I saw these screens in the .COM.
Just by the looks of it, the battle maps seem to be bigger.
The only other thing is sallying. If one sallies, then the armies would be fighting in that narrow pathway :inquisitive:
Printable View
I saw these screens in the .COM.
Just by the looks of it, the battle maps seem to be bigger.
The only other thing is sallying. If one sallies, then the armies would be fighting in that narrow pathway :inquisitive:
It certainly looks better...but I'd really like to know if this is a IN game screenshot rather than a nice constructed screenie just to give the community fals hopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Well I do like the sounds of having to sally on such as map, would certainly - given the AI knows how to handle such a map - be an epic battle.
:balloon2:
I am not very worried by the lack of details regarding the playability and A.I. of the game. You tend not get this kind of information in the first previews; most likely because the designers themselves don't know this yet either. However, I would be really grateful to CA if they allowed the same kind of Q&A as we had leading up to the release of BI. It might restore some of the communities faith in the company. I think the relative silence since the release of R:TW has made the community feel ignored, though it was not suprising CA was unwilling to visit the fansites given the amount of hostility at that time.
Yeah, the castle entrance looks like a mock up to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ivoignob
Two things that strike me about all the screenshots so far.
First, there seem to be an awful lot of full face helmets. Too many I think. IMO, the units should contain a mix of soldiers both with and without full face helmets.
Secondly, there seems to be a lot of armour. I'm hardly a great medieval history buff, but I've always had the impression that knights in full armour were very much an elite. Most soldiers were men-at-arms with some plate armour but a lot of leather as well.
Most of the troops I've seen in the screenshots seem to be kitted up like full knights. Somehow this just isn't how I envisage Medieval combat.
I wondered about all that armor too. Maybe they're using all elite units in the screenshots to make it look impressive and colorful, but the actual game might have more mixed armor types when you (and the AI) can't afford full stacks of elite knights. I hope that's the case. I'm not an expert on this period, but I also had the impression that full-kit knights didn't turn out in the numbers we see onscreen, and there should be other more pedestrian units on the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivoignob
Yeah, if that's an actual castle somewhere on the campaign map, I think I may just try bribing the garrison first, as that would probably cost a heck of a lot less than assaulting it! ~:rolleyes: ~:shock:
Well spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
We complained ad nauseam about peasants hordes, so they give us knights and what do we do? Right... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
These are just screenshots: off course they show the flashy bits. We'll have to wait until the full game before we know how the actual armies will be composed. Even then, I doubt it will be an accurate representation of medieval warfare. Small armies followed by large peasant mobs make for poor gameplay.
we're not asking for a near-human AI, just an AI that doesn't make completly obvious stupid mistakes. For example in RTW the AI doesn't even use their missile units properly. Give them 19 archers and 1 cavalry unit and they will still charge in that cavalry unit as soon as they can, instead of waiting until the archers have depleted their ammo.Quote:
It all seems blatantly simple to us, but I would bet the developers are more hamstrung by limitations of technology than we would like to think. There are also the time and cost considerations to be dealt with and just how much of each can be put into any *problem*.
Writing AI is hardly limited by technonogy, it's just a matter of investing enough time figuring out the AI algoritms and putting them in the game. AoE3 had a single developer solely working on water effects. I garantee you TW's AI could be more then acceptable if CA would let a single programmer work on AI and nothing else.
Well, Wikiman is back. Maybe the fella has something to say about all the queries....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
I hope they portray Antioch properly.
I agree. All I'm really trying to say is I'd be happy with a similar mix of units that were available in MTW. In that game, your fully kitted out Gothic Knights and so on were very hard to get and expensive. Mostly you just had archers, spearmen, pikemen and men-at-arms of variable quality. And that, IMO, is how it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I wouldn't get your hopes up based on screenshots. Go look at the RTW pre-release screenshots and tell me if half that stuff will ever occur in a normal game....
It would be nice if the CA crew solved the AI probably by adding the multiplayer campaign they've been promising since STW came out. If the AI can't be made to give the player a challange, let the player get a challange from other players.
Have anyone noticed how the scale of roads, trees and everything now fits?
No more giant trees (some does seem big, but that is to be expected in forests), that make your men look like hobbits fighting. That has got to be positive or can someone manage complain about that?
But it true that we won't ever have battles that look like this. These shots are structured for our benefit. They are meant to be flashy and dazzling. How else will you draw in enough customers? It is a fairly sad fact, but we just have to learn to read these shots like we read the annoucements of politicians. It is an entirely different language, just like diplomacy.
And what I can read from the shots is positive so far. But the shots can't tell if there is going to be RTW speed or the AI isn't going to stumble ahead. That can't only be speculated on. Yes even with Wikiman's comment on the matter. For has he really sai anything firm? Something that can't be bent if the reality doesn't fit the percieved comment?
Good, so let's just be happy that CA actually responded to it and seems to be working on it. Time will tell more effectively.
Correct. The first thing I thought when I saw the screenshots of MTW II....far too many great helms. Same thing with all the armour, there is just too much for the battlefield to look realisticQuote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
.....Orda
Well the screens are realistic with the troop selections.
If a faction is rich then naturally they will get the best troops money can buy.
No TW game has been realistic about that and never will be either since it goes against TW's "what if" idea.
Given that the guys in the screenies look like High to Late-period heavy-end troops (which also had a tendency to get pitted against one another - it's not like the light stuff could be relied on to contain them), not really. Those fellows were well armed, and the normal practice was to mass troops of roughly similar capabilities and equipement into large formations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
And, put this way: if you're doing a PR shot on the topic of Hastings, what are you going to show - the cruddy spearmen levies poking at each other on the wings, or the Norman heavy cavalry and Saxon Huscarles going at it in the centre ?
LOL. Yes I definitely noticed the properly scaled trees - not to mention their much greater level of detail. A return to appropriate scale would be very much welcome from my POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
But whether we actually get these features in the game, is as you say far from guaranteed. I guess we'll have a better idea as development progresses.
Remember the shots for MTW back in those days... Chivalric Knights galore! It is the same here. We see the cool and impressive stuff. In time we might get to see more lowly Sergeants, Spearmen and Archers. Who knows, but I doubt these low-end units will be left out, or even neglected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Misrepresentation is surely not for our benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Come on you know what I meant to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
We can have such battles... Chances are just low enough for us to never experience them.
But we just have to apply the normal filters we use when we scan new games. They always try to put their game in the most beautiful light of course.
While people here would love to see Spearmen, Archers and other low-end units they are simply not flashy enough for the people who happens to click in for a peep.
~:thumb: Down with R:TW's bloody giant sequoia's!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Yes I remember and I am aware that 'cool' sells, you are right of course but I was a little disappointed seeing all those great helms which were mainly used in tournament jousting. They were never really that popular and I can only hope that bascinet and chapel de fevre are more numerousQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
........Orda
Don't get me wrong, the AI does need improving and from what I have read it will be improved. My concern is that some may be actually expecting that "miracle" and it will set of another round of pages and pages of complaints. I am of the opinion that we are still years away from anything even remotely called *True AI*,...because of those very same alogorithims you mention.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
I've been playing these games since the days of Apple IIe and the first PCs,...the growth in game AI in 20+ years is both remarkable and strangely disappointing at the same time.
Cheers.
I don't think anyone is expecting a miracle AI from CA. In that many of us were reasonable happy with the AI in MTW and even STW (more so with the good mods like Medmod 3) I would expect that we have a good sense of what's reasonable. It is only the dissappointment of that other game (censored) that leads us to question what will be delivered.
Just look at Civ4 for an example of a game that is delivering an AI that has the community happy. Many people can't win on the 'even' level and most play only one or two levels up from that where the AI is only slightly cheating. The fact that there are three or four more challenging levels to go helps to keep the experts happy and probably provides the illusion that the players who aren't playing at those levels aren't very good (in their own minds). And I would venture to say that Civ4 has as nice a graphics as that other game (censored) did without sacrificing game play to achieve those looks.
I think Civ4 (or indeed earlier Civs) is a very good standard for a challenging AI that M2TW should aspire too. However, I am not convinced that the AI is that much better than in TW games and suspect it may just have more cheats.
Certainly, Civ4 AI is no great shakes at war fighting - which is what we are demanding from the TW AI. I can squash waves of AI troops with virtually no losses because it does not fight smart. And this is with a much simpler "battle map" (moves are confined to a few squares, so presumably there are fewer options to evaluate). It's been a while, so I can't remember all the gory details but I do recall the AI lamentably fails to bring enough siege equipment to bring down cities (although the BI AI also has the same failing). On the few occasions I have invaded AI Civs, it has been like slicing a sausage - the AI has no concept of concentration of force and just happily sits with 3-4 stacks in each city, while I dismember it's empire of 12+ cities with a stack of about 8 units. I would say STW or MTW provide a greater threat for any given ratio of AI to player resources. I just booted up STW as Useugi - try defending Shinano in turn 7 against 2 invading armies; when you are outnumbered 3:1 on the battlefield, however smart you are, you're probably going down.
I suspect Civ is so challenging partly because it cheats so much. It pumps up its cities and its armies so you have to work like crazy to keep a lead. Even on noble (supposedly "fair"), I think it gets great discounts for upgrading its units, so you it's less likely you will see AI "peasants" fighting your knights. I have not looked under the hood, but the reason the AI is so strong at Monarch and above is not because it is any smarter at those levels, just because it gets some massive advantages.
However, I will say that I love the Civ diplomatic AI - the way AI factions have distinct personalities and the way many launch opportunistic wars, get weary, back off and later come gunning for a round two. I am a builder in civ - war fighting is too tedious in that engine - but it is thrilling to try to hold off aggressive Civs while I prioritise bread over guns. TW AI diplomacy is rather brain dead by contrast - they often start pointless wars, refuse sensible offers of peace, make ludicrous demands and do not simulate any recognisably human personality at all.
If they put 1/10th the effort into improved AI as they seem to devote to their culture of cool, then at least it would be an improvement...
I just want the option of playing a historically accurate game that is both challenging and replayable against the AI or MP opponents. You'd think this wouldn't be too much to ask.
Yeah, seriously. Replayable is the most important thing to me. I want a games fun to last longer than 3 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
If you increase a unit's defence skill and / or attack value (+experience bonus to both attack and defence skill), you will see that once a unit is on the ground, the attacker (who knocked his opponent to the floor), if positioned correctly, will finish him off as he begins to get up. That is at least a realistic feature IMO, because naturally anyone trying to stagger to his feet in any sort of armour would be vunerable to incoming blows, which may well prove fatal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
However, this debate regarding finishing moves and the concern over the AI is indeed that...concerning. After witnessing the berserker animations in both BI and RTW (was this included with patch v1.3/v1.4?), they were at first impressive. Especially during sieges where a berserker (once in bloodlust mode and uncontrollable) would hack his way through wavering opponents, using sending them flying into the air, even more so on walls some distance up.
However, these berserker animations soon become repetitive and almost appear as fantasy; how would anyone - regardless of weapon skill - be able to string together perfectly-timed combo attacks? Doing so would leave the attacker open and vunerable to counter-attacks from those surounding him probably on more than one occasion.
I haven't played Spartan: Total Warrior, but after reading the console reviews for XBox, PS & Gamecube, I could soon picture what audience the game was primarily aimed at. I don't want to sound as though I'm criticising an unreleased product, but I seriously hope the finishing moves to be included in MTW2 were not influenced by Spartan: Total Warrior.
On the other hand, I like the sound of the increased chances of units parrying blows and then launching their own counter-attacks. As mentioned before, if you increase the defnce skill of your units in RTW, you will see them dodge, shuffle, parry more frequently. More importantly, however, they will actually react almost instantaneously to an incoming attack when in close quarters, depending upon defence skill, unit animations and so on.
As for the AI, well it would be good to see an improvement of the vanilla AI in RTW. Although to be fair to CA, the AI was improved marginally through its patches, changes and fixes. However, as mentioned numerous times already in this topic, the AI has never really offered a seriously challenging test of skill which many would at least expect to appear in MTW2.