No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms (update: Kingdoms patch announced)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

encourage magazines such as PC Gamer to recognized our problems with CA,

---

Hate to be the barer of bad news, but PC gaming mags are in on the business model mate. Bad reviews = less ads and less games sold which = less games being played which = less readers.

Incestual inst it? :rolleyes:

It is slightly encouraging that, while extolling BioShock elsewhere in PC Gamer, they do include a bit about the activation and copy-protection woes in the letters section of the most recent issue. Besides, there isn't much to lose by letting the magazine know our opinion. They won't sell much advertising if they stop serving their readers.

I still cant understand why people call SEGA corporation CA...
I mean after the sellout there isnt a CA as independed entity there are just bunch of SEGA emploees...So people take out your rose glasses SecuRom isnt nothing but the fruit of SEGA's imaginary decision to supposedly protect their investment...
Ive informed a CA emploee 3 years ago about a site that hosts cracks for ALL TW games included Kingdoms...I was told that the matter would be forwarded to a responsible person...as its obvious nothing happened...
Securom only "protects" games that are frequently patched and still doesnt protect the popular titles cause every patched exe is cracked within hours...
The only thing that SEGA managed is to lose more customers while earning none from the pirate population...
Hell even Starforce is easily cracked on hardware level...
It seems that corporations like SEGA arent that bright being bullied by their fear of piracy into using invasive software and paying HUGE amounts of money for that software...Only if they could open their eyes and see what companies like Blizzard do...I can bet anything that StarCraft2 wont have ANY invasive copy protection but ONLY the strongest protection available: ONLINE MP FOCUS...

Quote:

---

I still cant understand why people call SEGA corporation CA...
I mean after the sellout there isnt a CA as independed entity there are just bunch of SEGA emploees..

---

Whilst we may be owned by SEGA, we are still our own Studio and are pretty much left alone.

Well, I only really had one major issue with the game & that was the alliance units in teuton, however I downloaded a mod someone made & its fixed.

Since then I've been playing crusades & the whole deal with the forts has really, really got me down.

Its not moddable, infact it is out of the game altogether based on the statements made by Caliban.

Since my initial enthusiasm for Kingdoms, I'm left feeling that an almighty balls up was made in the final release.

Whoever made the decision to ship, when an amazingly obvious new feature is missing really deserves a round of applause. The forts are even in the crusader intro movies.

I appreciate CA having the cojones to come on the boards & post, which is more than you get from many companies, but the forts is a complete game breaker for me, & I don't say that lightly.

Like many others here I've been playing since STW & have bought every release since then, during that time, & through all those games, (5 years on these boards ffs), my only real issue, (excluding the occasional incoherent rant), was that there weren't assassination movies, which was more of a joke than anything.

Presently it feels like I've purchased something which is not broken but which is simply not finished, I can't think of anything that makes it acceptable, (on any level), to sell a product that is missing one of its key new features.

I have a very strong suspicion that the fixed placement forts in the Britannia campaign were put there simply to "cover" the stone forts so that they could be checked off as included.

Anyway this is getting a bit long, & depressing the hell out of me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lusted

Whilst we may be owned by SEGA, we are still our own Studio and are pretty much left alone.

---

Cmon Jack lets get real...Would you condone the inclusion of such invasive and useless malware as Securerom? Even if you say no to the above question its not up to you or up to any SEGA emploee...
So lets get real its a capitalist world for christs sake...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Cmon Jack lets get real...Would you condone the inclusion of such invasive and useless malware as Securerom? Even if you say no to the above question its not up to you or up to any SEGA emploee...
So lets get real its a capitalist world for christs sake...

---

Whether or not to include any copyright protection is indeed SEGA's decision because CA doesn't have anything to do with organising how the game is shipped.

However "largely left alone" is a pretty flexible statement. It includes anything from no interference in the design process at all to "push this game out, this minute."

My guess is that SEGA will make the main decisions while leaving the details to CA. And of course the options the SEGA management decides on are probably presented by CA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lusted

Whilst we may be owned by SEGA, we are still our own Studio and are pretty much left alone.

---

SEGA made a decision (SecureRom) that's keeping at least some of us from buying Kingdoms. Apparently, they've also made the decision to refuse to even address this issue publicly, or promise a removal utility that can be used when uninstalling the game. That alone would sell more copies of Kingdoms, and make a bunch of people less wary about what's coming along for the ride with Empire.

So far, we've seen zero interest from either CA or Sega in addressing this issue publicly. You've responded to plenty of other comments in this thread, and that's the one issue that you've been totally silent about. Why?

The bottom line is that I can't enjoy and respect the creativity of the developer's studio, if the publisher is trashing the product with invasive DRM, and the studio is being silent about the issue. At the point, the two merge into the same problem from the customer's perspective. So there is really no distinction there between the two companies, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

SEGA made a decision (SecureRom) that's keeping at least some of us from buying Kingdoms. Apparently, they've also made the decision to refuse to even address this issue publicly, or promise a removal utility that can be used when uninstalling the game. That alone would sell more copies of Kingdoms, and make a bunch of people less wary about what's coming along for the ride with Empire.

So far, we've seen zero interest from either CA or Sega in addressing this issue publicly. You've responded to plenty of other comments in this thread, and that's the one issue that you've been totally silent about. Why?

---

I can imagine the reaction if Lusted commented on that without permission.

It wouldn't be pretty, and everyone would be disappointed - the SEGA PR guys for not phrasing things correctly; and us, because we'll always find something to moan about on an issue as contentious as that :grin2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

I can imagine the reaction if Lusted commented on that without permission.

---

Well, I wasn't expecting an off-the-cuff reply without permission. And it's not like they haven't had plenty of time to think this over and respond by now. How long has it been since we identified the SecureRom issues? Anyway, I thought it was worth a shot, since (AFAIK) there hasn't been any comment over on the .com forums either. Where else can we ask about this, after all?

Of course, refusing to comment is also an answer. CA/Sega wouldn't hurt their current position any by saying "Yes, we know about how you feel, but this is the method we've chosen. We don't care that we're leaving behind hidden and potentially harmful files after a game uninstall, and we've decided to write off any lost sales due to people shying away from invasive DRM. That's our decision and we're sticking to it."

CA/Sega's silence about this is saying exactly the same thing. It would just be nice to have it explicit, rather than implicit if that's the bad news. And I'd still welcome good news... like hearing that they've negotiated for a full uninstall utility with Sony. Either way, I could finally quit wondering whether I'll be able to buy and enjoy Kingdoms one day, or not.

I'm just amazed that people really believe that things will ever change. Activision curtailed the patching process and CA under SEGA are no different. In fact, if anything we've had less patches under this new partnership. (But then that's also because RTW, in my opinion, needed more patching in the first place!)

I'll be really honest in saying that I won't miss this engine that has been used to create Rome and Med 2. Rome was chronically poor, was completely bug-ridden and the AI was fallable in every area I can think of. Med 2 is marginally better, but still suffers from the lingering failings of the same engine. In fact, much the progress that had been made with patching process in Rome wasn't even present in vanilla Med 2, possibly becuase there was some overlapping in development...? Anyway, it's essentially due to the way both games were designed, i.e. the engine behind the graphics, and couple that with an archaic, un-user friendly UI, and this all conspires to the frustrate the gamer.

And now, here's something controversial...

I actually believe that both RTW and Med 2 are comparatively poor strategy games, in that there's not really much strategy in them! I don't feel I have to be particularly bright nor strategically minded to play either Rome or Med 2. In fact, barring maybe the initial 20 turns or so, both games become an exercise in automation. Build troops, conquer city, build troops, conquer city. There's no critical decision making processes and without these, there is no strategy.

There is a small amount of tactical nous required, but believe me when I say it's 'small'. Once you've learned the simple formula of 'engage infantry, flank with cav, chain rout defenders', that's essentially it for field battles. The formula is known. Then it's just a matter of repeating this in each battle. The difference in ability of spears, swords and axes isn't great enough to warrant major tactical decisions on unit match-ups. Swords, axes and spears can all be used to hold the line long enough until the cav can flank. Therefore, thinking about proper unit match-ups isn't important. It's just a matter of infantry line vs infantry line and then whoever uses their cavalry the most effectively wins. Sieges are worse because the design is more complicated than the AI's ability to successfully cope with it.

As soon as TotalWar games become a little bit more than just 'Total War' then we might have a strategy game on our hands. For instance, one which comes with a working economic side and an interesting and working diplomatic system which isn't based around the simple premise of 'Total War'.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

I actually believe that both RTW and Med 2 are comparatively poor strategy games, in that there's not really much strategy in them! I don't feel I have to be particularly bright nor strategically minded to play either Rome or Med 2. In fact, barring maybe the initial 20 turns or so, both games become an exercise in automation. Build troops, conquer city, build troops, conquer city. There's no critical decision making processes and without these, there is no strategy.

There is a small amount of tactical nous required, but believe me when I say it's 'small'. Once you've learned the simple formula of 'engage infantry, flank with cav, chain rout defenders', that's essentially it. The formula is known. Then it's just a matter of repeating this in each battle. I lose 1 battle every 20 or so.

As soon as TotalWar games become a little bit more than just 'Total War' then we might have a strategy game on our hands. For instance, one which comes with a working economic side and an interesting and working diplomatic system which isn't based around the simple premise of 'Total War'.

Regards

---

Aaahhh, please go to the head of the class. STW while still "total war" required a fair amount of planning on the strategic level well into the game (at least for me on higher levels). Perhaps your point might be part of the cause for all the anguish over a weak AI? when really its not the AI at all but the tactical game at the campaign level?

Excellent post.

:medievalcheers:

Indeed Odin. The campaign AI certainly doesn't lend itself to helping the tactical AI. Alliances are not meaningful since the AI of allied factions won't combine their forces - this did happen in Med 1. The more simple 'Risk' style of campaign map ironically offered more strategy.

On the tactical side, Shogun's limited, but specific, unit roster offered the best tactical challenge on the battlemap of them all.... and it was simple in comparison.

The older TW titles are a good example of how greater complexity doesn't necessarily = greater strategy. In my opinion the later TW titles have suffered from over-complicated new features and the resulting dilution of existing concepts. It's clear to me that the rate the AI is progressing (debatable anyway) isn't in line with the progression being made elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Indeed Odin. The campaign AI certainly doesn't lend itself to helping the tactical AI. Alliances are not meaningful since the AI of allied factions won't combine their forces - this did happen in Med 1. The more simple 'Risk' style of campaign map ironically offered more strategy.

On the tactical side, Shogun's limited, but specific, unit roster offered the best tactical challenge on the battlemap of them all.... and it was simple in comparison.

The older TW titles are a good example of how greater complexity doesn't necessarily = greater strategy. In my opinion the later TW titles have suffered from over-complicated new features and the resulting dilution of existing concepts. It's clear to me that the rate the AI is progressing (debatable anyway) isn't in line with the progression being made elsewhere.

---

I agree, and in reflection the unit rosters in Shogun were a blessing due to thier simplicity. understanding of course that it was a game exclusive to one culture and that might make it an exception to the rule (being the only TW game in that vein). You simply couldnt buy yourself a better army, you might buy more, but not better quality.

The diversity of the faction and campaign map of later titles led to the unit diversity that leaves a somewhat unchallenging feel. All one has to do is spend 20 turns building an economic base and one can buy a volumous army with quality troops. Take the English in MTW2, longbows that can deploy spears, there really isnt an equivical unit in other rosters so unless the AI is able to 1. predetermine the composition of your army and adjust its army roster to counter your strengths, and 2. is able to actually field the requsite unit type (in the example of the english, a ponny unit that can outflank before it is whittled down to obscurity).

Again your bringing forth good arguments for the reasons why any patch wouldnt necessarily make the game harder, in CA's brilliance for offering us diversity it has removed the tactical elements required to deal with an AI that has the same resource base, troop roster and agent structure as you.

Bravo

Other than maybe tweaking aspects of the faltering AI some more, I admit it's hard to see how another patch will really solve many of these deep rooted problems. Ok, CA could fix the Kingdoms features that weren't implemented properly or completely, and given that these were promised it might be nice to see them fixed. It probably won't make me play Kingdoms or Med 2 again, since these type of features aren't what keep me interested in playing.

It's the continuous requirement for thought, strategy and an overall challenge that keeps me interested and prolongs a game's longevity. The kind of patch CA would release, if they did one, won't solve these. I can only look to Empire for hope. It will use a brand new engine so things will definitely be different. No doubt that in itself will bring an altogether new set of 'issues'.

You know one of the things that griped me most? The strategic UI of all things! The scroll list for agents and finding your pieces in the mid to late-game when you had a large empire. I found it so infuriating as I'd often lose agents and forget to move pieces from turn to turn.... Why o why couldn't they at the very least have updated the UI in Med 2 and made it more user friendly and intuitive....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Other than maybe tweaking aspects of the faltering AI some more, I admit it's hard to see how another patch will really solve many of these deep rooted problems. Ok, CA could fix the Kingdoms features that weren't implemented properly or completely, and given that these were promised it might be nice to see them fixed. It probably won't make me play Kingdoms or Med 2 anymore, since features aren't what keeps me interested in playing.

---

I think its there duty to fix features that were advertised with the release of the game, and this garnishes the most sympathy from me of users who are complaining about patches, however its not unexpected.

Quote:

---

I can only look to Empire for hope. It will use a brand new engine, so things will definitely be different. However, no doubt that will bring with it an altogether new set of 'issues'.

---

Empire has piqued my intrest for the simple fact that the time period lends to a more equitable distribution in force structure. Brining us back somewhat to the equities discussed in STW, Line infantry for the major combatants of the napleonic era werent vastly different as opposed to the mediveal period. The formal professional armies of Empires should provide more balance, and then by default more strategic planning longer into the game.

Quote:

---

You know one of the things that griped me most? The strategic UI of all things! The scroll list for agents and finding your pieces in the mid to late-game when you had a large empire. I found it so infuriating as I'd often lose agents and forget to move pieces from turn to turn....

---

Yes its a pain in the butt, there is a seperate scroll but it dosent feel right. What kills me about MTW2 is my assasins cant kill my generals or princesses. Given that a faction heir can be adopted on a whim this makes prunning the family line a greviance for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Indeed Odin. The campaign AI certainly doesn't lend itself to helping the tactical AI. Alliances are not meaningful since the AI of allied factions won't combine their forces - this did happen in Med 1. The more simple 'Risk' style of campaign map ironically offered more strategy.

On the tactical side, Shogun's limited, but specific, unit roster offered the best tactical challenge on the battlemap of them all.... and it was simple in comparison.

The older TW titles are a good example of how greater complexity doesn't necessarily = greater strategy. In my opinion the later TW titles have suffered from over-complicated new features and the resulting dilution of existing concepts. It's clear to me that the rate the AI is progressing (debatable anyway) isn't in line with the progression being made elsewhere.

---

I completely agree. I think the main failing of the game is the exceptionally poor strategic AI. A great deal of this is probably due to the switch from the Risk-style territory map to the wide-open RTW/M2TW map. I personally love the RTW/M2TW campaign map system, but I just don't think the AI can handle it because it is far, far more complex. I would prefer for CA to revert to the STW/MTW territory based map if it will result in a significant improvement in the strategic AI.

The M2TW tactical AI can still use improvement, but it's not horrible. It can still beat you given the right armies in the right situations. It's the strategic AI that constantly fails to produce these armies and situations. Fixing the strategic AI should thus be the #1 priority of the developers IMO. Everything else would fall into line after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Fixing the strategic AI should thus be the #1 priority of the developers IMO. Everything else would fall into line after that.

---

The battle engine model is not up to the standard it once was, and neither is the network code. The areas that need improvement are:

1. Strategic AI
2. Tactical AI
3. Economic/Diplomatic model
4. Battle Engine model
5. Network performance
6. Playbalance

All of these areas suffered because limited resources were applied to graphics improvements which increased the system requirements needed to run the game. There is apparently a large market that embraces system resource hogging visuals over these other six areas.

I've given up any hope that they will improve the AI in a potential patch. I don't expect an AI overhaul from a patch (though it is kind of expected that an expansion pack should attempt this.... ). However, I still think that they should at least iron out obviously broken issues. If the game cannot be reinvented, it can nevertheless be finished.

My biggest gripes, horrible unit cohesion and pike behavior, fall into this category of unfinished game. They have already tinkered with these problems in previous patches, but they couldn't get it right. All that I am asking is that they finish the job they have started and got paid to do, if the capability is there.

I prefered the 'risk' style map also. Especially for the AI's sake:laugh4:

(re-tryinng to post, the system seems to have logged me out, hope it doesn't double-post now)
Hi,

like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the no-more-patch strategy for M2TW. Due to the DRM issue, I have not (and will not) buy Kingdoms, but I was still holding out for a patch of the grand campaign. Since CA seems to be reading this thread, I though I'd add my voice to those unsatisfied with this. My view on the situation follows:

I can agree with people who say that the game really isn't challenging enough and there's too little stategic element, but OTOH I must admit that I've still had a lot of fun with the game. It's been a long time since I played a game for this many hours, but I still can't help feeling disappointed when the game is abandoned without really being finished. I realize CA/SEGA do not really have an economic incentive to patch the game, since they can make more money from making brand new games, and even if they lose a lot of "loyal fans", they will gain enough new buyers from the "younger generation" seeing flashy graphics to take that cost.
At this point, I'd actually be prepared to pay (probably the same amount I payed for the initial game) for a patch++ for this game if it fulfilled the followiong criteria which would prolong me playing this game for a long time:
(Not that I believe that this will happen....)

- No DRM (the game is anyway at end-of-life, so why not remove the restrictions, I don't want to have an optical drive plugged into my windows more than necessary)
- Fix the autocalc-for-siege-battles (i.e. castles/cities not being counted)
- Fix the flashflood bug
- Fix the passive battle AI when player is sallying
- Minor fixes to the diplomatic AI. Mainly, remove the random blockading. I'd be fine with removing the blockade option altogether if it meant the AI stop declaring really really stupid wars. Other improvements would be appreciated, but not necessary
- Improve army composition for the campaign AI (i.e. stop building militia-only or artillery-only etc). Balanced AI armies with more quality units would make this game soooo much more difficult, and implementation should not be very hard, IMO
- Make the battle AI protect its ranged units with spears&cav and so that they react when nearby units gets charged! With this not-so-large-fix, I guess the battles would be much harder, since you can't abuse away all ranged AI units with cavalry before engaging. Possibly more costly to implement, but not too much?
- More simple-to-set options when starting a campagin (e.g. set frequency of rebel spawn). I know can go into config files, but seriously, should I have to for features that people frequently want to change?
- Some UI improvements for ease of use (such as those suggesed slightly above in this thread)

None of the above feels like they would be that costly to implement (of course depending on how the code is done). And although it's not fair that we would have to pay for patching the game to what it should have been initially, I'd do so just to get things fixed. I think the game still has great potential for me to spend time on it.

What I will *not* pay for at this point is:
- Kingdoms (the DRM in question is a dealbreaker for me)
- Empires (more of the same treatment without having *this* game fixed? No thanks)
- Flashy graphic, more sound
- More units, maps/campaigns (if I want this, modders can provide it for me, and what's the point as long as the game is broken?)

What bothers me the most in M2 (beside the obvious bugs, ofc), is the complete lack of self-perseverance on the AI's part.
On the strategic level, a faction stubbornly refuses to accept ceasefire, even if reduced to one settlement, defended only by the king and few catapult units.
During the battle, the AI cavalry and general will happily pin them self onto my stakes, or pikes. And there are more similar examples.

This very much destroys the immersion, by not giving me a feeling that I wage a war against a "real" nation, but rather against some mindless computer-controled blobs.

If THAT can be fixed in the next patch, I promise to buy every future title coming from the CA ~D

KING RICHARD III Act 5. Scene IV

Slave, I have set my life upon a cast, (Total War addiction)
And I will stand the hazard of the die: (CA development method)
I think there be six Richmonds in the field; (game killing bugs)
Five have I slain to-day instead of him. (playing mods)
A patch! a patch! my Kingdoms for a patch!

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

A patch! a patch! my Kingdoms for a patch!

---

:laugh4: :medievalcheers:
.

I think it's ridiculous that the mods (that is, a free content created by users in their spare time) are getting patches, and the original game is not and the company which lives off of this product is not going to do anything about it. There is something absurd about this state of affairs.

To be honest, I'm completely unsurprised. When I played the expansion I didn't notice any obvious bugs, and the only "weakness" is the AI. The AI being "fixed" in a patch is a laughable notion--it's a huge enterprise!

This game is fairly good overall. But the game mechanics and the number of bugs have me cussing at my computer monitor fairly often; a lot more often than I do with any other game. It's too bad they left it in such a frail state, even after a few patches.

The thing that gets me is unit pathing in cities and the way units fight. When a unit engages another, why do the guys in the middle and back of the unit creep backwards and space out so much, leaving only 10-12 guys fighting? Cavalry still only charge correctly 1 out of 50 times. Rome TW was a very fun game, beat it 3 times. Unfortunately it seems like M2TW took a big step backwards. I won't be purchasing their next game if it comes out full of bugs and flaws in the game mechanics like this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

I actually believe that both RTW and Med 2 are comparatively poor strategy games, in that there's not really much strategy in them! I don't feel I have to be particularly bright nor strategically minded to play either Rome or Med 2. In fact, barring maybe the initial 20 turns or so, both games become an exercise in automation. Build troops, conquer city, build troops, conquer city. There's no critical decision making processes and without these, there is no strategy.

There is a small amount of tactical nous required, but believe me when I say it's 'small'. Once you've learned the simple formula of 'engage infantry, flank with cav, chain rout defenders', that's essentially it for field battles. The formula is known. Then it's just a matter of repeating this in each battle. The difference in ability of spears, swords and axes isn't great enough to warrant major tactical decisions on unit match-ups. Swords, axes and spears can all be used to hold the line long enough until the cav can flank. Therefore, thinking about proper unit match-ups isn't important. It's just a matter of infantry line vs infantry line and then whoever uses their cavalry the most effectively wins. Sieges are worse because the design is more complicated than the AI's ability to successfully cope with it.


Regards

---

Very well said! My feelings exactly, but hell... the fancy graphics sell it to a generation that want nothing but arcade fun on a huge scale. The TW we all want is no more, it has turned into a graphically fueled arcade fest. And why would CA go back to their roots when they can make more money selling a shallow game to kids and graphics freaks?
Their approach is economically sound but morally bankrupt. TW is now just another arcade game, and like I've said before I just can't wait for someone to fill CA's vacant TW shoes.

@SirGrotius. You haven't noticed the horrible passive Ai when sallying against a siege? Surely that's a bug.
You haven't noticed tha Papal elections voting bug? Surely that's a bug.
Units being placed in a city/castle pre battle can't occupy the same places they can once the battle has started? Surely that's a bug. etc...etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

Very well said! My feelings exactly, but hell... the fancy graphics sell it to a generation that want nothing but arcade fun on a huge scale. The TW we all want is no more, it has turned into a graphically fueled arcade fest. And why would CA go back to their roots when they can make more money selling a shallow game to kids and graphics freaks?
Their approach is economically sound but morally bankrupt. TW is now just another arcade game, and like I've said before I just can't wait for someone to fill CA's vacant TW shoes.

---

my feelings exact. i have actually stopped playing TW. single player tactical AI is horrendous. strategic AI is not much better. it's mostly about eye candy in TW games now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

my feelings exact. i have actually stopped playing TW. single player tactical AI is horrendous. strategic AI is not much better. it's mostly about eye candy in TW games now.

---

My TotalWar discs were put on the shelf quite a while ago. I had hoped that the Kingdoms would inspired me to start playing again but that is not going to happen.

In fact, if it were not for Lusted's mod to make the original somewhat interesting to play, it would have happened a lot sooner.

This trend where graphics take center stage over everything else is just killing these games. This dumbing down will eventually blur the line between PC and console, thereby making console the better investment in development dollars for the game makers. All that horsepower on the PCs to do some really interesting things and it gets wasted on silly graphics... :wall:

Oh well...