why arent they talking at all about the AI?

Quote:

---

Intolerable not because of the typically immature attitudes but because of the knee jerk, sledgehammer tactics utilized by the mods to deal with any kind of negative feedback.

---

Well, with most of the forum audience being aged 16 and below, the awkward bulletin board format and a lot of posts per day, most topics didn't stay on a page for long at all. Meaningful discussion was and is almost impossible there, which is why true fans quickly find totalwar.org and twcenter.net

The mods of course wouldn't take well to "CA die" threads, so those were deleted & banned. And rightfully so. Be glad CA don't use the totalwar.com forum very much to find out what the fans really want. Then again, they might just visit gamespot and browse the reviews.... 9 9 10 9.5 8.8 10 10 etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Well, with most of the forum audience being aged 16 and below, the awkward bulletin board format and a lot of posts per day, most topics didn't stay on a page for long at all. Meaningful discussion was and is almost impossible there, which is why true fans quickly find totalwar.org and twcenter.net

---

Unfortunately true. Any decent threads are buried under a deluge of spam, and soon disappear off the first page and are lost. The mods over there just close anything that may be controversial. Religious and political discussions may cause flaming so they're not allowed. Even nationalistic threads are banned. Anything that even looks like it may become a controversial thread is closed just in case. As a result the place is stagnant, heavily restricted and dull. The closing of threads is very random. Spam is usually closed if it's a thread that was deliberately started as a spam thread. Other threads that go off topic are often not spotted for a long time, often the mods will join in and not bother closing it, then another admin will finally arrive and close a thread that other mods have been posting in! Anything that doesn't fit CA's policies is usually closed in an instant though...

I don't care much about the messageboard format over there, ok so they've got no signatures and avatars, that's not the issue. The content is more important, but any decent content is being stifled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

The mods of course wouldn't take well to "CA die" threads, so those were deleted & banned. And rightfully so. Be glad CA don't use the totalwar.com forum very much to find out what the fans really want. Then again, they might just visit gamespot and browse the reviews.... 9 9 10 9.5 8.8 10 10 etc...

---

Any criticism of CA, that goes beyond mild criticism, is snuffed out. Fair enough they left the great turns debate open, but that was because they knew that they couldn't supress it without closing the board altogether.

Any questions addressed to the CA staff about the AI were ignored or responded to in this fashion: "I was sieging a castle and I just had to stop and look at the [insert eye candy] in awe...". This is what has led people to believe that CA are not interested in improving the AI. People only have the words posted in the press releases, interviews and the forums to go by, so you have to understand that people may make assumptions. Some people's responses were way over the top, and caused a further tightening of the rules. The "[insert country name] should be included in the game" threads caused the nationalist threads ban. This is the problem, instead of addressing problems with subtelty their heavy handed administration just go straight for the throat and simply outlaw anything that may cause a problem. But the situation at .com is: Juvenile idiots make a mess of the forums: Everyone, including the repsonsible members have to be bound by the same childish restrictions brought into effect to control these idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

Do you think it's because sega's putting some pressure on them to make the 'casual' gamer the new priority?

---

The shift in direction occured under Activision. Sega has paid for more patches than Activision, but the direction the gameplay is being taken seems to be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

Personally I don't care much either way, when the game comes out, whether it's a work of art or otherwise, somebody will put together a team and mod their hearts out, and make an extremely enjoyable game for all of us.

---

Not for multiplayer. Even for singleplayer there are certain things no mod team can change because they are being kept inaccessible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Did you manage to read what Dr. Jambo wrote before his post was deleted? Do you have a link to the thread he posted in?

---

I don't know what he posted. I've been trying to get a hold of him to find out. I can't find the thread now, but I did find this posted by an admin at .com in a thread about the Alexander mini-expansion: "There doesn't need to be a thread commenting on the problems people are having. That is simply spam and serves no constructive purpose. Closed."

The MTW gold edition issue was treated similarly. When the version 2.0 problem was exposed. An admin posted a day later and basically said: "use the VI 2.01 patch" (which you can't) and then closed all the topics relating to the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordHugh

Mainly because the mass-market seems to be more interested in games looking great instead of playing great. CA also have the problem of having to balance the game so people new to it or people with very little knowledge of tactics (which I'm betting is the vast majority) won't be completely over-run by the AI. Unfortunately this means the game is less challenging and often more frustrating for the more seasoned players who expect AI improvements in every new iteration of the game.

---

That's what difficulty settings are for. So this is no reason to not improve the AI. Without substantial AI improvements this game is not even worth buying.

Yes....personally I will probably try a "friend's" copy first to see what the improvements to the AI are like. If it's just more eye-candy like RTW was to MTW, then I will not be buying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

a "friend's" copy

---

Nice euphemism, got to rember that one.

Although that's basically what the demo is for, to see if you like the game.

Normally yes, but CA heavily scripted the demo and let the AI come so close that there was hardly any time for manouevring left once the battle started. So you cannot really get a good idea of the AI. However if they do that trick again it will be for me a clear sign that they want to hide something. And of course the unitspeed will play a big role on wether I will lend a friend's copy for the first time :wink:

I borrowed a friend's copy of RTW too, just to get it a day or 2 before the release over here (belgium). But then I bought it to get a CD key for MP. But I doubt I'll be needing one for MTW2.

If the multiplayer balance is similar to RomeTW at first, you won't be missing out: All Cav armies at first...

Plus a quick 1.1 patch to get started in the first place.
Plus a gamespy arcade that seems to drop random people while other (or the same) people are lacking in connection.

But at least you won't have the Romans with automatically the strongest melee troops and cav and pretty good missiles, which is nice i guess...

CA might defend itself with saying that the AI shouldn't be much of a challenge -- but that's where the learning curve comes in, huh? Games, if they are on computers or not, are supposed to be challenges. In video games that challenge is either provided by the AI or online.

As such, everything else is secondary and is there merely to provide a credible platform from which the AI or another human player can provide a fair and straightforward challenge that is not insurmountable.

What does this imply? That the AI can be cunning like never before and still a game doesn't have to be a drag for 'newbies'. Part of the fun in strategy games, is, after all, learning and growing into a fearsome general.

As such any argumentation going along the lines of "let's not make this too hard on the new players" is null and void. If you don't want a challenge then don't play games.

Oh... and on the .com: it reminds me more of North Korea than anything else. ~:)

Hey, you know the origin of the disclaimer "game experience may change in online play" comes from right ~;)

:wall:

Its a shame that CA doesn't open up the source code for some parts of their Total War games so that the devotees can fine tune their games beyond Mods. I know the ability to Mod already has allowed for some phenomenal revisions to the Total War games but the AI issue has been raging since the release of Rome.

I know its wishful thinking but I could imagine having learning and adapting enemies or at least ones that didn't do moronic things that allows me to slaughter them.

At the very east, CA could provide the game with some kind of code that can be switched on or off via use of the 'arcade battles' button that would allow the computer to store a small database of the human player's movements in battle, and search it's own coding for a reasonable counter to that movement, so that when the computer sees it happening again in a later battle, it could provide more of a challenge by attempting to counteract a tactical movement it already recognizes as having lost to once before...lets face it, no matter what you do, the only real tactical movement the computer makes, is realigning its lines with your own to prevent you from having one flank significantly stronger than theirs.

I read earlier in this thread speculation that CA is trying to appeal to the casual gamer to widen its audiance. Let me put it this way, There are people who like and play strategy games, and there are those that don't. Any attempt to make a strategy game appeal to people who don't usually play strategy games is delusional. You would have to change the game so much that it is no longer a strategy game. CA should consider the wants of their core audiance first. If they lose them, its all over.

Quote:

---

If they lose them, its all over.

---

No, it's not, but then CA become dependent on having hit titles. That's not a problem as they are dependent on that already, as is any company in the (for consoles, still lucrative) business of gaming.

As a sidenote, CA is being awefully quiet on fora, that means they must be working hard on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

At the very east, CA could provide the game with some kind of code that can be switched on or off via use of the 'arcade battles' button that would allow the computer to store a small database of the human player's movements in battle, and search it's own coding for a reasonable counter to that movement, so that when the computer sees it happening again in a later battle, it could provide more of a challenge by attempting to counteract a tactical movement it already recognizes as having lost to once before...lets face it, no matter what you do, the only real tactical movement the computer makes, is realigning its lines with your own to prevent you from having one flank significantly stronger than theirs.

---

I think I mentioned this before on another thread but I wondered if CA could outline for the AI generals a database the same way that you'd have if you played chess against the computer. Depending upon the scenarios you put before the computer it would do its best (according to the play level you selected) to anticipate and counteract your moves. A great general would have full access to this strategic base and try to plan ways to smash your defense or neutralize your offense. I imagine it would be like playing against the computer at Grandmaster level where within a few moves the AI already envisions its victory against you.

Overall though, I would like to say that I'm not bashing CA or its AI... I still enjoy their games immensely but just wish there was a little more fine tuning. I imagine that they read these forums and refer to us with a roll of their eyes as the AI-Fanatics.. hehe

Remember, they didn't think players would notice that the AI forgot what it was doing when a savegame was reloaded.

Thank you for reminding me.

More importantly, instead of making an announcement that they would try to fix as quickly as possible, they shoved it under the carpet. And giving idea that the community overreacted and that it wasn't a gamebreaker. Only to fix it in a patch as if it was a bug.

If AI is just a bug, then it's akin to those old b movies "Them" or "Earth VS The Giant Spider". But, in light of that, in both of those movies people ended up squashing the bugs anyway. So rather than getting my panties all up in a bunch, I'm just gonna sit, wait, and hope we're all getting uppity over nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

If AI is just a bug, then it's akin to those old b movies "Them" or "Earth VS The Giant Spider". But, in light of that, in both of those movies people ended up squashing the bugs anyway.

---

SEGA/CA didn't squash the siege bug in RTW/BI before they cut and ran. They even have the nerve to sell an add-on to a game that will get no more debugging. Apparently, the same bug is in the RTW Gold Edition and will be in the Eras Edition. SEGA/CA have brought a new meaning to the term "Gold Edition". Just look at the MTW Gold Edition fiasco. Hoping that M2TW is somehow going to follow a different path is just wishfull thinking.

...I'm going to start referring to the people in this thread as the "gloom-n-doomers"

i don't expect much from an AI to make the game more challenging.... it's simple as: keeping it's main line solid, which means that individual units do not act independently and choose their "weak" targets--or a group of units of that line will act as ONE unit; and keeping flanks secure with mobile forces having them be the deciding factor, acting more independently, free to make sorties from the main line, charging a unit with more than one unit if possible, and always flankng the enemy's line and not being lured into charging the center of it.... basically if the AI is more reserved and keeps solidity of its units exposing the least possible flanks, i would have a difficult time winning.

as for a group of units becoming one unit, let's say a group of five phalangite units for example, an attack from a single enemy unit on its line should stop the entire group's advance, so to keep its integrity as a solid line and not have its non-engaged units continue to advance and or merge into that single enemy unit. As they do in defensive stance, a group of infantry units should keep it's form, be a single unit--make a unit's flank glued to other units on its sides or something. That is all i ask.

By asking multiple units to 'glue' themselves together the way you suggest you're actually asking for worse ai than the computer already uses. A group of five hoplite units being stopped by one unit of whatever is utterly pointless. It would cause all five of those units to sit and do nothing as you flanked or wrapped around and charged them from the rear, this is easy enough to do now the way it is, but you're asking for a free, resistanceless shot to the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

By asking multiple units to 'glue' themselves together the way you suggest you're actually asking for worse ai than the computer already uses.

---

An interesting debate. I certainly use the phalanx wall against the AI, but I can see it might be harder to pull off against a human - which is why historically phalanxes need strong flankers like hypaspists and Companions.

RTR Platinum improves the hoplites a lot by just getting rid of the phalanx formation altogether. They are a big, dense unit of spears. They move fast, so are not easily flanked and destroyed piecemeal. Plus they only have spears, so you don't get the "switching to swords" vulnerability of pikemen. I think the AI just struggles with the phalanx formation - it's too slow and vulnerable.

Making phalanxes fast may even have some authenticity with the medieval Swiss, who are supposed to have attacked at the run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

By asking multiple units to 'glue' themselves together the way you suggest you're actually asking for worse ai than the computer already uses. A group of five hoplite units being stopped by one unit of whatever is utterly pointless. It would cause all five of those units to sit and do nothing as you flanked or wrapped around and charged them from the rear, this is easy enough to do now the way it is, but you're asking for a free, resistanceless shot to the back.

---

Good point. i would imagine it won't be wholly unrealistic for the entire mile of phalanx line to stop for some suicidal unit to tackle it, so it won't break, if that ever happened. so what do you suggest then, to have all units in the line converge thus caving in the flanks and opposing no walls to its opponent? i see your point tho, a suicide unit can tackle/hold the entire center line while you can envelope around to the flanks and to the rear. For instances like these however you have as i suggested flexible flanks that are free to make sorties from the base (center line) and clear the nuisance and then quickly return to its original position; the distress caused by the number of enemy plus cavalry units hitting it on its sides will quickly cause a route so the line can proceed to engage the enemy's main body in good order.

AI should organize its units in two categories, flanks and center: center being the platform/base or operation while the flanks work off of it--flanks of course the opposite, as being flexible--and units should have this labeling so AI could easily organize its line...

My point in previous post is that rtw ends up being a wild geese chase; units ending up all over the friggin map. And it is true, whether a force of men is static or highly flexible, if they are consolidated in a sound form, it will be difficult to defeat--not to mention the fact that it will keep the game experience from being a major pain of meaningless chase from one end of the map to another to end the battle. given the technical limitation, AI should follow such fundamentals as keeping form or consolidation of force, as its priority. keep it simple, stupid--so to speak.

The AI in rome has the fault of having no hierarchal structure by which it should give commands. It solely gives commands to each unit individually and tries to maintain them within a fair distance of one another. What should occur is a simple coding of hierarchy into the way the ai thinks, with formation, solidity, effectiveness of unit placement against the opposing unit type and mobility of formation taken into account when it engages the enemy. Instead of just moving x number of units with individual agendas towards the enemy but keeping them within a close enough distance of each other to appear as if they're moving in unison with one singular plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeeSting

Good point. i would imagine it won't be wholly unrealistic for the entire mile of phalanx line to stop for some suicidal unit to tackle it, so it won't break, if that ever happened.

---

If we are going the historical way then it would actually be very difficult for the whole line to stop just because a part of is attacked. It would be near impossible to control a line that is so wide. Polybius mentions the problems the Macedonain Phalanx has against the Roman legion, as it doesnt have any reserves when holes appear because of local combat (units either pulling back or advancing) or differences in terrain when advancing.


CBR

Quote:

---

SEGA/CA didn't squash the siege bug in RTW/BI before they cut and ran. even have the nerve to sell an add-on to a game that will get no more debugging.

---

Your kidding me right? The load/save bug was fixed in 1.3/1.4, then Ca bough out patches 1.5/1.6 that fixed bugs with 1.3 and 1.4. Alright not all bugs were but some were. Plus the ai got improvements. Now i hardly call that cut and run tactics do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

Your kidding me right? The load/save bug was fixed in 1.3/1.4, then Ca bough out patches 1.5/1.6 that fixed bugs with 1.3 and 1.4. Alright not all bugs were but some were. Plus the ai got improvements. Now i hardly call that cut and run tactics do you?

---

If they hadn't fixed the load/save issue, they would have been a laughing stock in the gaming industry. If they leave the seige bug in RTW/BI, then they have cut and run since it's not just an AI or playbalance issue, but it's probaby deemed not very damaging to their image and future product sales. Alexander is version v1.9. Is this a marketing ploy designed to make you think RTW/BI will get a v1.7/v1.8 patch?