements to projectile balancing.
- Balance improvements made to Road to Independence Episode 3.
Fixes and improvements:
- Significantly increase the rate of naval invasions. Including those across theatres.
- Increase AI aggression and improve use of armies.
- Increase the creation and retention of strong mixed higher level unit armies by the CAI.
- Fix for texture allocation in sprite cache that was causing a memory crash.
- "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors change so don't apply when joining an ally in war.
- Fix for some towns in regions still giving bonuses to income when damaged for raiding.
- Improvements to siege AI in how it approaches and assaults walls.
- Units with fire by rank now fire correctly when behind walls.
- Bug with fort cannon targeting fixed, making them much more accurate.
- Many fixes to sound bugs improving overall sound across the game.
- Fixed issue with default battle preference not being saved.
- Fix to include protectorate owned regions in explicitly-specified victory condition regions.
- Various crash fixes.
- Fixes to various group formations to improve formations used by player/AI.
- Fix for routing unit cards losing faction colour.
- Fix for auto unlimbering causing the attack order to terminate prematurely resulting in an inability to stop the unit from firing.
- Fix for troops on fort walls not using fort gun range when judging when to fire on enemy troops.
- Fix for fort guns using wrong targeting formula.
- Fixes to fort pathfinding and use of ropes.
- Multiplayer soft lock fixes.
- Fix crash in quotes table.
- Cumulative updates to improve AI invasion behaviour.
- Bug fixes and improvements to AI counter offers.
- Improvements to AI diplomatic valuation of military access and alliances.
- Fix for wind sounds not working in naval battles
- Fixed ship wakes not always working.
- Fixed potential crash disembarking agents from navies.
- Fixed armies not being booted out of regions when losing military access gained by joining an ally in war.
- Improved AI diplomacy valuation of technologies.
- Fixed reinforcements from unreachable positions.
- Balance of power fix for attack of opportunity.
- Fixed bug that was causing issues with embarking an army containing multiple characters.
- Minor tweak to stop some ship sails endlessly play furling sound.
- Fixed path blocked bug (pathing into ZoC).
- Diplomacy counter-offer improvements.
- Fix for fast forward not working as intended on some PCs. Will always speed up if camera is still, if camera moves fast forward will be as fast as possible on each PC.
- Fixed issue where artillery would be told to stop firing but continue.
- Fixed issue with the virtual file system whereby on certain hard drives / raid configurations / partitions which were experiencing a crash with sound enabled.
- Fixed a boundary pathfinding crash.
Thanks
Jack
I hate those "sledgehammer" fixes... These factors should not apply if one joins an ally in a DEFENSIVE war. They SHOULD apply if one joins an ally in an AGGRESSION...Quote:
- "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors change so don't apply when joining an ally in war.
:wall:
I hope they did this one right. Currently, the artillery DOES stop firing if ordered so, but before they do, they unload the last salvo in random directions, frequently, into the backs of nearby friendlies...Quote:
- Fixed issue where artillery would be told to stop firing but continue.
eek!Quote:
- Missile cavalry can now fire and reload whilst on the move.
- Light Dragoons have gained longer range guns to allow them to skirmish better.
fear the light dragoon!
Both changes right up there with the naval rebalancing as ahistorical and unrealistic. :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerg
Firing on the move isn't that bad, provided there's an accuracy penalty. Reloading is a bit iffy, although I imagine it's doable with experience.
The range increase is silly, though.
All praise to the modders! They managed to implement a range-accuracy relationship, so they can probably fix this too.
If you had a carbine or musket - a weapon with one shot and requiring both hands to fire - would you fire that one shot on the move? I can't see it. (Pistols at the trot, as in a caracole, yes but not long guns.) The main in-game use of firing on the move would presumably be to punish pursuing cavalry (a gunpowder age Parthian shot), which seems even more silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
I'm guessing it will be like horse archers in the RTW/M2TW - light dragoons will reload while moving faster than most other cavalry and so be able to kill them without loss. I can't imagine a man riding a horse at the gallop reloading a muzzle-loading carbine. Allowing for the Parthian shot in RTW/M2TW was a fair depiction of the frustration of knights and other heavy cavalry trying to deal with fleet-footed horse archers but it seems completely unauthentic gameplay in an eighteenth century battle.Quote:
Reloading is a bit iffy, although I imagine it's doable with experience.
Ever since the mid-seventeenth century, cavalry had moved away from the use of firearms in battle, finding shock tactics more effective. By the Napoleonic era, the carbines, muskets and pistols of the cavalrymen were largely decorative and don't figure much in accounts of most battles - often being not even equipped. Why CA should have a tech tree that leads light cavalry down an opposite and frankly absurd path is baffling - oh wait, it's for "balance".
The only guys that would remotely work for are pistol armed cav and HA. Who on that team has the dragoon fetish?
Also - Did htey fix trade routes yet?
I hope that includes the naval forces, the over-recruiting of brigs and sloops is wearing thin.Quote:
Increase the creation and retention of strong mixed higher level unit armies by the CAI.
thats okay Elmar, in their naval rebalancing, sloops will be more accurate and fire further than your ships of the line! so if they bring 20 brigs they might just be able to do some damage! :smash:
:clown:
The only problem I had with light dragoons was that they took way too long to form up before they fired, sometimes infantry were even able to run out of their field of fire before they were done. This wasn't even one of those wonderful cases when one guy is stuck on a picket fence a few yards from the formation :p
This seems like a pretty bad solution to that problem, now they could be completely overpowered, especially in smaller skirmishes, they could be able to easily mop up small armies of certain compositions.
I do like some of the other fixes though, hope it works out well... Last week I had four howitzers unload explosive shells straight into a unit of line that had just won a melee to their side, again. It's like they aim for your own units when you tell them to cease fire.
This seems a great patch with some problems. My only big remark is that there is little use of better/rebalanced diplomacy when the 'black knight' behavior doesn't seem to be dealt with. I was really hoping for that one and a 1.5 patch may never come.
About bloody time too !!!
Whilst I welcome the general wonderfulness of this patch's bug-fix list, the talk of all this "naval rebalancing" is making me somewhat queasy.
You see, I'd quite like all the fixed stuff, without sloops/galleys sinking ships of the line, thank you very much.
I suppose I shall have to wait until the patch is released then hope someone can mod it back to its current state...
PS: Cavalry firing on the move is a bad idea. Have I missed something, or has it just been the M2TW & RTW fans whining that has prompted this decision to turn Light Dragoons into some bizarre equivalent of Genghis Khan's Mongols?
No mention of fixing problems with building bonuses, again.
I think several of the AI changes are intended to address the general CAI issues and indirectly reduce the black knight behavior. Jack mentions better handling of alliances, smarter uses of armies, more invasions etc. All of this could cumulatively mean that when the AI declares war it acts on it better. Now he also states that there will be a more aggressive AI so it might not go away entirely but I think we could see a reduction in this behavior. It seems they are trying to push toward a smarter aggression. While I am not sure this will fix it sufficiently yet, it is progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
The problem as it stand now is that if you border a faction it will inevitably DoW on you rather sooner disregarding diplomatic standing, other better 'prey' or simply there own well being. They can change the game as much as they feel like but it'll stay broken until the AI factions start to 'think for themselves' rather than immidiatly gang up on the player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyavash
At least now I can sometimes ignore factions I'm at war with as long as I have a decent garrison. It'll be 3 hour/round if the CAI decides to 'attack smart'.
They are beta testing patch 1.4
Quote:
2 September:
Patch 1.4 has just gone live to our public beta group, so it's now in final testing.
Kind regards,
Kieran
This patch should be good but will not address everything. It's a shame there will probably not be another patch (or any expansion to fix bugs).
I just want the patch without the naval changes :P :clown::smash::whip::wall::furious3::dizzy2:
We'll just have to take the patch for a spin once it's release and see what the naval, dragoon/light dragoon, artillery, and AI changes look like in practice.
This is a quote from there recent press release on 1.4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krauser
"To show their continuous support for Empire: Total War, The Creative Assembly announces that this patch will pave the way for forthcoming DLC, including the first Expansion Pack which will be unveiled soon. "
It would appear there is one to be unveiled, I don't think they mean NTW do they?
I think it was stated that NTW would be a stand alone therefore, the expansion would be something different. Although it does raise the question, what will the expansion include given that NTW would of been the logical step for an expansion.
Would it maybe take place from 1815 untill 18XX? Or less likely, 1600-1699?
it would be from the time he became general to the time he became emperor and then when finallly he was killed. Ah but I see your point, an expansion pack aswell? How random, I must say that does throw me off, although the gall to ask us to get an expansion pack as well as NTW after ETW is quite sneaky. It had better be the world map! lol
With NTW coming out so soon, any expansion pack is going to have to be small. That's why I think War of 1812 is a good bet.
1812 was pretty much a random sideshow during the Napoleonic Wars ...
Except for that hilarious surprise Hurricane that saved Washinton DC.
How 'bout including Africa... Or South-East Asia...