Latest update on 1.2 patch from Sega/CA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I'm finding the level of challenge good. I follow some houserules (e.g. avoid rushing or excessive sacking/exterminating) but don't sabotage myself. I've given up my latest English campaign as too hard (I want to do it right next time). The Mongols have arrived and my crusaders just lost Antioch to a rebellion. France is as powerful as ever, and has been joined by Germany, Denmark, Spain and Portugal in fighting me on the continent.

---

Well, I am happy to accept that you find the campaign challenging. I am more than a little surpised to find a veteran (judging by join date/post count) who has managed to lose playing England (only Scotland competes with them as the easiest faction to win as IMHO) but if you say it is so, I believe you. I hope you will believe me when I say that I have started dozens of campaigns with multiple factions and have only quit them (normally with a bored sigh) when it has become painfully obvious that I will win

Quote:

---

Tastes differ. For me, it's the RPG/strategic layer of M2TW that is rather dull. I'm finding the battles, always the standout feature of the TW series, are as good as ever.

---

I'm not sure I understand this point. I want the battles to be the standout feature! I want there to be a challenge. I want the question to be "WILL I win?" rather than "HOW LONG will it take to win?". But it isn't, because the AI is too weak to compete WHATSOEVER with any decent player. I have never, not one single time, seen the AI execute a tactical move that I would call decisive. If you have a replay of the AI doing that against someone who is really trying to win, please share it with me. Until that point, I find your claim that the battles are as good as ever to be almost comically inaccurate.

I am quite willing to post some replays demonstrating how inept the AI is if you would like...

(EDIT)

In my experience, the following orders will allow you to fight just like the AI does in 90% of the field battles I've played:

Ctrl - M (Select All Missile Troops)

Single Click

<Wait until missile troops nearly all dead or routing>

Ctrl - A (Select All)

Double Click

<Wait until our mass of troops has been flanked and decimated>

RALLY! RALLY! RALLY! RALLY! RALLY!

You have been defeated.

GG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jokerkaaos

The patch is a step forward, but extensive patching/modding is still going to be required to bring this up to the standards of Shogun and Medieval 1.

---

I feel that is a little unfair, I never recall lossing a campaign in STW or MTW either (though I normally played the broken GA mode in that)...

I basically agree that the game is not hard enough yet, but they have taken a step in the right direction trying to make the game smarter as opposed the just giving the AI big boosts as in RTW (and MTW)...

I also agree that the AI's failings are strategic mainly. I think it is unimaginiative but basically competent in open field battles most of the time, holding the line, trying to flank, using archers and such... But it often turns up to fight with such a bizaar range of units that is does itself in...

[QUOTE=SoxSexSax]Well, I am happy to accept that you find the campaign challenging. I am more than a little surpised to find a veteran (judging by join date/post count) who has managed to lose playing England (only Scotland competes with them as the easiest faction to win as IMHO) but if you say it is so, I believe you. I hope you will believe me when I say that I have started dozens of campaigns with multiple factions and have only quit them (normally with a bored sigh) when it has become painfully obvious that I will win
QUOTE]
Playing england VH/VH By turn 20 attacked by: France, Scotland HRE Portugal, Spain and Danmark and I just spotted a Moor ship off the Irish coast with a full stack on it (wander whar they want). I am getting murdered here. BUT...
I don't use my general to melee and always release prisoners (need the chivalry to compete with the AI pop growth bonus). I don't ally with anyone exceprt the pope never accept huge amounts of cash for ceasefire every 2 turns and I don't sally and use missile troops on passive foe. In other words i don't use cheesy tactics to win then complain about how easy it is. Oh yeah the AI sucks but i do not see it getting better anytime soon. I have never completed the long campaign either cos it gets soo tedious managing 30+ regions. I still think the game is great compared to RTW and much better after the "patch".

Gaius that sounds rather like my campaigns. I'm not sure what's going on - it's almost like people are playing different games. I suspect it is either differences in expectations/standards or playstyles.

On the expectations, I've been playing computer wargames since the first Panzer General. By the standards of the genre, TW has always had good AI. Classics like Steel Panthers or the Operational Art of War had great historical detail and provided nice simulations, but the AI was always terribly easy to exploit. I've just read a good book on the Battle of Waterloo (The Battle by Barbero) and I'm iching to try to game it, but my options are very limited. There's a nice Age of Rifles scenario for it, but it would indeed be like a petit dejeuner to trounce Wellington in it. By contrast, a TW battle would provide a much tougher fight (I don't play the historical battles, but recall the demo battles were pretty close run things). It may be that players used to other genres - chess, RTSs, FPSs - are more used to an AI that can kick their butt. There's definitely a trade-off between complexity/freedom and a competitive AI.

On playstyles, I've heard people win the game with massed peasants, with only generals, with tiny armies of a handful of men. I've heard people win the game by turn 50. Fine, if people want to play like that but such a playstyle offers no interest to me. I like to play in a more or less "historical" manner - avoiding rushing, using balanced armies and historical tactics etc. Played like that, I haven't found it that easy (unlike RTW, for example). The economy is tight early on and if the AI attacks me at 2:1 odds or better, I am probably going down.

I'm starting to think I should write an English AAR just to show the game can be challenging and fun.

Econ21,
In those cases where you are limiting yourself to a particular play style, the game isn’t challenging you, you are challenging yourself.

I would like to see a game that is challenging for any play style. I don’t like having to tie one arm behind my back to get a challenge from the AI. Maybe some people do, and that is great for them. But many people here do not, and thus the desire for a more challenging AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkgreen

I would like to see a game that is challenging for any play style. I don’t like having to tie one arm behind my back to get a challenge from the AI. Maybe some people do, and that is great for them. But many people here do not, and thus the desire for a more challenging AI.

---

That's why I said it may be a matter of expectations. I don't expect a computer AI in a complex strategy game to provide a challenge for an experienced gamer on a level playing field. If it were Chess, an RTS, an FPS etc, I would. But for a strategy game, there has to be a handicap or restraint on the gamer of some sort.

Quote:

---

In those cases where you are limiting yourself to a particular play style, the game isn’t challenging you, you are challenging yourself.

---

I'm not doing anything too masochistic, like only playing with half-stacks. In fact, I am pretty much playing how I like to play regardless of issues of challenge. I am too lazy to rush the AI or spend hours winning battles in which I am vastly outmatched. It's true I'm not trying my hardest to "win" the game in the fastest time (ie get my 50 provinces and go home), but I don't like to play that - I've always prefer the "Glorious achievements" type goals of MTW.

Not reloading after unsuccessfull takeover/assasination/spying attempt or losing a general in battle also helps IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

That's why I said it may be a matter of expectations. I don't expect a computer AI in a complex strategy game to provide a challenge for an experienced gamer on a level playing field. If it were Chess, an RTS, an FPS etc, I would. But for a strategy game, there has to be a handicap or restraint on the gamer of some sort.



I'm not doing anything too masochistic, like only playing with half-stacks. In fact, I am pretty much playing how I like to play regardless of issues of challenge. I am too lazy to rush the AI or spend hours winning battles in which I am vastly outmatched. It's true I'm not trying my hardest to "win" the game in the fastest time (ie get my 50 provinces and go home), but I don't like to play that - I've always prefer the "Glorious achievements" type goals of MTW.

---

Well, I’m happy for you, and I wish I could lower my expectations as low as yours.

I don’t think there has to be a handicap or a restraint on the player. I think this because MTW2 seems so close in so many ways to having a really good and challenging AI. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t be here reading the forums and starting a thread requesting AI horror stories as requested by one of the CA guys.

Again, I am happy for you that your particular play style makes it challenging for you, but I just want to be clear here and say that that doesn’t make this a challenging game.

I think one of the failures of CA in creating a difficult AI is their reluctance to really just give it a straight up advantage. I'm a huge strategy gamer and I can't think of a single strategy game I have ever played that was ever difficult when the AI used the same rules and fought with an equal strength of forces. All difficult games I have encountered have either given the AI far more units or altered the rules to make the AI stronger and/or develop faster. CA did that somewhat with a morale boost in MTW and the extra 10k per turn in RTW, but they haven't done much else.

Or give the AI the map hacks so it knows what units you're producing so it sends counters all the time. RTW was harder in battle mode on VH 'cos of the huge bonuses (+7 chevrons) AI got on the battlefield but I remember that we complained about that. However if i send an army without a general against AI I tend to see nice behavior. My elite units rout when outnumbered even if it is bloody peasants if i let them get tired or flanked/separated

Quote:

---

Well, I’m happy for you, and I wish I could lower my expectations as low as yours.

---

Poppycock. I think I am going to start an AAR to show that M2TW can be a challenging game. I just started it this evening. It's only 1104 and already the French have defeated me twice, taking Caen and killing off one line of my family tree. The two battles were at 4:3 and 5:6 odds. The Pope's told me to back off France and crusade to Antioch. I feel like Napoleon ranting at Ney during Waterloo: "troops - you think I can manufacture them?!" It's all good.

Having just taken the plunge and installed the leaked 1.2, I would have to say the game is even better.

IMHO the strengths of MTW2 in particular is that it allows many ways to skin the cat. I generally play like Econ does trying to be historical , I find this the most fun, after all that why we play isn't it.

I concede it I wouldn't mind having the option to give the AI specific advantages rather than the bland easy/normal/hard/vh type option.

For example give the ai the option to have no no fog of war, instant knowledge of your strengths and weaknesses, then I'd like to see how the humans would fare. Or a set extra allocation of $'s , maybe all ai factions can build an uber building for upgrading troops or making money( the human could only get this by capturing that city or not).

If you employ cheap map-selling and other exploits and then complain about the game being too easy you could just stop doing those things. I realise you would be limiting yourself, but you're also limiting yourself by not entering a cheat-code...

That said I do agree that those things should be removed if possible, but it's not vital to the enjoyment of the game.

Decide how you want to play and go with that. It's up to you to play in an enjoyable way - whatever works for you is good. Some like to brag about finishing the game in X turns - good for them. I like to choose a behavior (most often honorable) and then roleplay that way.

I do have a story of annoying behavior. The other day I was playing as Portugal and France was growing strong. Twice they blocaded my ports, I kicked their fleets away and a couple of turns later I negotiated peace in exchange for toulouse... stupid. MAybe 10 turns later It happened again and I took Bordeaux from them...

I hope the new patch adresses these issues. Apart from that I'm quite happy with ProblemfixerPure.

Honestly, plz dont fool enough to think you can find a game with AI which could match human intelligence. Even with a game which with simple rules apply [chess for example], to program an AI to beat human is very difficult and take huge resource.

For me, it is only fair to expect the AI not doing silly or stupid things [things have to be done on this in m2tw i agree], instead of the AI outsmart and outrun human intelligently. It is just impossible for a game company to write a "game" engine which can outsmart human, they are not NASA btw.

And, this is what i believe the reason of the rise of online gaming industry. For all those veteran gamers, the real challenging game experience could only be found on competing with another human, but not AI, ever.

It always give me a laugh for somebody unrealistically dreaming/asking of a Game AI which can outsmart and crash them into pieces. :laugh4:

Nobody asked for that. We asked for a better AI, not to stand there and get killed by our Longbowmen. :no:

Even chess doesnt count, because the way chess programs work is that they simulate the outcome of every possible move for a number of turns ahead to see what move has the best outcome. This is feasible for a game like chess where you have a fixed (and relatively small) number of pieces and board size, a very simple set of rules and behaviours, and only one piece can be moved per turn.

In a game like total war (or any other strategy game) you cant simulate even 1 move in advance because there are just too many variables, too many options. There has never been a turn based strategy game or wargame where an AI has been able to compete with the player on a level playing field. The only way an AI will beat a player on a traditional RTS is by being able to 'out-click' them (which doesnt really work in TW because the battles arent really clickfests) and even then i've yet to see one that can win in a 1:1 situation (except maybe some of the AI mods for Total Annihilation, where after years of play people have managed to define optimum build orders etc).

Thats the key point, actually. At the point at which the game is released, even the developers dont know the optimum way to play the game - this is something that gets refined by 1000's of players playing the game for years - and if the developers dont know, how are they going to program an AI to play that way? Total Annihilation was pretty unique in the amount of access it gave to modders, to the point where you could write their own AI modules for it - admittedly its a much simpler game to write an AI for than TW, but the point is that players could figure out how they were beating the AI and rewrite it to counter themselves.

So what would be really nice would be if we had the ability to code our own AI modules - i.e. the developers give us all of the hooks in the the game code required, and we basically write and compile our own DLLs. Even better if they made the AI modules open source so we could use them as a starting point and tweak them. Never gonna happen, i guess - since the TW AI is pretty damn advanced (despite everyone's complaints) and CA are hardly likely to open source their trade secrets, but a guy can dream, cant he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro

I don't use my general to melee and always release prisoners (need the chivalry to compete with the AI pop growth bonus). I don't ally with anyone exceprt the pope never accept huge amounts of cash for ceasefire every 2 turns and I don't sally and use missile troops on passive foe. In other words i don't use cheesy tactics to win then complain about how easy it is.

---

Yeah, using the alliance feature of diplomacy is just cheap and cheesy. Also, raising armies and building settlement upgrades. Stop doing those things if you want a challenge.

Seriously, I know that AI is frequently poor in games, because it is hard to code. I've tried it myself, once, and it really gives some perspective on the awesomeness of the human brain. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't even try, though, and in my opinion M2TW barely tries.

Two things that're seriously missing from the tactical AI, or at least appear to be, is a plan and some variation.

Currently, the AI does not appear to have a plan at all, and simply reacts to whatever it is that you do, never trying to do anything of its own mind. This is what leads to passive behaviour, because if your own plan doesn't hit any of the AI's triggers, it just stands there. Secondly, it always, always deploys the same and moves the same, no matter what it's got and what you've got in your army. Without variation, the shortcomings of the AI become very easy to exploit. The original MTW AI wasn't too hot either, but at least it tried various deployments, and sometimes surprised you with attacks of it's own initiative. This simply isn't happening in M2TW.

Having the AI formulate a plan, no matter how half-baked, and varying it's posture, will make it more challenging to fight by simply increasing randomness and making it more unpredictable. Occasionally, this means that the AI will do something totally retarded, while very rarely it'll look positively brilliant by sheer luck, but this is still miles better than the consistent, dull stupidity of the current AI, and historically accurate too :2thumbsup:

Some simple randomness and initiative isn't any harder to code than what we already have, though certainly more time-consuming. It would, however, improve the game more than anything else that I can think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Nobody asked for that. We asked for a better AI, not to stand there and get killed by our Longbowmen. :no:

---

You are right and as i said, it is perfectly fair to expect better AI which are not doing silly or stupid thing, just like the passive AI suffering now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Temujin

The original MTW AI wasn't too hot either, but at least it tried various deployments, and sometimes surprised you with attacks of it's own initiative. This simply isn't happening in M2TW.

---

I agree that the battle game in STW/MTW is much more challenging. But i have little idea why was it as i am not a programmer.

Some have suggested that was because since RTW there are more variations in units and such which make the coding of game harder. If this is the only reason for that?

OR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Temujin

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't even try, though, and in my opinion M2TW barely tries.

---

just as suggested, CA are lack of the enthusiasm anymore to bring the AI further, on an already established game series?? :juggle2:

Latest posts by Caliban about the patch at TWC:

Quote:

---

I can understand the frustration that some of you may have over the patch delays but we aren’t giving any official release date this time until it is known for sure (for obvious reasons). I won't be answering that question again
I can confirm for the modders that unit sprite generation has been included in the patch and is undergoing testing. The coders have been hard at work nailing down a lot of the passive AI bugs and other fixes. It looks as if we will be producing a build for testing in the coming days.

---

Have to say, I too am also surprised by how someone could find playing England difficult. The first campaign I won was playing England on VH/VH, albeit under 1.1.

Now I play using an additional AI money script and a trait that gives the AI superior generals. I'm currently playing HRE under leaked 1.2 and finding it extremely challenging. In fact I've never been in the situation before playing any TW title where I've gained and subsequently lost so many cities to the AI. The attacking siege AI is so much improved over 1.1 that needless to say it's been great fun.

In my opinion patch 1.2 makes Med II into the best TW title by far. Rome never reached this level of competency despite receiving 5 patches, and if they manage to fix the remaining passive AI issues - siege sally and sometimes AI reinforcements - then we'll have a true game on our hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

In my opinion patch 1.2 makes Med II into the best TW title by far.

---

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm having a bit of trouble at the moment. I started playing as Spain on M/H (I suck, I need all the help I can get =p) and everything was going fine. Allied with the French to provide stability on that border whilst I dealt with the portugese and the rebels in Iberia and started moving on the Moors.

I had taken all the provinces in Iberia apart from Lisbon, and decimated the Portugese army, as well as moving a half stack down to the city closest to the southern land bridge from Iberia (I forget what its called), when the Pope calls a crusade on Tunis.

"Great!" I'm thinking.. really close, I can have that! So I load up a stack army, and ship myself over to Tunis and lay siege, taking the city in a few turns, but neglecting to think about what was happening in Iberia.

Milan, Venice and HRE had all moved Crusade stacks into central Iberia otw to Tunis.. and as soon as I completed my Crusade - the next turn I find one of my cities under siege by Venice with Milan supporting (around 1600 troops vs 2 units of spear militia and a general's unit (I'm really light on city defense in early game stages)) - and another city under siege by a 400 or so HRE stack with much the same units defending. Needless to say I lost both cities and I'm having to scrape the barrel to keep Tunis from rebelling (religion problems) whilst recruiting like mad to keep Venice and HRE from taking the entire Iberian peninsula.

####

To echo what some other people have said - I notice a lot of people talking about reloading after spy/assassin deaths/bad sieges or defences etc. Or I notice them talking about rushing towns etc and winning in 48 turns or whatever.

That's fine, if you want to play it that way, but a lot of us don't and are really enjoying the game for what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Have to say, I too am also surprised by how someone could find playing England difficult.

---

I'm starting an AAR to document one of my English campaigns just to prove that I am not delusional:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

I'm 14 turns in and already it is challenging. I've had a fun tough battle (vs Bruges) and two I have lost (around Caen). Strategically, I am facing a non-trivial challenge of getting an army to Antioch and evicting the French from Caen.

Now, I admit that my troubles are partly because I have made mistakes: I was hasty when Caen was threatened and got riled, making some moves that were in retrospect foolish. But I am pretty happy with a game that punishes you if you make mistakes.

I'm playing 1.2, but each of my earlier three (incomplete) campaigns (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) followed a similar pattern over the first 100 turns or so: slow progress both on the continent and in the Holy Land. I'm not saying I am going to lose the campaign, but it is going to be hard enough to make it worth playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I'm starting an AAR to document one of my English campaigns just to prove that I am not delusional:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

---

Heh I had the exact same idea. I'll never know how people can find this game too easy. I get thrashed on VH/VH.
I mean you end up being attacked by every neighbour eventually even with 1.2 (and Im not saying it shouldn't be that way mind). And the AI always seems to have one more full stack somewhere. I afraid to take troops from my castles to advance incase the AI swoops in and takes it like it always does. Too easy? I'll just never know. Id love to watch one of the people who think this game is too easy play it because I must be doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Poppycock. I think I am going to start an AAR to show that M2TW can be a challenging game. I just started it this evening. It's only 1104 and already the French have defeated me twice, taking Caen and killing off one line of my family tree. The two battles were at 4:3 and 5:6 odds. The Pope's told me to back off France and crusade to Antioch. I feel like Napoleon ranting at Ney during Waterloo: "troops - you think I can manufacture them?!" It's all good.

---

If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.
Maybe you prefer to think of it as that is just your game style, but then again the game isn’t challenging, your game style is.
I have to object when you say that the game can be challenging. It is much more appropriate to say that you challenge yourself in the game. Which, I have to sincerely say is great for you.
A challenging game would be one that would give difficulty to all (or maybe most or many) game styles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkgreen

If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.
Maybe you prefer to think of it as that is just your game style, but then again the game isn’t challenging, your game style is.
I have to object when you say that the game can be challenging. It is much more appropriate to say that you challenge yourself in the game. Which, I have to sincerely say is great for you.
A challenging game would be one that would give difficulty to all (or maybe most or many) game styles.

---

It's for this very reason that Im about to conduct an experiment. Usually I play ultra-Chivalrous. I always occupy cities, always release prisoners and always do as the Pope commands etc.
Im going to start yet another game as England on VH/VH except that this time Im going to be the most evil and selfish King on the planet. Im going to do whatever it takes to win.
Interesting to see how this goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkgreen

If you are limiting yourself in some way, then like I said, then the game is not challenging you, you are challenging yourself.

---

Have a look at the AAR I'm writing, it's very early days but still:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

It's not clear to me that the challenge I currently face in that AAR is because I have limited myself. Compare it with your usual playstyle: what's different? I'm genuinely curious. Personally, I don't see how I have challenged myself - this is how I usually play TW and it does not seem too constrained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Have a look at the AAR I'm writing, it's very early days but still:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83785

It's not clear to me that the challenge I currently face in that AAR is because I have limited myself. Compare it with your usual playstyle: what's different? I'm genuinely curious. Personally, I don't see how I have challenged myself - this is how I usually play TW and it does not seem too constrained.

---

I read your AAR (nice mess you made in caen btw :clown: ). I agree with you that MTW2 can be a challenge if all the little bugs (shield bug,two handed) are eliminated. I played Hungary with Lusted mod and 1.1 and certainly didnt have an easy go at times.

In your aar I dont see any limits you have imposed yourself, but its early and the AI hasnt had opportunity to reveal its limitations. One of the main concerns I have with the AI is that once you attack one of thier cities (you havent yet, only rebels, not the french) they simply seem to ignore it. I have seen stacks waltz by as I have assualted Paris.

So does 1.2 address this? If it does wonderful the AI is more challenging then it was, but your still early on econ, lets see what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickening

Heh I had the exact same idea. I'll never know how people can find this game too easy. I get thrashed on VH/VH.
I mean you end up being attacked by every neighbour eventually even with 1.2 (and Im not saying it shouldn't be that way mind). And the AI always seems to have one more full stack somewhere. I afraid to take troops from my castles to advance incase the AI swoops in and takes it like it always does. Too easy? I'll just never know. Id love to watch one of the people who think this game is too easy play it because I must be doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

---

Generally, the AI will not "swoop in" and attack behind an advancing army.

If you siege it's cities it will tend to fall back and defend.

Often, when it does you can either beat it with a skeleton defensive force, or as a last resort, bring your advancing army back as a relief force.

On the other hand, if you sit passively the AI will send multiple stacks at you. It's hard to understate the importance of taking the battle to the enemy's cities.

IMO its still kind of easy in 1.2 to cripple the AI early on by offering them: Alliance, trade rights, map information + 1-3k florins for 1-2 of their cities/castles. Usually the very first thing I do in a new campaign is send a diplomat/princess to HRE and buy off staufen and another city/castle from them, then go to venice and get ragusa, corinth from byzantines and bordeaux or angers from the french (depends on what faction I play). Ends up letting you expand towards any early rebel town you want and have a lot of regions early on with strong economy and troop producing capabilities.

Limiting that would make the game tougher, but I for one already limit myself by giving the AI extra flroins a turn (in addition to what they get on the difficulty level) and only attack factions that attack me first.