Printable View
Folk from CA have invited the Org to compile a list of common issues with the patch that will likely come with an expansion pack (see the sticky in the Ludus Magna). That got me thinking, what is the one area that people would most like to see CA work on for the patch?
The context is likely to be an expansion pack (eg barbarian invasion) which will cover another time period, but I am not talking about that new content - just any changes to the existing game that CA make.
AI, AI, AI, AI, anything else is moot! ~:) :duel:
Make an export_descr_AI.txt to let us weigh the battlefield decisions!!
For campaign map as well (if there is time). That will silence those bickering Medieval TW fans for good this time!
Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs.
AI improvements, dilpomacy, etc can come with time (the sooner the better though).
Major bugs fixed and AI beefed up to a level where it doesn't do entirely stupid things. Nothing fancy, just so it looks like it might have a basic idea of using troops in a line. The fancy AI stuff can come later, just the basics.
Hasnt it already been confirmed that there isnt going to be another patch? That's why there's a big bug list in the other subforum. CA wants to know what needs to be fixed in the expansion.
Edit: Sorry, Kekvitrae, I meant the patch we'll get in the expansion pack.
One thing I would say is that going by past experience - STW and MTW - the patch with the expansion will be the last substantive patch we will get. Any further patch would just be to deal with new bugs introduced by the expansion (eg the 56 year old leader bug in VI). The patch that comes with the expansion may also be the biggest in the sense of making changes other than bug fixes. Mongol Invasion added a lot to the vanilla STW campaign - notably the different start dates. VI also brought some nice features to MTW. I think CA have money and time to work for an expansion, so can do a little more than squash bugs.
For example, implement some of those things that they left traces of in the files, those ones that most players have been drooling for.Quote:
I think CA have money and time to work for an expansion, so can do a little more than squash bugs.
I would like to see non-Roman factions boosted so that they have a chance of surviving against the Romans...
I always see Macedon and Carthage defeated early on, not to mention Seleucid Empire and Greek Cities. They're all exciting factions and it would be nice to see them progress to the late-game stage. ~D
Tough, you should've done some A&B, B&C, A&B&C type choices. I don't want to pick other stuff, because I want CA to get a specific point.
You should edit the title to avoid confusion :tongueg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
I voted Other. The MOST important thing CA could do in the next patch/expansion is open up the game a LOT more for modding. That way we can fix everything up any way we like it, and ppl will make their own changes wherever they personally feel necessary. For example, if you open up AI for modding that INSTANTLY fixes both campaign and battlefield AI because the community will do it themselves. If you open up diplomacy for modding, that will instantly create 1st class diplomacy for the same reasons. etc.
Balance. And not only the relative balance between arms, also the balance between different units of the same type and faction balance.
Singleplayers be damned... bwahahaha! :devil: (Not very likely, but one can hope... ~D)
I changed the thread title for you, Simon.
Do carry on.
So, if you look at this poll, you will find a large majority really aren't looking for an expansion pack (more armies, units, factions) but an improved game:
Bugs, Batle AI, Strategic AI, improved Carthage.
Very interesting.
I'd like to see three different eras to start from as in MTW. By the time I get to the higher tech levels, where I can enjoy the better units, I am bored with the retarded backstabbing diplomacy and the way the Romans and Egyptians have already mowed over every other faction. Starting later means I can utilize primo units for a few turns before my trusted ally decides to attack my capital with two units of peltasts while his real enemy sieges his last remaining province with two full stacks. :dizzy2:
I dont want to pay 30 dollars JUST for a patch. I want to pay 30 dollars for an expansion pack. I voted "More stuff"
The more, the better! More! More! More!
More Content for sure.
A bigger Map would be nice too.
So far I have never been able to Engage nor the Parths nor the Seleucid, (althought in the present Campaign they somehow managed to Rule and they are the ones pushing on Egypt for once), to say nothing about the Armenians.
A bigger Map would insure that these Factions get some more Provinces and consolidate an economical base permiting them to survive longer.
As far as the Greeks are concerned, well, they did fall early in History, so to make them last longer would be less Historical, that being said, an improved AI could enhance their Fighting Prowess and make them more difficult and - To be remembered - to Conquer.
Alternate perriods would be good as well, however, from Marcus Aurelius up till near the decline nothing much really hapened except for the empire to be separated in two.
So a near "Fall of Rome" perriod with Huns and the Tribes they displaced would be nice to have!
1. Bugs
2. Strategic AI
3. Battle AI
4. New gameplay features
all of the above
AND some serious QA...makes me wonder is the xpac under contract to Activision or SEGA? either way pls don't rush it..iron out bugs, balance issues etc.. we don't want new ones introduced...
All of the above. The battlefield AI is hurting the worst, but there are so many other problems and bugs that I really can't narrow down.
Aargh! I was asking about what people want to see in the patch that will come with the expansion - the changes to the existing campaign, not the new campaign (barbarian invasion or whatever). That's why I was not excited about having this thread's title changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kekvitirae
It's a complete no-brainer. Improve the battle AI.
If you'd given me a choice between that and making the melee battles last longer though, it would have been a tough choice. But I still think I'd go for battle AI.
wtf?
isn't there a "make it work as advertised" option?
GAH!
even the polls are ridiculous - getting a game without bugs and with a decent AI shouldn't be something we have to pay for
+insert 12 explicatives+
The AI of Battles seems to be the greatest concern for sure here.
I still long for the intense and more tactical fightig of Shogun, the one in the series that started it all...
It was trully Move Counter-Move, one could feel the battle swinging between a Victory or a Defeat, but the best part of it was really the fact that one could turn the tide in the midst of battle. :duel:
I do wonder why this tactical aspect, this feeling, never made it in to RTW, where its basically all or nothing and a battle's outcome most of the time is pretty much decided with the first strokes of metal upon metal. :charge:
Reflecting upon it I can but agree, the AI in battlefields should be of outmost importance, a priority...to finish what has started ~:cheers:
IMO, that is wishful thinking. To make a "moddable" AI would be a major task in its own right. You'd have to invent some sort of scripting language, and even then you would be limited by what the language allowed you to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
There is no "instant" or easy fix for poor AI. If there was one, we would have had it by now.
I think that is probably a more viable option, but then you would still be limited by whatever toolset is made available.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
Voted battlefield AI.
What I´d really like to see is that CA would produce a genuine war-engine with all the required contents for all types of war from 3000bc to the modern day and let the community of modders and players create their own mods. This way we can get the kind of games we want while CA only work on the AI and the platform of the game itself.
You all know HTW, NTW, RTR, (EB) etc. they are all very good work. IMHO better than the original game itself or games like MTW XL that enhanced the vanilla game to a maximum extent. CA should provide the tools and the modders should develop the actual games. That´s my dream in the future.
LOL, that's a fairly radical proposal, but one I kind of like.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseRamesses
Who knows, maybe one day the game industry will really work that way.
OK - yeah, I wanted to vote for all of them. I chose Improved Strategic AI because I figure if the army stacks contain better units, and move about the campaign map in a more cohesive and threatening way to the player, then by default, the battles will be better. OK - I know this only partially address the community's concerns regarding battles, but it's a start. Obviously I also want all the other stuff listed, but that's a given.
Battlefield AI, but it was close between that and strategic AI
My reasoning is that no matter how many troops the AI brings to the field of battle, it will be stupid unless they can fight well with them :) so we need improved battlefield AI, including more reaction to your actions and better startup position depending on your army (ie don't put phalanxes out front when i have lots of archers, deploy skirmishers instead)
Voted for a boost of the non-roman factions.
Espescially the Seleucid Empire, who would be really challenging if they could conquer the east, no matter how stupid the AI is.
1) Battle AI
2) Bugs
3) Strategic AI
4) New shizzle
The whole game is pretty pointless if the AI doesn't know how to fight!
I'm getting a little tired of winning when 3:1 outnumbered with a 10:1 kill ratio because the AI doesn't understand that his 15 phalanx units shouldn't attack one-by-one. Sometimes the AI isn't too bad, like with fast cavalry armies - but it just doesn't get infantry tactics.
MTW's AI managed to keep a solid battle-line with the units covering each other, but RTW always attacks piecemeal and gets massacred.