Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Quote:
How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
This is the same as asking, how do you make a game with a thousand possibilities, and get every one right.
I am more than happy with a game that's gotten more things right than any other game I know of, in it's category. (Of course it can't be compared to "best FPS" or whatever.)
They'll fix some things in patches to come. But they won't fix everything. They can't - there are unlimited possibilities. There is no perfect game, and it's much easier to be a critic than a producer.
Meanwhile,
Let's go kick some Gaul ass.
My 2 denarii ~:cheers:
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
I'm with those who think that this issue should not, in a professionally produced piece of software, have appeared again. It has slipped past three sets of internal and beta testing and into three off-the-shelf packages despite being a known problem with the AI routines (which lets face it have not changed much since STW). It just highlights the sloppy lack of attention paid, for whatever reasons, to the tactical AI in RTW. It is also the reason why I have stopped playing it and why, unless I see conclusive evidence to the contrary, I shall not buy the next TW product. I don't care whose fault it is, I just feel that AI should have been a priority and it clearly was not.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKnight
This is the same as asking, how do you make a game with a thousand possibilities, and get every one right.
I dont think that is an exactly fair statement. We are talking about a 'feature' of the game that sends AI general galloping off through their own lines, miles ahead of his own troops, straight at the nearest wall of spears. Repeatedly.
Not only is this completely a-historical, it makes zero sense.
We are not talking about a broken tab, or some other minor glitch, this is a major problem that ends up killing a good proportion of the 'characters' in the game. Couple this with the fact that CA trumpeted this game as a revolutionary combat engine and the point still stands that this should not have been missed through (im assuming) multipe checks.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Cool quote by Nelson, Lance - and who am I to argue against Nelson?
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
I dont think that is an exactly fair statement. We are talking about a 'feature' of the game that sends AI general galloping off through their own lines, miles ahead of his own troops, straight at the nearest wall of spears. Repeatedly.
Not only is this completely a-historical, it makes zero sense.
We are not talking about a broken tab, or some other minor glitch, this is a major problem that ends up killing a good proportion of the 'characters' in the game. Couple this with the fact that CA trumpeted this game as a revolutionary combat engine and the point still stands that this should not have been missed through (im assuming) multipe checks.
In theory I agree with you, but we live in a very real and very harsh world where I'm prepared to cut CA some slack.
All companies work on cash flow.. and game companies only generate cash-flow by having newer games out there being sold. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of 'getting it absolutely right' before release, because you have to actually pay your people.
I don't personally know whether CA has had this issue or not, but I'm certainly prepared to cut them slack in this area.
To my mind most instance where game companies release buggy software come under this heading. If you were running a game company you wouldn't knowingly release bugs because you would know how much it would anger your users.. but if you are faced with not releasing software to hold it back for more bug fixes and that meant not paying your folks, what would you do?? I'd personally choose to try to make the best of it, release the software with the known bugs and pay my folks. Yes its a risk, but sometimes those risks pay off.
Given all the wonderful positives in this game, and the fact that there are very few truly bad bugs in it, I'm prepared to cut CA a big amount of slack in this area. You might want to consider it too. Its not a 'big buggy mess' that some folks on this board are whining on about.. It does have bugs, surely.. but so did MTW and STW when they first came out.
(and btw, if you hadn't picked up on it... I work in software.. not games, but software never the less.).
If they don't fix some of the issues via a patch, I'll complain right along with you.. but its still not that much time after release.. so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what they do to make things right.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Suicide Generals Suck. I hate when i get two armies in position to attack the enemy from two sides, and i have to watch the AI controlled general running in front of his army and charging ALONE towards the enemy. The only thing that resulted from these battles were dead generals, even when i outnumbered the enemy 3to1.
It just pissed me off.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
The AI as a whole is worthlessly inadequate. Especially since we were promised a good one.
Pathfinding - Units will consistently take retarded routes and flat out refuse to carry out simple orders. Unlike MTW where a formation would mash itself up against a wall or march directly to the destination regardless of intervening terrain and gaps, and it was your problem to fix, this has been replaced by units recalculating your orders to their own braindead whims. Your orders should be a command from f***ing GOD. I do not care if you believe your formation cannot fit in there. I do not care if you think your formation will not fit through that gap. If I want you to take the long way without compromising your formation, I have a waypointing system. Go where I tell you to. Go there directly. Stand exactly where I have commanded.
Conducting a battle, most especially a battle in a siege, becomes a chore instead of a delight because your units will flat out disobey what you ask of them. I firmly believe that in the development time of Rome: Total War, I could learn how to code a pathfinding AI from my current total ignorance and still do at least a job as good (ie; pants) as this one.
Strategic command - Single units all over the place practically demanding to be obliterated. Attemping to commit sieges against massive stone walls when the defenders have just as many men, who are all vastly superior. Doesn't ever hunt down an enemy who retreats, I've watched the Julii and Gauls stare at each other over their borders all the way to the end of the game because they both had massive stacks unwilling to fight without superiority, and said stacks would fail to hunt down the smaller roving bands because they back off once. Then the smaller stacks obviously won't attack the maxed out cities. It's so crap, they gave it infinite money so it could swamp you with huge armies. A computer should work out its expenditures to the very last florin with sickening efficiency and squeeze more out of their treasury than you ever could without a calculator and way too much time on your hands. Screw that, it wouldn't have a chance in that case because of crappy....
Field command - Suicidal generals. Charging headlong into phalanxes. Doggedly pursues your general if nearby to such an extent you can ambush them with...anything you like, they don't care that your general is nothing compared to what you're running round behind them. Will gleefully turn its battleline into a vast, mangled blob of units by individually targetting like a retard and will also wander about the place in front of you as it makes what is seemingly a laughable attempt to outflank YOU so you can just charge right on in and squash them. Has no concept of what happens when units get bunched up under boiling oil, will make forlorn attacks up ladders with inadequate units (Bowmen vs Urban Cohort! Get in there lads!) whilst standing there getting mown down. Doesn't even know what siege artillery is. On the defence will happily stand naked under a rain of arrows until dead. Own ranged tactics consist of 'General or closest unit', even if the closest unit is a bunch of armoured hoplites who laugh at your arrows, followed swiftly by a bunch of Spartans, who may as well commit Seppuku when facing arrows.
Rome: Total War is like the greatest battletank the world has ever known. It has the biggest gun. It has the heaviest armour. It can go the fastest. It's as fuel efficient as a BMW.
....but it is crewed by monkeys.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Must be possible to mod this. Couldn't just the General unit be set in Guard mode or something ??
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
I'm not willing to cut CA any slack on this particular issue since they have had some many chances to fix it, including two previous releases and their subsequent patches. Sorry but that is just plain lazy to let the same issue creep into this release. If it was a new issue then fair enough, but it is not new at all.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
normally what i tell myself when facing a crappy ai is: "why waste time coding an AI when you can just have kickass multiplayer, since humans will always be better than AI"
can't really apply that logic to this game and it saddens me, the multiplayer scene is pretty dismal. compare it to warcraft3 that was released how many years ago? gamespy? haha give me a break i was playing quake1 on gamespy in like '95, i know its probably some suit at activisions fault.
activision is mainly who i blame by the way, i'm sure the guys doing the actual work on this game slave away at it and wish they knew why marketing insisted on including an imaginary "egypt" and "spain".
right now i'm playing rome:total realism on vh/vh it gives a decent game on single player, but of course thats only because it just gives kill and morale bonuses.
I just don't know what to think, it seems to just be the way games are going in this day and age. Spend all your time and money on graphics because its the picture on the back of the box that sells games. Or perhaps most people that buy the game play 3/4th of one campaign and put it on the shelf next to grand theft auto, never having heard of these forums.
btw is it true they delete posts on the official forums if you post anything critical?
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
For my experience the AI just uses the General as another standard unit. I’ve cut down 2 units of Cavalry on then the AI General charges right into the fight. There should be a way of somehow “marking” the General unit and having the AI protect that unit. Then again I’m not sure that is possible with the AI coding. Like has been stated, In MTW this was combated by giving the General a lot of bonuses so even if they did charge headlong into an attack they wouldn’t die right away. That option seems to be an easier fix than redoing the AI programming. I hated the uber Generals of MTW but I honestly could tolerate that a lot more than these Generals that throw their life away needlessly.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Quote:
Rome: Total War is like the greatest battletank the world has ever known. It has the biggest gun. It has the heaviest armour. It can go the fastest. It's as fuel efficient as a BMW.
....but it is crewed by monkeys
LOL. Classic. ~D
Quote:
Given all the wonderful positives in this game, and the fact that there are very few truly bad bugs in it, I'm prepared to cut CA a big amount of slack in this area. You might want to consider it too. Its not a 'big buggy mess' that some folks on this board are whining on about.. It does have bugs, surely.. but so did MTW and STW when they first came out.
Fair enough points, but I would counter with-
1) I was not complaining about a 'buggy mess'
2) As I mentioned before, I dont consider this just a bug, I consider this a pretty BIG, game altering bug. Even after considering your points I still believe this was too big to let through. Yea, everyone expects a bug or 2 but this one isnt like the 'ships get stuck' one, this one can have a profound effect on the game.
3)IIRC, the demo generals didnt have this problem. Which again leads me to believe that this problem should not have got through because at one point it WASNT a problem.
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Okay sure Rome still has some problems with the AI, but the AI is still one of the best I have ever seen in an RTS during battles and it also makes quite intelligent moves on the campain map aswell. Plus there are very few problems with moving your troops during battle... Something i really hated in other games where it was very difficult and time consuming just to form a simple battle line!!
Schnief
Veni, Vidi, Vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) Julius Caesar
Re: How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
LOL. Classic. ~D
Fair enough points, but I would counter with-
1) I was not complaining about a 'buggy mess'
2) As I mentioned before, I dont consider this just a bug, I consider this a pretty BIG, game altering bug. Even after considering your points I still believe this was too big to let through. Yea, everyone expects a bug or 2 but this one isnt like the 'ships get stuck' one, this one can have a profound effect on the game.
3)IIRC, the demo generals didnt have this problem. Which again leads me to believe that this problem should not have got through because at one point it WASNT a problem.
Go back and re-read my post. Yes, I also don't like it. But I'm cutting them slack on it until I see a patch or two.
