Yikes! Didn't mean to double post
Printable View
Yikes! Didn't mean to double post
Indeed. But only because the analysis is so flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunhill
So now you have 5. Big deal, TW has generals to match your officers. And as quit obviously, far more units. All sorts of infantry units, some melee, some missile, some both. Same for cavalry. And then there is artillery. And then there are the special units like priests which have minimal combat power but confer other benefits on nearby units.Quote:
I agree my argument is simplistic as it stands, but that is easily rectified, just a bit boring for those who have played the games I'm comparing. Which you obviously don't considering you only "suspect" TC2M has three unit types. It actually has more, including the officers and supply wagons.
Irrelevant. The AI may not effectively use modded units. That said, the TW engine can be modded to include many more units than in vanilla TW. The point still stands, TW has far more many unit types and capabilities that the AI has to handle.Quote:
In addition, all units can be easily modified, and melee-only units are already being modded.
The TW engine also included cavalry that could be mounted or unmounted, artillery could be effectively limbered or unlimbered (all this means is that an artillery unit can't move and fire at the same time). And TW has artillery that can move and fire - caroballistas. And TW artillery also has different ammo. Nothing unique here it seems for TC2M at all despite your claim.Quote:
Cavalry can also be mounted or unmounted, and artillery limbered and unlimbered (as well as choosing a number of ammo types).
TW units also have different formations as individual units - and also for the entire army. And TW reflects morale also, though it doesn't impact formations that I know of.Quote:
Units can also have a number of formations, including those that result from battle/morale effects.
So far, I don't see much in your analysis that makes TC2M more complicated. And you seem to have ignored things the TW engine has to do that TC2M doesn't - assault and defend bridges/fords and assault/besiege cities/castles. Hmm, looks like you missed a big gap there, doesn't it?Quote:
In each way the games I highlighted are more complex than TW in the areas they deal with.
No, but game development is a matter of resources, and you're being naive if you don't recognize that. Resources - money, time - may not exist to make both best in class.Quote:
You are correct TW does have a tactical and strategic AI, but I wouldn't say just having both makes the AI better than only having one.
Perhaps. But it's very easy to cherry pick what you want. Pick any game and I can just about find some aspect in that game that is handled better in another game. The real issue is does the TW AI provide a reasonable challenge for the majority of players. I'd say that goal is met.Quote:
What I've said is there are games out there with better AIs, tactical and strategic, because I see no direct connection between the two.
Only if you ignore the need to assault/defend fords/bridges and assault/defend castles/cities. And are you sure about the impact of terrain in TW? Isn't movement different for grass, vs forests, deserts vs hills, vs rivers? Does TC2M have more terrain differences?Quote:
The TC2M AI has much more unit information and map information to deal with than TW. The maps include a much greater variety of terrains that effect both movement and fire for units diffenently, and all that can be modded on much, much larger maps. The AI from TW doesnt have much in the way of terrain modification to consider, particulalry when it comes to movement.
Again, modding is irrelevant since both games can be modded, and we shouldn't be comparing AI with mods, since modding can unbalance a game if the AI can't handle it. That said, I'll grant you some of the above - but you seem to ignore some things in TW.Quote:
The AI from TC2M has to deal with a diverse number of unit attributes that can of course be modded in a large number of ways, including everything TW deals with, but with many more numbers of units on the larger maps, with large numbers of hierarchical leaders, routes for communication, time and weather, LOS, supply, ammo tracking and reinforcements. The player or AI can even request aid in play, which the AI handles, not as scripted events mind you. I don't see the TW AI doing anything like that.
You ignored the impact of shields/armor and armor piercing weapons. And you've also ignored the entire rock/paper/scissors aspect of TW. Some units defend better against cavalry, others have a strong charge, but have a weaker regular attack, etc. Many units have secondary weapons, some missile, some melee. Different units have different battlefield speed. And TW gives morale based upon location of the commander, location of supporting units, how the battles going, etc.. TW also have more of a paper/scissors thing going on that the AI needs to consider in deciding which units engage/defend against what unit. And again, the TW AI has to assault/defend bridges/fords, castles/cities. TC2M has to do nothing like this that I am aware of.
Yes, here TC2M does have to do some things the TW engine doesn't have to. But it's a different game and the TW AI doesn't have to consider this information. But terrain can be used by TW also - use of hills, forests, rivers, etc.. You seem to be deliberately ignoring things the TW AI has to handle.Quote:
The units positions on the map and relationship within the larger division or corp is also critical to the AI, and how it interacts with units of a different type. Lines are maintined, supply is protected, artillery is set up intelligently. Reserves are kept and used by the AI wisely. Terrain is used to advantage, surprise is possible. Roads are kept open to allow communication between corps, objectives are achieved on map in time and space.
And you can't do the same (except for the CPU processing time) for TW? Again, why are you ignoring something the TW AI can do?Quote:
In addition, you can adjust the AI with regard to a handicap for the computer (allow the AI to use bigger and better units), and the amount of CPU processing time you wish to allow the AI to use.
I'd suggest that's a laughably simplistic view. The strategic AI has to assess risk, invade or be invaded, who do you ally with, who do you declare war on, do you build economic buildings, or religious buildings, or military buildings. Do you build roads or defenses? Do you build land units or naval units? Do you invade by land or by sea? A good strategic AI is very difficult as it has to assess so many possibilities.Quote:
How complicated do you think the tech tree/upgrades/economic model are for the for the strategic AI? I'd suggest they are laughably simple.
That's a silly statement. A crappy strategic AI would render tactical battles irrelevant. You're hyperbolyzing.Quote:
If all that happened was for TC2M slapped any old strategic AI on top of thier tactical AI, it would beat TW hands down.
Not, not really since an AI has to be able to handle them. And we should be talking/comparing vanilla games to be consistent. Mods can change all sorts of things that render comparison difficult.Quote:
As for the numbers of units, as they can be modded at will, the number of unit types is meaningless.
What are all the TW movement/combat mods all about then? You probably should read up on TW modding before making such statements.Quote:
TC2M lets you mod at will, including movement (with regard to terrain mods too), does TW let you do that?
You can mode ranged fire, melee, movement, and morale in TW. Along with armor, armor piercing, missile capabilities and fire speed, capabilities vs specific unit types (cavalry, etc.)Quote:
It all deals with ranged fire, melee, movement, morale, leadership and more.
Actually, you haven't proven any such thing. All you've done is given statements showing the complexity of the TC2M AI. You've done nothing (nor have I) to show that the AI is actually any good at considering all those factors and using them effectively in battle. Complexity of AI does not equal better AI.Quote:
See how easy it is for me to give a far from simplified, logical, set of statements in support for why the AI for TC2M is much better than the AI for TW?
R:TW may have more types of units but it does nothing different between the types. If it's got a ranged attack it will go within missile range and fire away whatever it is, no matter wether it is an onager, archer, javelineer or a caroballista. Before the latest patch or the patch before, missile troops would even charge before the melee units without firing a shot. Infantry units charge enemy units. Cavalry moves to a point to the side of your main body and flanks on its own. The general unit is nothing more than a cavalry unit, how many times have you seen it going after a routing unit to rally, or stand behind the weakest point in the line?
So it's got infantry, cavalry, assorted missile and missile cavalry. 4 types, further differentiated with tagged on extra properties that do not affect AI tactics.
On a higher layer, the AI is unable to form reserves and use them. It does not know how to properly charge the enemy line or even how to keep a steady line when near the enemy. It bunches up its missile units. The AI army is only kept together by strict formations which are dismissed once the enemy is near enough and then it's each unit on it's own.
The bottomline is that the AI does not know how to handle any of its units. CA has admitted themselves that the R:TW AI was a bit of a failure so there is little point in trying to defend it.
"No, while they will indeed be the next generation of veterans, they will also be replaced by new teenagers with cash to spend. A target group never ages."
You are completely wrong. They may be replaced by new teenagers but over time teenagers will make up an ever smaller portion of the PC game playing community unless people automatically stop playing PC games when they reach a certain age. I do not know what is so hard to understand about this. Take a microcosm of the PC game playing community- ten different people over a period of one century, each one born ten years after the other and starting to play PC games when they are ten and continuing until they die at the age of a hundred. For the first ten years there is only the first player and they are a teenager i.e. 100% of the sample is teenage. During the second decade, the teenager (player 2) is only 50% of the sample. During the third decade, the teenager (player 3) is only 33%. And it continues until by the end of the century the teenager is only 10% of the sample because players 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are all aged over 20. Replace "player" with "generation" and that is basically how the demographics of PC gamers will change over time, i.e. with the average age of the PC gamer going up and then plateauing, which will probably be when the first generation of PC gamers are geriatrics.
True, but that was not my point. The target group remains. It might get smaller relative to other groups, but that doesn't matter as long as CA thinks that they can get the most sales when targeting young teenagers. R:TW and M2:TW seemed to have been aimed at a younger adience than S:TW and M:TW. The gamer population might be getting more mature on average, but CA's targeting group is getting younger. Instead of waiting for CA to change its marketing strategy I would much rather see other companies filling the gap.
Yes well I think that will happen if CA decides they will keep targeting a demographic that gets proportionally smaller over time while the number of grouches who want artificial intelligence rather artificial mentally defective intelligence grows proportionally larger.
I would have thought that game speeds getting faster would be counteractive to the teenagers.
It certainly makes the game harder, and if a teenager loses more than twice you have lost their interest. Of course the arguement (a bad one at that) is that if you get to this stage CA has already got the kiddies cash so they don't care.
Of coruse again, that is a short term view, as the kiddies will remember for next time and say it was too hard and not buy the next version.
I wold love to know what CA's thought process is about NOT keeping movement rates accurate?
Does anyone know?
It looks more exciting. If they used accurate movement speeds than the units would seem to run slow, especially when you are used to the speed of units in standard RTS games. However if you used the speed of R:TW units in RTS games then it would look hyper again.
Thing is that most RTS games have units composed of just 1 soldier or a small group of soldiers. To have that unit run 4 times its size (draw a circle around all the soldiers, that is the size) could take 5 seconds. To have an unit in TW, which contain many more soldiers, run 4 times its size might take 25 seconds. To some people that might appear slow, while in fact the soldiers are running at the same speed as in RTS games. The fix was apparently to increase the running speed of the soldiers in R:TW.
Compare it with dropping a small wooden box from 10 metres. It appears to be falling quite fast. Then imagine dropping a hangar from 10 km. And view it from a large enough distance to make it appear having the same distance as the wooden box. Now the hangar doesn't even appear to be falling, while it is still falling at the same speed and acceleration as the wooden box (ignoring wind drag).
This exageration of physics is quite common in games and movies alike. Just think of how people get blown back by a shotgun or even a regular bullet.
Well, that is just my theory :wink:
Crikey mate, good try but you are out of your league (like Australia in the World Cup)
I put forward a number of valid points to suggest that the AI could easily be better, and support this by citing examples from a recent releases by INDY developers. It is a strong argument, with few flaws.
The TW AI doesn't process on-field supply, or the effect of multiple leaders with a variety of leadership characteristics that effect gameplay, and with different spheres of command. I forgot to include the couriers which actually fulfill a function on the map and are run by the AI ( to account for terrain and prior courier events and enemy units)
To say the AI can't make use of the information ascribed to a unit is rather poor for the AI. I'd have hoped the AI knew full well the general attributes of the units it had at its disposal. I'd have thought that would be at the core of the AI, knowing what a unit can do and how to use it?
""Hmm, looks like you missed a big gap there, doesn't it?""
The gap was never there. It was my fault for not pointing this out. TC2M does have fords, bridges, fences and other obstacles to deal with, as well as the movement of many more units over much larger maps. Leaders and thier interactions with couriers and other leaders and units like ammo wagons add complexity to the TC2M battle that I don't see in TW. The AI puts units in reserve, calls them up when needed, moves wagons to supply ammo, and pulls units out of the line as required to conserve thier effectivenss and allow them to get more ammo. A short battle in TC2M takes around 45 minutes and that's usually just a division with 4-5 brigades of infantry, a couple of units of artillery and cavarly, plus ammo wagons and all the leaders. Once things move up to the corp and army levels, things get very complex and battles can last 3-4 hours. easily.
TC2M's AI makes use of favourable terrain for movement and combat, as well as surprise (it can handle siege across rivers). The existence of bridges, fords, breastworks, and various types of housing and forest/fields/rough enable the AI to actually make choices in the game about how to move large groups of brigades/divisions/corps. The terrain effects are more pronounced in TC2M. Particulalry with fire, movement and fatigue. There are 16 terrain factors, plus weather and light effects for the AI to compute in the vanilla version. It may be comparing apples and oranges considering the size of the TC2M playing field and the ability to restrict views to what your units can see. The AI may have more scope for using terrain for a surprise that TW doesnt have.
There are only two main developers working part-time on TC2M, and they've produced a game with better tactical gameplay than the current TW tactical AI. I'm not the only person saying this. Many of the people who have tried the game indicate that it is more immersive and has a very good AI. Its an INDY development, built by grognards for grognards. I must admit they spent most of thier development power on the AI, so it may be unfair to compare it to TW, which tries to do lots of other things.
""The real issue is does the TW AI provide a reasonable challenge for the majority of players. I'd say that goal is met.""
I'm comparing what the AI's have to handle to do the job. Sadly, the TW AI doesnt provide a reasonable challenge for many of us (but not most of us), and hasn't done for some time. If the goal is to please the most people, then I agree the TW AI is fine, but its not for the veteran player anymore. On that point the goal has not been met for some time.
I'm saying that TC2M is open to more modding than TW, but the AI isn't open to modding. So it is essentaily irrelevant to this discussion of the AI.
The AI for TC2M is dealing with so many more variables and doing it in a way that is enables it to beat veteran TW players. I'm not the only TW veteran to be praising this AI. Other INDY game developers with very good AIs are praising thier efforts with this AI.
I am not ignoring those things that TW does, just showing the number of things that the AI for TC2M is doing that contribute to a better gaming experience for me. The difficulty setting for TW doenst do much to make for a better game.
I see the strategic side of risk analysis as a quantitative operation, which isn't as difficult to model as the tactical situation which changes significantly in real time over space. These attributes make it much more difficult for the AI. The turn based nature of the strategic AI enable the risk analysis to proceed without real time changes in space. Part of this analysis can also be qualitative. Crikeys mate, you've got me arguing about the differences between qualitative and quanititative risk analysis after work. I'm going to have to start charging you my professional training/consulting fee.
The lack of a strategic AI for TC2M is almost always brought up by game reviewers. I don't see it as exageration to say that adding a, shall we say "standard", strategic AI would put this game in the same league as TW. I'm sure the reviewers would make an even more direct comparison.
I don't see any change to the battle speed that the TW veterans have been complaining about and requesting repairs for. I suggest you have a look at some of the other threads about battle speed.
""You've done nothing (nor have I) to show that the AI is actually any good at considering all those factors and using them effectively in battle. Complexity of AI does not equal better AI.""
You are correct, I've given quite a number of reasons why the AI for TC2M is more complex. I can only base my rating of the AI on its ability to give me a good game. The TW AIs don't give me a good game, and haven't done so since STW. Judging from the significant number of posts I'm not the only one concerned about the AI. Conversely, the AI of TC2M is the subject of much praise, particulalry amongst those people who've played TW. I can only judge from my enjoyment of the game, it's surprising and enjoyable to play against the AI from TC2M. I can't say the same for RTW. I just think it is the complexity that is allowing the TC2M AI to beat me. It may be the ability to devote more processing power to the AI.
I think the AI for TW could be much better, and that there are games available that support my argument. I rest my case.
PS: I write complex legal and scientific argument regarding regulatory decisions that I make on behalf of my government on veterinary medicines all day. I specialise in qualitative and quantitative risk analysis of toxiciology, trade and health impacts of the new chemicals I'm asked to evaluate.
However, this doesnt mean I enjoy spending my free time writing arguments (as indicated by my relatively low post count here). I'm an Australian and I''d rather be watching the footy instead of doing something that feels more and more like what I do at work. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, good God I've even bored myself silly.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...gc/gc-wall.gif
:wall:
Take it easy mate. You'll have to buy me a slab of Boags Premium and come over to listen to the footy some afternoon if you want me to continue yammering on about this subject.
In RTW/BI in the tactical battles, the AI will charge with units are weaker than yours. This makes it easier for the player when he has the better units than it was in the previous engine where the AI would not make frontal assaults with weaker units. On the strategic map, the AI will attack your army when its army is weaker. So, as long as you move up the tech tree faster than the AI, you'll be ok in the battles since they are mostly determined by frontal fighting. Battle speed can be fast if they are just a matter of slamming the armies together frontally. It's moving up the tech tree to get the better units that's important. The difficulty settings are there for players who find medium difficulty too easy. They give a combat boost to AI units and reduce the money a player has to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
It seems to me that the emphasis in the series has shifted away from using maneuver to win battles towards moving up the tech tree as fast as possible. Since the battles are actually too easy, the game now has a bias favoring the AI in the auto-resolve to force the player to play out the battles.
It seems strange to me how some people tend to defend RTW AI - "I know it has some flaws but look - it is so massive it has bidges, sieges, camp and tactic AI" this is NOT an argument.
No matter how big it is, if it's not working correctly it's useless. Think of a ship with small flaw - one plate on hull is missing. Is it a good ship? Even if it is very big one?
Some say time and resources are limited. They are. When you build house and you know you have limited resources do you start building front wall up to 5th floor leaving back at ground level? I think nobody would buy house with beautiful front and nothing behind.
And this is what we were offered by CA in RTW - Beautiful front up to 5th floor (graphics) and ill built, unfinished up to 3rd floor in the back (AI).
@Dunhill
This is reason enough for Take Command: 2nd Manassas not to be compared to Rome TW. Why you're bringing this TC2M into the discussion, when most of us do not have a clue what you're talking about, just to make your point (which seems to be that its possible to create a better AI - for which TC2M is not an example), is a little beyond me. Going on about the TC2M engine and arguing against us doesn't hide the fact that you know quite little about the Rome:TW engine and have little to add about it, despite the length of your posts.Quote:
I see the strategic side of risk analysis as a quantitative operation, which isn't as difficult to model as the tactical situation which changes significantly in real time over space. These attributes make it much more difficult for the AI.
For the Rome engine, getting any risk analysis at all is difficult, let alone what to do with it.Quote:
The turn based nature of the strategic AI enable the risk analysis to proceed without real time changes in space. Part of this analysis can also be qualitative.
In general, and certainly not on a gamers forum, do people like to hear about how great you are. I certainly do not. It does explain the length of your posts, and your desire to get some recognition here.Quote:
PS: I write complex legal and scientific argument regarding regulatory decisions that I make on behalf of my government on veterinary medicines all day. I specialise in qualitative and quantitative risk analysis of toxiciology, trade and health impacts of the new chemicals I'm asked to evaluate.
Granted, my posts can be long as well, but that's usually because i'm responding to long posts or actually have something to say about the engine of a relevant game to MTW2, ie RTW or STW/MTW.
Tell 'm, Grifman. I've about as much patience with TC2M fans as I have with LOTR:BFME fans on this forum: NONE.Quote:
Indeed. But only because the analysis is so flawed.
@Puzz3D:
That's kind of contradicting, on the one side you want more than on/off, but you don't want them moddable. Sounds to me like you do :wink3: . When i mentioned constants, i wasn't referring to fatigue, morale and ammo. I was referring to the change in status a moddable variable gets with regards to an non-moddable one. These moddable variables have to be tracked and checked. You can't just free them up, it screws up the whole battle engine if people don't know what they're doing while you are allowing them to change it. I think that is why CA won't let people change it.Quote:
Fatigue, moral and ammo are not constants. The arcade setting changes them. I'm not talking about making them modable. I'm talking about some ingame options besides on and off for these variables.
Should they be moddable? Hell yeah.
Should they be moddable through an ingame menu? Hell no, the balance should be right to begin with.
Quote:
They said they were not going to make these things modable on principle.
For both statements, I'm asking you for something of a link or a reference please.Quote:
Changing overall speed isn't enough. The ratio between walking and running is incorrect. They treated movement speed as an arbitrary variable, and there are plenty of indications that running speeds were increased after the game was balanced, and after the AI was set up for a different speed.
On the second, if movement speed is an arbitrary variable that can be changed, it can also be changed back to its original value. The AI you're referring to seems to be set up for the old STW/MTW speeds, and while I would like to believe they copy-pasted some code of that old engine, I know (and have quotes to prove) that they didn't and don't.
I agree but they did those things for a reason, not out of stupidity. And you know the reason: Motion captured animations. They have to be in sync. That is the starting point. The new battle engine will have to be built around that, and not about STW/MTW battle speeds or AI.Quote:
I'm not implying they make the values to my liking. I'm saying they should put the values back to what they themselves originally determined worked best. You can't change movement speed without messing up the whole system. I think someone at CA doesn't understand this.
I doubt the average player can balance the game better than CA can. I sincerely hope CA will take into acount the average battle time length, and the dependent variables battle map size, unit size, morale + expertise of general, ammo, fatigue + effect of weather, infantry/cav movement speeds, etc.Quote:
You do have to know how long a battle lasts on average to do proper balancing. The purpose of ingame settings would be to allow the players to finish balancing the game since CA isn't doing it.
and make this moddable. So we can simply choose whether we would like fast or long battles. AI decision making should be good regardless.
I just explained to you why ingame options are not the same as making something modable.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Don't make me laugh. They don't track and check modable variables. All they did was free them up. You can plug in values to those modable variables that are out of range.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Yes it should be right to begin with. Fat chance of that happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
They have made ammo and morale modable, but not fatigue rate although you can affect this with teh stamina setting. I actually meant provide ingame options on those settings which they decline to do on the principle that it would confuse players. I don't have a link for that. It's been going back and forth for 5 years in writing, verbally and possibly once in the forum. So, they agree with you that ingame options are bad for sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
For the second, I posted the reasons in this forum why I think running speed was changed late in the development, but it's within some other thread.
The key word is arbitrary not variable. When they treat movement speed as arbitrary in a game that's supposed to be to scale it shows that the game is no longer based in reality. They have stepped over the threshold into blatant fantasy that screams at you every time you see a unit run. There is now reason to believe that M2TW will reflect an even more distorted version of reality than the previous games. Total War has become The DaVinci Code of historical gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
The new engine doesn't allow you to change walk, run and charge speeds independently. That was the very first thing I tried to do when I got the game. I certainly had enough experience with the system to immediatly understand there was a problem with movement. The running speeds are ludicrous looking, but the real problem is how they detract from the gameplay. The battles are now a game of "master the interface" instead of tactical sparing where you have time to respond to various threats and the interface plays a minimal role.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
They actually used too much of the old AI in RTW. The old AI isn't suited to using a phalanx, and the RTW AI can't either. One of the chief criticisms of RTW is how the AI doesn't maintain a battleline. It's still using the old AI technique of making individual unit matchups without regard for the unit's flank exposure. This is catastophic for a slow phalanx which has very little power except to the front. I've played mods of RTW, and none of them are able to fix this inept use of phalanx by the AI.
Motion capture is fine, but they didn't scale it to a reasonable speed for the type of battlefield units involved. Practically all the RTW/BI mods slowdown the units. Either whoever chose the speed didn't understand the impact it would have on the gameplay or they did understand and chose the speed for that reason. Of course, CA isn't going to say they didn't understand even if that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Great, but that doesn't help me going online. If there were some options on these things besides on/off, someone could host a game with settings that does improve the gameplay over that which CA deems acceptable. It's relatively easy to improve the gameplay over the official gameplay, although, it's hard to bring the game close to its full potential since that requires very good balancing of many parameters. Unfortunately, balance also includes balancing the unit types, and CA has chosen to include so many units types that they can't possibly balance them in the available time. In addition, there are the missing features, which detracts from the gameplay, in the new battle engine that were in the old battle engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
I'm going to extricate myself from this mire of this debate. It's not worth my time.
Puzz3D does a better job than me of handling the long posts. I reckon CA wouldn't go far wrong hiring him as an adviser. He's got the subject covered.
I'll be watching the The Wallabies or the All Blacks mash up some poor buggers.
Ok, I'm no programmer alright? But I think Dunhill has made a very good argument that the TW AI has so much more potential and the devs at CA aren't doing enough to make it better.
A lot of people here have been defending (wait, you're not employees right? kidding :laugh4:) CA by saying "Total War is so complex", "There are a thousand things for the AI to consider", or by saying things to people like "You don't know how the engine works" or "You're not a programmer", "CA knows better", etc. In my opinion, these are all just lame excuses. People, the Total War AI sucks, we all know it, and (again, I'm not a programmer) while I think we all agree that they can't produce an AI that can perform like Hannibal or Alexander, there has to be SOMETHING they can do.
For instance, on the Strategic part of the AI, how hard could it be to tell the AI to move its armies together and not in tiny bits? Or treat the human player with more consideration (ie. Be more cautious; when at war with the player focus all its resources against the player, etc.)
Or better still, why can't they script the AI to behave a certain, predictable way just to "appear" that it's thinking? I remember how the Danes in MTW remain independent despite the fact that the HRE can take it over instantly, or how the Sicilians manage to launch dozens of ships EVEN if they only have one stinking province, or how the Papacy remains independent (most of the time). What I mean is, there has got to be some type of scripting behind that right? Overall, it gave the factions a lot more "flavor", and the appearance that the AI thinks, that that AI factions have some sort of relationship. A lot will say that the Rome and Medieval 2 campaign maps are much more complicated than the old MTW map, but seriously, do you believe that they can't pull that off? I don't use diplomats in RTW, heck, I don't even move my first diplomat regardless of what faction I play. Why? Because when you go right down to it, it's useless, and you can win the game without allying with anyone and without bothering to talk with anyone. You all KNOW what I'm saying is true. That's how useless the game's AI is, so how could anyone here defend it?
In the battlefield, how hard could it be to prevent the AI from doing stupid things? Many keep arguing, oh there's a hundred unit types, there's terrain, weapon types, armor, fatigue, weather, etc... You know, a lot of this is not really as important as some might consider.
When in the battlefield, not all of this needs to be taken into account ALL the time. There are just a few basic unit types, and that's all the AI really needs to take into account. Like for example, Roman Archers and Archer Warband. How different are these two units? Take Legionnary Cavalry for example, and Cataphracts, how different are they? Sure there are a lot of details that set them apart but take a good look people, they're BOTH heavy cavalry. What I mean is that every unit can be categorized under a certain type, now this doesn't mean that it is exactly the same as another unit in the same category, I don't mean that, BUT what I mean is that it has essentially the same function as that unit, regardless whether it will perform better or worse. Like, how would you use Poeni Infantry and Hoplites for example? Your main battle line, right? Because they essentially have the SAME FUNCTION regardless of morale, fatigue, armor, weapon ... whatever you will STILL use it the same way. If you have, say, gold chevron archers with full armor and weapon upgrades, will you use them as frontline shock troops against say a rookie warband with no upgrades of any kind? Still no (Ok I don't know about you guys but I know I won't, it just doesn't feel right :laugh4:). Here's another battle scenario, If you have a rookie unit of Hastati and a gold chevron general unit with upgrades, for example, and you are faced with a rookie phalanx unit, which unit will you send to hold the phalanx down? The general? No, the Hastati, and you will send the general to the flank or rear. You could argue that I'm generalizing and you're right... But it's the AI I'm talking about.
What I mean is that every unit can be assigned a role, and be told specifically what it should do, most of the time. Like don't send your archers into melee, and keep you main line together, always. Don't charge cavalry into spears, etc. These things can be quantified, right? Like when the value of a unit is 1, with 1 meaning it's a missile unit, then don't make it charge unless the battle is being lost. Yes it's simplistic, but I really believe it can be done. Like I said earlier, I'm not asking for a brilliant, dynamic AI, but at least one that doesn't do stupid things and at least APPEARS to be using its units right.
The Total War battlefield AI does a couple of things very well. It chooses good melee matchups, and good targets for its ranged units. It always did that even back in STW, and since STW had the strongest rock, paper, scissors (RPS) of any Total War game and expensive units like warrior monks had low armor, the AI gave you a good fight. It's my impression that the STW AI was better than the RTW/BI AI at not firing into a melee when friendly units were present. That's not to say the AI did well in skirmishing its ranged units against enemy ranged units, because it didn't. The AI moved it's ranged units around too much which prevented them from shooting. It still seems to have that problem to some degree even in the latest version RTW/BI, and a new problem arose with ranged units entering into melee before using all of their ammo. I believe this is a consequence of lowering the melee combat threshold which the AI uses to trigger a unit to attack. This is probably also why generals suicide against units they can't beat. The threshold should be raised back to where an AI unit doesn't attack if it doesn't have an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crian
Since STW, some features were added to the units, but the AI hasn't been made aware of them. For instance, some units have shields that protect against projectiles, but the AI doesn't seem to understand that and, after advancing, a unit will often change its mind, turn around and walk back to its lines allowing the unit to be decimated by projectiles from behind when the shield was giving adequate protection as long as the unit faced the enemy. While the AI does make an estimate of its chances in the melee, it doesn't seem to make any assessment of its potential losses due to projectiles. The Total War battlefield AI has never done this as far as I can tell which is probably why it has always moved its range units around too much. It doesn't realize that enemy ranged units can cause it casualties. You could see this clearly in RTW when AI units would stand outside a city and loose every man to projectiles from the walls.
Phalanx has been added which is very vulnerable to flank attack, but the AI uses the phalanx individually as it would non-phalanx units. That's a unit that needs an enhanced AI so that it will maintain a battleline with other phalanx units or have lighter units protecting its flanks when engaged. Shield wall is a similar feature which is most effective if a battleline is maintained.
For the Total War AI to improve, it needs another level of complexity where it continuously evaluates the position of each unit relative to the other units in the whole army formation. This would give it the intelligence necessary to maintain a battleline and utilize a tactical reserve, and also allow the AI to integrate reenforcements into an army that's already on the battlefield or coordinate two armies.
The AI also needs to be made aware of fatigue and how to manage it. Large maps increase the importance of managing fatigue.
Surely the difficulty of crafting a killer AI increases greatly every time some good new feature is added, such as better diplomacy or tactical options for the battelfield AI.
My apologies if that point has already been made. I've just come back to the forum after one of my long absences.
Also, I think graphics are an important selling point to potentitial new customers.
People with a high, historical interest in the era or who love strategy will buy this game. Really, there aren't many strategy options unless you want to perform magic, fly through the galaxies or some similar nonsense. Marketing is right to market to target potential new customers.
The need for CA to craft a 'killer AI' has never been a primary concern of veteran TW gamers; most of us would have been quite content with a 'competent AI', one that simply gets the basics right and avoids making ridiculously stupid decisions. Regarding AI Medieval seems to be the only TW title that provides the most consistent challenge on both the tactical & strategic level (especially after modders figured out how to change the AI's build priorities for troops & buildings). Many of us were a tad disappointed that CA & Activision failed to make the improvement of Medieval's AI a priority in the patches or the expansion pack. We didn't think the AI needed a massive boost, only a bit of tweaking to make it 'good enough'. Rome's AI was a full blown step backwards which was all the more shocking considering that the tactical battles (as related solely to unit data & types) were basically the same beast as in Medieval.
People here keep touting the strengths of the AI in the Take Command series, specifically TC2M. It's true that the RTW tactical AI needs alot of work but it's strategic AI needs a complete overhaul; it's simply awful. Understrength stacks led by family members, full stacks led by nameless captains, it's penchance for engaging in multiple front wars, etc. Given that MTW2's strategic gameplay is looking to be even more complicated than Rome's CA had better move heaven and earth to bring the strategic AI up to snuff.
If you want a perfect example of a strategic AI done right check out Galactic Civilizations II by Stardock. GC2 has the best AI of any Civilization style strategy game I've ever played and it doesn't cheat unless you jack up the difficulty levels to where it receives handicap bonuses. I'll go one step further and say that GalCiv2 has one of the best AI opponents ever to be incorporated into a computer game. And yet even after two major patches Stardock is still tweaking the AI so as to improve gameplay and keep veteran gamers coming back for more. Why is it that small, independent developers like Stardock & Madminute Games can create competent (if not downright clever) AI opponents? Perhaps these companies keep a few Nobel Prize caliber programmers on their respective payrolls they're not telling anyone about. Possibly, but I believe it's because these developers made the creation of a strong AI opponent a priority.
Here's a post from one of GalCiv2's developers from the official forums. The subject heading tells you all you need to know about where this developer's priorities are...
http://forums.galciv2.com/index.aspx...164&AID=122241
:jawdrop: ~:shock: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Why AI must evolve after release
To keep the game fresh 6/30/2006 7:35:48 PM
So you've bought the game and you really like it but then time passes and it starts to get old. It's not that the game is boring or bad but that you have figured out how to "beat it". You crank up the difficulty level but then it's ridiculously hard to the point you know you have no chance.
If the game has multiplayer, you play people on-line but as you get further away from the original release, the harder it gets to find people and in particular the harder it gets to find normal people -- people who play the game as it was designed to be played as opposed to exploiting every minor game mechanic flaw to their advantage which tends to suck the fun out.
So ends the typical strategy game. It's usually a question of when, not if, the game reaches the end of its playable lifetime.
When we made Galactic Civilizations II, we budgeted some money for after-release work. We did go a little overboard with that with 1.1 and 1.2 in that the guys just never came down out of "crunch mode" and continued to put in crazy amounts of hours to deliver immense numbers of changes. Now things have returned more to a normal pace and so we look forward to 1.3.
Version 1.3 of GalCiv II will largely involve computer AI work by me. It's not just about making it tougher as much as it is about making it play differently and more intelligently. It will also likely involve creating additional difficulty levels and fixing the $@#$@ thing that causes some AI players to be set to stupid while others are at hard in order to average things out (i.e. someone setting the overall difficulty level to "Painful" only to find that 3 of the AIs are set to being really hard and the other 5 are set to being brain dead -- your best solution for now is to set the players you want to be intelligent or better if you're looking for a challenge and control the players rather than having the overall difficulty system try to guess what kind of gmae you want).
I have a lot of ideas on how to make the game play better, particularly with regard to the CPU option for the AI being able to use better algorithms. The expansion pack, Dark Avatar, will have a LOT LOT more of this kind of thing. But my job is to make sure that the AI continues to provide an interestig experience for players during the summer months.
GalCiv2 is already a fantastic game and is doing remarkably well in sales too boot and yet Stardock continues to patch the game and add tons of free content and improvements with each patch. What's even more astounding is that by 'industry standards' the game is already good enough (and certainly challenging enough) for the casual strategy gamer but the developer is adamant in its commitment to continue to fix and improve the game so as to satisfy even the most skillful of players. Talk about a shining example of game development & publishing.
I've not played Galactic Civilization II, but do remember the Gamespot review absolutely raving with praise about the AI when it first came out. Called it the best available, IIRC. OK. I'm officially jealous.:embarassed:
However, I will point out that the "stupid" AI does mean more battles.
That's not a compliment. I'd rather have one good fight against a tactically competent AI than several hundred hard but stupid horde-killings at a river crossing.
However, I think the AI of RTW attacks everybody, whether it can afford to or not, for a reason. The same with attacking in penny packets of bad units.
A conscious decision was made to greatly increase the pace of the game from MTW1. We all noticed the ridiculously fast-paced tactical battles. The strategy game suffers from the same flaw. More precisely, it suffers its own flaws that stem directly from the core decision to make the game "more exciting" at the expense of logic.
I'd argue that this was a very bad decision, but that's different from calling CA designers idiots. I don't think they're insensitive to consumer demand. I think they tried to attract new customers — admittedly, at the expense of their steady ones — and have paid a big price when the fan base revolted. I think that's part of the reason we're seeing the Medieval period again.
I think they are in danger of loosing the people with a high historical interest and a love of strategy games. These are the people from which the complaints are coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
It would be wrong for us to compare independent developers (ie. Stardock and MadMinute) to CA. :no:
I've played Gal Civ, and yes it is fantastic. I've played both GalCiv 1 and 2, and the AI is really incredible. BUT the truth of the matter is that the learning curve is pretty steep, even when you tone down the difficulty. Games like these target a niche audience, and they satisfy that niche audience by delivering quality gameplay. Total War, on the other hand, is going mainstream, targetting the much, much bigger consumer market. When I first played GalCiv1, it took me more than a dozen restarts to win my first game, because I was used to games being so easy to beat, and this is at the easiest difficulty! After I got that the hang of it I started winning more often... but my point is, had I been a "mainstream" gamer, either I 1.) would not have even given GalCiv a look because of the graphics; or 2.) didn't last 10 minutes playing it because I simply had no patience. I was a bit frustrated at the difficulty at first, but I wanted to keep playing, I was enjoying it! A lot of gamers don't have an imagination to compensate for the lack of visuals nor the patience to learn the nuances of a deep game, that is the sad fact, and CA knows that. The majority rules. :wall:
I have a friend, an FPS and RPG fanatic who has no patience at all with strategy games. He saw me playing Shogun and I tried to impress him by showing him how much you can do, that you are like a real warlord managing your own small empire, how much tactics are needed to win a battle etc.... BUT he can't get over the graphics!! :furious3: He kept saying "What kind of game is that? A contest on who has the prettier formations? Those soldiers look awful!" I wanted to bang his head on the monitor. Now... 3 years later, same person sees Rome, and he goes "OMG! You gotta let me play that!!!" :dizzy2: Sure, he's just one guy, but then I can name several other friends who had almost the same reaction, and I'm sure most of us can relate...
Now... a different friend of mine (also an RPG and FPS person) started playing Rome a few months ago. He was impressed with the graphics as usual and was having a blast playing at Medium/Medium (at this time I have already downloaded mods for Rome and STILL can't enjoy it). After about a week, he finished his first campaign, and then he was back to playing his shooters. I urged him to try another faction or crank up the difficulty, but he didn't want to play it again. Why? He said it was TOO EASY and the end of the campaign sucked (I agree with him on both accounts), and wouldn't want to bother with it anymore. Now... I wonder how many non-veterans had the same reaction to Rome after one campaign? I'm sure there are quite a handful.
CA, you can have your fancy graphics, just make a GAME... not an interactive 3D animation... 'cause at the end of the day, whatever you choose, you will still reap huge amounts of money... but end up satisfying no one if you don't heed calls for better gameplay. The shooter/clickfest market you're trying to tap will buy your product, take a look at the pretty scenery, then lose interest. Or... they could become one of us, loyal fans and veterans who feel that they've been had. :no: :shame:
Wow, the latest few posts contain some really interesting thoughts/good comments:
(Gal Civ programmer quoted by Spino)
I didn't know this, it almost brought tears to my eyes to see such a statement by a programmer! So it ís possible, they dó exist!! (games that are being cared for, with AI as top priority). I think there's a lesson to be learned here by a certain somebody (game company)...Quote:
I have a lot of ideas on how to make the game play better, particularly with regard to the CPU option for the AI being able to use better algorithms. The expansion pack, Dark Avatar, will have a LOT LOT more of this kind of thing. But my job is to make sure that the AI continues to provide an interestig experience for players during the summer months.
This is very, very true IMHO, and this is the message Sega's marketing folks need to pick up on.Quote:
CA, you can have your fancy graphics, just make a GAME... not an interactive 3D animation... 'cause at the end of the day, whatever you choose, you will still reap huge amounts of money... but end up satisfying no one if you don't heed calls for better gameplay. The shooter/clickfest market you're trying to tap will buy your product, take a look at the pretty scenery, then lose interest. Or... they could become one of us, loyal fans and veterans who feel that they've been had.
I hadn't considered this before, it's an interesting line of thougth.... Though I am not sure yet what would be more disturbing: bad strategic AI being the cause of the mini-army flea attacks, or that being the result of a concious design decision? Either way, the result has been a terrible and saddening weakening of the game's strategic gameplay.Quote:
However, I think the AI of RTW attacks everybody, whether it can afford to or not, for a reason. The same with attacking in penny packets of bad units.
A conscious decision was made to greatly increase the pace of the game
from MTW1. We all noticed the ridiculously fast-paced tactical battles. The strategy game suffers from the same flaw. More precisely, it suffers its own flaws that stem directly from the core decision to make the game "more exciting" at the expense of logic.
And to Crian, I could quote you're entire post as it makes perfect sense to me and I fully agree. Not being a progammer either (anything but), I still refuse to believe that the type of common-sense improvements you're suggesting could not be (quite easily even) implemented.
I'm not sure why you disregard Shogun here. IMO, that's the hardest of the three core TW games. I can start up the game on normal and lose pretty easy - either in the tense early turns or later on encountering the late game "Hojo horde" effect. I'm not saying that's because STW has the best AI, but it suggests the AI did not hamstring the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I guess I'm mainly talking about the strategic level here. I believe the STW strategic AI cheats more outrageously than MTWs (ie turns are supposed to be simultaneous but the AI acts after "seeing" your move). I am glad that was toned down in MTW (and is irrelevant in RTW) as it was not fun.
In terms of the battles, I can't recall STW battles being significantly less challenging or easier to exploit than MTWs[1]. And as you indicate about modding MTW, the AI in STW tended to come to the battle with a better mix of troops than in vanilla MTW.
[1]On reflection, I guess the main big problem with STW on the battlefield was the suicidal Daimyo's. Often a few decisive early battles would eliminate several key factions and leave you facing a mass of rebel provinces. I think MTW was better in that regard (less suicidal? more heirs?).
I think STW was more challenging, but MTW provided the challenge in a more fun way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
We don't disagree, Puzz3D. As I said later, there was a:
CA's trying to regain some loyalty, "going back to the roots," so to speak, which I appreciate and consider a good sign.Quote:
core decision to make the game "more exciting" at the expense of logic.
I'd argue that this was a very bad decision, but that's different from calling CA designers idiots. I don't think they're insensitive to consumer demand. I think they tried to attract new customers — admittedly, at the expense of their steady ones — and have paid a big price when the fan base revolted. I think that's part of the reason we're seeing the Medieval period again.
I hope the AI's much better, also. Nobody on the forum has complained more than I have of the graphics tail wagging the gameplay dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crian
:2thumbsup:
You really believe that when you can see a cannon in M2TW, that can't rotate, fire and kill every man in a unit of mounted knights as though they just got hit by vulcan cannon fire? This in a game that purportedly models an era where large cannon were not used against infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
Well that certainly doesn't appear to have changed in M2TW. All you ever hear is the generic term "improved" with regard to the AI, and nothing about the missing features in the battle engine; features that were in the STW/MTW battle engine. Yes the programmers will try to fixup the gameplay in the first patch, but they can only overcome design decisions to a some extent. For example, we already know they won't change movement speed significantly after the game is released because it involves too much work. What M2TW has going for it is that it's a sequel based on the RTW engine, so it's likely that M2TW will not have the staggering number of bugs that RTW had which prevented the RTW v1.2 patch from addressing gameplay issues. Maybe after another two years of effort, modders will have fixed up M2TW so that it plays well, but most likely problems will remain. In the case of RTW/BI, there are strategic and tactical gameplay issues that no modder can address which adversly affect every mod that's been made for RTW/BI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
I don't want TW to become just another PC game among thousands of others. No matter how good or bad the AI has been throughout the series, when it comes to the battlefield there is only one way to find a challenge.....MP. For this reason I lose interest very quickly with SP. IMO that is not good enough, the SP game needs a challenging AI desperately and I hope this will be what transpires with MTW II
......Orda
No, Puzz3D, because I don't watch game videos and certainly don't make judgements of a game based upon them. I don't pay much attention to previews, either, but sometimes read interviews with developers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Frankly, I usually wait until I have a game play, then go to the forum. What I'm reading these days, though, isn't hard information. It's understandable fear that MTW2 will really be RTW2, only worse.
I have been playing GalCiv2 for a couple months now and I must say that the AI has improved immensely and it is nice to see a developer that cares. The newest version made the game much more of a challenge and that is always a good thing. Even though there is no tactical battling in the game (there will be in GalCiv3, btw) the superior gameplay in the strategic portion provides a more than satisfactory experience.
Now if only CA can take note of how well GalCiv2 is selling and realize that it is entirely based on the strength of it's AI, it might bode well for M2TW. I hope all developers take note that a good AI does sell games.
Ok, I will wait for M2TW to hit the computers of my fellow gamers before I make a judgement. But if the consensus is that the AI still sucks, CA will not get my $50 and we will both be poorer because of it.