Has anything really changed from CA?

I was sceptical as always about this game when I heard about it at first. I pre-ordered it anyway because there is just nothing else like it. I have been playing since Shogun, and I have witnessed the series's decline after MTW.

The main problems with RTW and M2TW were:

1) Bad AI.
2) Useless diplomacy and suicidal enemies.

So, I have been playing since release and despite the BUGGY MESS that this game has been I have been more or less having a good time. In two months of playing through the campaign (and enjoying it) I have come to the following conclusions.

1) The AI is still just as bad, if not worse.
2) Diplomacy is still largely pointless.

Here's why: The AI on the campaign map always does the same thing. If you border Dagestan or Georgia at some point, they will always declare war on you, no matter how good your relations or whether you are trading. They will always be crushed with minimal effort. Then, you now border Persia. Inevitably, they will declare war next and be wiped out after a few turns. They are coded to be suicidal. To seal their own stupid fate they will absolutely NOT accept peace. Time and time again, there I am, at the "diplomacy" screen, my country terrifying/spectacular (or whatever), theirs weak/destitute and they will still NEVER accept peace. This goes on throughout the game. Sometimes you can get a peace but they don't seem to understand that they are in a very bad situation - that by asking for peace you are SAVING them from certain destruction of their handul of 2 stack raiding armies, and even if you offer them twenty thousand to save their lives they won't take it. So, that's our new diplomacy which incidentally should go beyond having some new buttons to click.

The strategic AI is also the usual terrible CA game situation again. When I was playing yesterday I bought Quebec from the French - I hadn't realised it bordered an English settlement and an army was standing right beside my new town as I hit "end turn". There were no troops in my town as I had just bought it, and there wouldn't be until the next turn when I had finished building some. There was a large English army across the river to the south. I think "Woops".

So what does the AI do? It can reach the town in 1 turn. There are no troops to defend it.

It walks its stack PAST the *undefended* enemy town and raids the nearby seminary instead. The AI's strategic approach to war seems to just be chucking tiny two stack armies at you to raid your settlements, even if, combined, all those stacks would crush you. This results in a tedious campaign of chasing piddly two stack armies around which ISN'T FUN.

So since I am now bored of typing, in summary, does this game have exactly the same problems as the past two CA offerings in my opinion? Yes....and more. Did I buy it anyway, pretty sure it would be the same old story? Yes.

Why did I buy it? Why did all of us pessimist CA diehards buy it anyway? Because there is STILL, after almost 10 years, nothing like the Total War series. If this was nature, the Total War series would be the Dodo. It has survived because it has no predators. It can get as fat and as stupid and as useless as it wants because it will still have nothing to fear from any other game because there are no other games of this type to compete. It's in a genre all of its own, and until someone basically does a Blizzard and rips it off, but improves and supports it, it's going to be the same old story.

(same old rant, too)

Why so suprised?

Anyway, I know CA really really promised to have worked on the AI. Some developer came out and said "hey, we know we kind of sucked at this in previous games, but this time we wont, I swear!"

Seeing that I just laughed.

Did I believe him? No.

Should I have believed him? Obviosly not.

Support is way better now though . :) That more than anything has made me happy. Though I can actually get the thing running and not WCTDing all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Support is way better now though . :) That more than anything has made me happy. Though I can actually get the thing running and not WCTDing all the time.

---

True, but results and changes are slow in coming. The appeal of daily updates on what is being worked on wears out when you are still facing tedious bugs. I'm sorry to repeat this but the game was not anywhere near ready for release and it's insulting really.

I was an avid Mount and Blade fan and I enjoyed the anticipation of new updates that slowly moved the game forward, developing gameplay and addressing (and creating) bugs. When it was finally released, I would have said it wasn't all the way there yet either, but damn was it more "complete" and finished than ETW 1.0.

The point being that in M&B I was fine about being a paying beta tester. When I've been a beta tester for other games, I've enjoyed being involved in the dev process too. However, the fact that we are effectivley free and un-acknowledged testers for ETW is galling. More so for having paid about £35 for the sodding special forces edition. Steam is all well and good but IMO it does NOT give a game designer license to sell you something 3/4 completed and finish the development of the game once it's on your machine.

God knows what happened at CA, or Sega Europe, but frankly it looks like they had a novice team with half the head-count they anticipated. As GFX said, they 1, haven't learnt from previous games and 2, have produced something slap-dash, which for some frustratingly unknown reason, I STILL PLAY and care enough to rant about it...

The game came with lots of bugs, okay.

But the starting AI was not so bad. Granted they made it as bad as M2 with the change, but that is not how it started.

The diplomacy actually worked. Fine they broke it with the later changes but it worked.

You know RTW started out ok and then everyone wanted this or that and cried its too this or too that and so they changed it…and it got worse…

Well it seems they are taking another game that stared well and are transforming it into something entirely mediocre, but that is what some of the louder fans want.

And that is the part that always seems to be the same!

I have to say that I think the complaining is way over the top. We paid (maybe a little much, but that can't be helped) and we got a perfectly good game. I would argue that the AI and diplomacy are much better than what we saw in M2:TW. Sure, there have been bugs, but no real gamebreakers, and we have no right to flame CA for making what is a perfectly adequate game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I have to say that I think the complaining is way over the top. We paid (maybe a little much, but that can't be helped) and we got a perfectly good game. I would argue that the AI and diplomacy are much better than what we saw in M2:TW. Sure, there have been bugs, but no real gamebreakers, and we have no right to flame CA for making what is a perfectly adequate game.

---

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I have to say that I think the complaining is way over the top. We paid (maybe a little much, but that can't be helped) and we got a perfectly good game. I would argue that the AI and diplomacy are much better than what we saw in M2:TW. Sure, there have been bugs, but no real gamebreakers, and we have no right to flame CA for making what is a perfectly adequate game.

---

Beg pardon sir, we have every right to say what we think. As long as it's civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Beg pardon sir, we have every right to say what we think. As long as it's civil.

---

Constructive criticism and calling CA a bunch of novices are two completely different things. I'd like to see another game studio take on such an extensive project and do as well with it as CA has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I have to say that I think the complaining is way over the top. We paid (maybe a little much, but that can't be helped) and we got a perfectly good game. I would argue that the AI and diplomacy are much better than what we saw in M2:TW. Sure, there have been bugs, but no real gamebreakers, and we have no right to flame CA for making what is a perfectly adequate game.

---

:balloon2:


my thoughts exactly. these forums have slowly degenerated into an ETW bash fest. I loved the game, ive hand no major game breaking bugs, i find it quite challenging (particularly with the changes in 1.3) and enjoyable.


Cheers Knoddy

I think the AI overall is better than M2TW. Is it still lacking? Yes, but I'm wondering just how far they can take the game AI overall. Everyone (those that have played numerous pc games) knows that PC game AI, generally speaking, is extremely limited when comparing it to a human player's mind and abilities. My real question from an TW game AI perspective is this, 'can the knowledge and skill of CA's programmers do a better job in making a better AI?' Thats the real question that I find myself asking sometimes. I'm kinda thinking they are near their limit. They did better this time but can they really push the envelope even farther? Only time will tell.

Just some thoughts on my part...
~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knoddy

:balloon2:


my thoughts exactly. these forums have slowly degenerated into an ETW bash fest. I loved the game, ive hand no major game breaking bugs, i find it quite challenging (particularly with the changes in 1.3) and enjoyable.


Cheers Knoddy

---

No it's just the internet. The arrival and expansion of the internet means there's more idiots out there and as you know, "one person complaining means that there are 100 people complaining the exact same thing".

Then you got wikipedia and all of a sudden people have a Bachelor in history and game design and are experts in how a business should be run.

10 years down the road when we are playing Warhammer 40,000 Total war (Yes I do want one), people will be praising about how historically accurate and bug free ETW was (Just like how people are praising how bug free and historically accurate Shogun and MTW and MTW2 were).

Quote:

---

Beg pardon sir, we have every right to say what we think. As long as it's civil.

---

Yes because calling a company a bunch of novices is so mature and civil good job lad. No novice company would release a product and then continue gathering feedback from the community to continue making the game better.

A novice company is one that trends into terrority that they know nothing about, give a half-ass effort, and then leave the consumers high and dry with no support and I know several companies that have done that.

You guys are lucky that CA is mature enough to actually wander into these bash infested boards and pick out the "constructive criticism" and see what they can do to make it better or solve it.

Needless to say, I've yet to see any game that hasn't been given patches at all. Hell even Blizzard patches their games and they take how long to make them?

Its nice to see that alot of people didn't have game halting dead in your track, start again bugs, which allowed them to play this game without many problems, yet still seem content to keep telling everyone that did, or is having problems that they aren't and that they are quite happy about that situation.

However those that had problems are rather upset. And I'm still out on the diplomacy of ETW, to be honest I did use the camaign mod released by one of the M2TW dev's but diplomacy was very good in that, because I could have allies that lasted 200 turns, which is the entire length of a long campaign. But then seeing I ahven't been able to reach the end of a campaign in ETW without the fleet clicky crash, I can't really compare the two.

Quote:

---

Constructive criticism and calling CA a bunch of novices are two completely different things. I'd like to see another game studio take on such an extensive project and do as well with it as CA has.

---

X3 Reunion by EGOSOFT, and I would say that they did better, Galactic Civilizations 2 by Stardock, CA can most definetly improve on their game. I would agree that we paid for a beta, yes they are lifting their game and improving, but the game could have been sent out to the public in a better condition, I am still waiting for the fleet clicky bug fix so i can actually play a campaign, so SEGA has my money and I've been waiting 2 + months and I still don't have a game I can play. yes I could have waited and bought it when i knew all the bugs were ironed out, but by then the special editions are normally sold out.

anyway, hopefully the next patch arrives soon and I can finally start playin this one :2thumbsup:

It's a slippery slope to take a negative approach towards anything for an extended period of time.

I commend CA's ability to put up with half assed, perhaps even slightly ignorant commentary about the game and still provide a proactive positive approach to the communities and the game support mechanisms.

At some point a wise man once said to me:

"If you don't have anything positive to say, then keep your mouth shut."

It's like a broken down record here sometimes and I hope that we do not end up like some of the other boards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

God knows what happened at CA, or Sega Europe, but frankly it looks like they had a novice team with half the head-count they anticipated. As GFX said, they 1, haven't learnt from previous games and 2, have produced something slap-dash, which for some frustratingly unknown reason, I STILL PLAY and care enough to rant about it...

---

I haven't called CA novices, I said they have made themselves look like them, which I find shameful as they certainly aren't.

I do agree that attempts to correct the game after release are the inescapable norms of the time. However, 2 months down the line, the devs are still working on some pretty basic features that should arguably have been ready on release day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durallan

I am still waiting for the fleet clicky bug fix

---

The fleet clicking CTD is caused by first rates and other larger ships' movement range increasing once Top Gallants and all the other range-increasing technologies are researched. The game has some problem calculating the longer ranges.

CA have said that they are fixing this in the next patch, but to fix these problems NOW all you have to do is move a sloop or brig into the offending fleet. This fixed all my old late-game saves where my first rates were crashing the game.

Hope the info helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

At some point a wise man once said to me:

"If you don't have anything positive to say, then keep your mouth shut."

---

Doesn't sound like the words of a wise man to me.

The diplomacy can certainly use some improvement, but I still think it's a great deal better than in RTW and M2TW. Contrary to the OP's statements, I tend to be able to get peace treaties from many AI nations. Sure, many of them declare war again a few turns later if they are still adjacent to you, but peace is certainly possible at least for short periods.

I think one of biggest problems isn't that the AI declares war too often, it's that it declares war at the wrong times. I'm currently playing an Austria game, which is very different from my previous post-1.2 games due to a total lack of trade income. At the start I was only able to afford about 1 army stack and I had a devil of a time fending off Poland. If ANY other nation had declared war on me, I would have been in serious trouble. No other nation did however. I was able to finish off Poland and consolidate my position shortly before the Ottomans declared war on me. If the Ottomans had declared war while I was still invovled with Poland, they could have wrecked me. Instead, I am able to beat them by focusing on them alone.

Europa Universalis 3 deals with this situation very well IMO. In that game, the more wars a nation is involved in, the more likely that other nations that dislike them will declare war on them as well. It's a typical human strategy that works well: strike when your enemy is pre-occupied elsewhere. CA needs some kind of coding like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

The fleet clicking CTD is caused by first rates and other larger ships' movement range increasing once Top Gallants and all the other range-increasing technologies are researched. The game has some problem calculating the longer ranges.

CA have said that they are fixing this in the next patch, but to fix these problems NOW all you have to do is move a sloop or brig into the offending fleet. This fixed all my old late-game saves where my first rates were crashing the game.

Hope the info helps.

---

Thank you very muchly GFX, that is indeed certainly true, however I have found that having fixed the fleet, one turn, the next turn it is russian roulette for me as to whether it decides it wants to work again, also clicking on certain ports at the late game stage has just crashed the game, I don't know if that has been fixed, but I am going to try a game after the next patch, and see what happens.

I don't know if it was a wise man but my mum certainly said if you don't have something nice to say about someone then don't say it, on a philosophical point and a tangent to the threat, I would have to say that a wise man wouldn't have said that, he would have just listened ;)

at any rate, there is only one cause of this broken record, and that is CA seem to keep skipping on the same part of the record, which causes the now familiar scratchings of disappointed people! all they need to do is to change the record ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

Doesn't sound like the words of a wise man to me.

---

Yeah but that's only because you hear from your father when you are 17 years old...and at that age nothing sounds wise when you hear from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Europa Universalis 3 deals with this situation very well IMO. In that game, the more wars a nation is involved in, the more likely that other nations that dislike them will declare war on them as well. It's a typical human strategy that works well: strike when your enemy is pre-occupied elsewhere. CA needs some kind of coding like this.

---

The game AI also loves to declare war on you when it is already involved in several wars itself....which is something that desperately needs to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Yeah but that's only because you hear from your father when you are 17 years old...and at that age nothing sounds wise when you hear from him.

---

OK, thanks? :dizzy2:

No need for insults and name calling, guys. Everyone has an opinion and we should respect that. If you cant debate a topic without throwing personal insults around then perhaps its time to step back for a bit?

On a more positive note I was just reading some of my old posts from previous TW titles about terrible army stack composition, which, at least, it seems has improved a hell of a lot since M2TW.

I also complained a lot about how ridiculously easy the game was in RTW and M2TW. This seems to have changed (since 1.2 anyway) and I don't recall any of my games in ETW being complete pushovers after turn 10 like the last games.

So just the suicidal strategic AI to sort out now, I suppose.

I must admit I am just as willing to rant as anyone about stupid AI and idiotic diplomacy. However, this weekend I did some testing regarding the AI and, well.. the results actually are in favor of CA.

I had my cousin visiting me so I showed him my new shiny PC and my nice-to-look-at Empire TW. The guy has never played a TW game before, but he's had his share of red-eyed nights playing other games.
I let him try out a few (actually - 4) battles from my VH/H french campaign.... and he got trashed every time.
Once he misjudged the threat of flanking cavalry; wanted to counter 3units of cavalry with 3 units of line infantry. The cavalry went right past the squares and hit the cannon. Then hit the general. He forgot the squares while trying to save the general and his squares were decimated by enmy line... then the enemy cavalry charged to the back of those wavering squares. Toast.

Second time, he attacked Iroquis and, despite my warnings, got into a nasty ambush (some indian units are invisible), meleed and charged by the lancers. He was completeley swarmed in the centre, managed to kill the enemy general but lost the battle completely.

Third time, after some practice he got throunced by the pope. Italian states had numerical superiority (1,75 stack vs 1) with a lot of arty. He had the quality troops though and was defending. He suffered very heavy losses and lost all his cav (guard units!!!). The italians were left with 3 units of cav, 4 units of sakers and a bodyguard unit. My cousin could not get to the arty without getting some canister and cav charges. His infantry routed, his general was killed. Valiant defeat.

The fourth battle was somewht unfair - a fleet battle. Equal forces with the british. His ships got intermingled with the british and in 15 minutes of utter chaos they routed or were sunk.

Now I tried all those battles yesterday and won WITH EASE!!!
1. you can't easily flank me; I put my line into a line and let the running cav eat a lot of musketballs.i form square in the last possible moment
2. I keep a decent reserve near my arty and my general
3. I don't let infantry stand in squares and get shot at
4. I know there are ambushes with those indians, i scout with cavalry or my indians.
5. I know how to flank arty, and how not to lose my guard cavalry figting an infantry square.
6. I know to keep enemy fleets downwind and to avoid getting too close to them. I also know how ) ships move upwind and how often they can fire a broadside.

Essentially, I would say the AI is doing a decent job. It can defeat a human novice on Hard in an open field battle; however, it hardly poses any threat to an experienced player. Bear that in mind.

The really stupid and annoying part is when the AI is defending against a siege. One-unit charges make me sick...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loony

I must admit I am just as willing to rant as anyone about stupid AI and idiotic diplomacy. However, this weekend I did some testing regarding the AI and, well.. the results actually are in favor of CA.

I had my cousin visiting me so I showed him my new shiny PC and my nice-to-look-at Empire TW. The guy has never played a TW game before, but he's had his share of red-eyed nights playing other games.
I let him try out a few (actually - 4) battles from my VH/H french campaign.... and he got trashed every time.
Once he misjudged the threat of flanking cavalry; wanted to counter 3units of cavalry with 3 units of line infantry. The cavalry went right past the squares and hit the cannon. Then hit the general. He forgot the squares while trying to save the general and his squares were decimated by enmy line... then the enemy cavalry charged to the back of those wavering squares. Toast.

Second time, he attacked Iroquis and, despite my warnings, got into a nasty ambush (some indian units are invisible), meleed and charged by the lancers. He was completeley swarmed in the centre, managed to kill the enemy general but lost the battle completely.

Third time, after some practice he got throunced by the pope. Italian states had numerical superiority (1,75 stack vs 1) with a lot of arty. He had the quality troops though and was defending. He suffered very heavy losses and lost all his cav (guard units!!!). The italians were left with 3 units of cav, 4 units of sakers and a bodyguard unit. My cousin could not get to the arty without getting some canister and cav charges. His infantry routed, his general was killed. Valiant defeat.

The fourth battle was somewht unfair - a fleet battle. Equal forces with the british. His ships got intermingled with the british and in 15 minutes of utter chaos they routed or were sunk.

Now I tried all those battles yesterday and won WITH EASE!!!
1. you can't easily flank me; I put my line into a line and let the running cav eat a lot of musketballs.i form square in the last possible moment
2. I keep a decent reserve near my arty and my general
3. I don't let infantry stand in squares and get shot at
4. I know there are ambushes with those indians, i scout with cavalry or my indians.
5. I know how to flank arty, and how not to lose my guard cavalry figting an infantry square.
6. I know to keep enemy fleets downwind and to avoid getting too close to them. I also know how ) ships move upwind and how often they can fire a broadside.

Essentially, I would say the AI is doing a decent job. It can defeat a human novice on Hard in an open field battle; however, it hardly poses any threat to an experienced player. Bear that in mind.

The really stupid and annoying part is when the AI is defending against a siege. One-unit charges make me sick...

---

Good post loony, and I guess something for everyone to consider.

I wrote in another post to Slaists that he was probably a top 5% player on the economic side of things. Most here are veteran players who know the tactics and would like to see an extremely intelligent AI.

At the moment it seems to be very hard to code this. And as I mentioned before...if they could...they wouldn't be making PC games for the general public. They'd be making far more impressive things for MNC who would pay them a bucket of cash.

I don't remember having any real problems with the tactical AI in the game, apart from how it always sneaks around and attacks your general or blows them up with artillery (hey, I'm the only one that gets to do that), it's never really seemed broken to me.

What I mention in my first post is the strategic AI. That is, the AI on the campaign map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

I don't remember having any real problems with the tactical AI in the game, apart from how it always sneaks around and attacks your general or blows them up with artillery (hey, I'm the only one that gets to do that), it's never really seemed broken to me.

What I mention in my first post is the strategic AI. That is, the AI on the campaign map.

---

I agree that the strategic AI is sometimes plain stupid, mostly due to poor economy/recruitment management. I think the AI does not understand what a "useless" unit is and where to find the "disband" button.

Im my late French campaign I keep giving conquered regions to Luisiana and giving them cash in addition to that. My "protectorate" owned Netherlands, Flanders, Genoa and Savoy in europe as well as 4 or 5 regions in NA. They get cash infusions and I have MY ARMIES keeping the stupid indians, austrians and other bad guys at bay; my protectorate cleans up the raiding parties.

They should have become a powerhouse in sth like 15 turns. However, they werefeeble and destitute; recently, I figured out why. I completed the mission (it was 1750 and I need to annex them to win) and saw they never bothered to upgrade their industry. Even the developed regions like Netherlands had apparently seen no iprovements.... OK, maybe they built armies? - NO!
They built navies, brigs and sixth rates, I found several stacks of those sitting in awkward spaces on the map (like a little west of Iceland?!)

Had the AI ignored the navies, it would have had a decent econ and at least 2 stacks of troops in NA (where we were constatnly at war with the indians). It could have also joined my conquests in Europe; it did have all the prerequisities to become a powerhouse and maybe even challenge me, but it did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loony

Had the AI ignored the navies, it would have had a decent econ and at least 2 stacks of troops in NA (where we were constatnly at war with the indians). It could have also joined my conquests in Europe; it did have all the prerequisities to become a powerhouse and maybe even challenge me, but it did not.

---

The AI wasting all its money on building immense navies for no reason has been a problem on and off since RTW.

Anyone make a money script for the AI yet? It would seem like a nice bandage until the next patch.

Whew, I've been waiting a week for my ban to be lifted so i could post this.

No. Nothing from CA has changed. I haven't played Empire for more than 20 minutes per session in about a month now. I see my neighbours declaring war on me simply because we share a border, and i see them sending army after army, despite them being thoroughly destroyed each time. I see enemies accepting peace and trade, only to declare war by occupying one of my towns or farms with a unit of militia the very next turn. I see allies, who my nation has been the best of friends with, has given gifts to, has helped them in their time of need (which is always, because the AI is dumb, and when they're your allies it seems to be even dumber), declare war on me for no apparent reason, and absolutely refuse peace, no matter what.

I see my enemy throwing its cavalry at the front of my line, or sacrificing every single unit of cavalry it has, including its general, trying to take out a single unit of useless Sakers or Demi-Cannons that don't even have canister shot, i see my enemies sending single units of infantry at my line to be ripped to shreds from a volley from 4 units, then sending another single unit when that one runs away decimated, i see it wasting all its money on gigantic navies of trash ships like sloops and building high level shipyards but never having the money to build decent ships because it doesn't know how disband the crap ones now it no longer needs them, good heavens, i could sit here all day and whine.

Honeymoon period with this game has well and truly wore off for me, and I'm 100% dissatisfied. I'm absolutely convinced they have ported the abysmal AI over from Rome and Medieval II and thrown it into this games code, because it's absolutely no improvement whatsoever over those games, and in many cases mimics the AI of those games, as even you die hard fans of this game will have to admit.

I honest to god hope that 6 months, or 10 months, or 1 year from now, this game will be patched and will resemble what we were promised we would be given, but I'm going to say it won't. And now they're trying to buy people off with adding new units. There are more pressing issues than new units. At this point i wouldn't give a damn if each faction had totally identical units wearing the same colour uniforms and speaking in the same accent if CA would just fix the ******* game!

Thanks for sharing Dayve.

I have to agree with Dayve here, as far as I can see very little has improved other than the graphic's and a lot of things have actually got worse such as the 'fire at will' not working, the random declarations of war, and more recently I notice the fog effects are actually less convincing in this game than they were is Shogun.

I'm still playing it and looking for work arounds but it needs a lot of work from CA to bring it up to a decent standard as a stategy game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Thanks for sharing Dayve.

---

I don't hang around your diehard fanboy posts that defend every aspect of the game and make sarcastic comments about them, so i would be grateful if you returned that favour.

I wonder if i would have the right to sue CA for my money back on the grounds of advertisement fraud, and me not receiving the product that was advertised. I'll have to look into this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I wonder if i would have the right to sue CA for my money back on the grounds of advertisement fraud, and me not receiving the product that was advertised. I'll have to look into this.

---

You're welcome to try but I attempted something similar against Blizzard over the misrepresentation of the World of Warcraft European Collectors Edition and didn't get very far. Both the UK and European trading standards departments agreed that the product was faulty and that Blizzard had deliberately sold me the product knowing it didn't work and were therefore guilty of fraud. Even HMV who I bought the game from agreed that it was a faulty product and offered me my money back. But nobody would take any action against Blizzard and doing so alone would have cost too much money. In the end I left it with the consumer protection agencies and never heard a thing back.

Yeah, game companies bank on the fact that the regular player, no matter how disgruntled, don't have the money to take serious legal action against them, and i certainly don't have the money to take any legal action whatsoever, but CA have committed gross advertising fraud with this product, and what i bought was certainly nothing like what was advertised and what was promised i was getting for my money, so I know for a fact that i am entitled at least to my money back.

It's no different to me buying a brand new, never worn T-shirt from eBay, then getting it and it's 2 sizes smaller than the advertisement, has worn fabric and stains all over it and has clearly been worn. False advertising, or advertisement fraud. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I don't hang around your diehard fanboy posts that defend every aspect of the game and make sarcastic comments about them, so i would be grateful if you returned that favour.

I wonder if i would have the right to sue CA for my money back on the grounds of advertisement fraud, and me not receiving the product that was advertised. I'll have to look into this.

---

Me, a diehard fanboy, defending every aspect of the game??

Get of the grass Dayve.

You went on a rant and I chose to bait you a bit, which you took, so sorry for that.

To sue CA will not do much, I'd recommend simply not purchasing their next product or any of their products. That's the best solution.

They've certainly not delivered on one major point, and that was the AI's ability to fight retreats and correlate the strategic situation with the tactical situation which they said they were going to deliver.

As for the rest, they've given it a fairly good shake and are currently still working on it. I'll wait to deliver final verdict until the last patch is out. Seems only fair to me.

However, I just can't see certain people here ever being satisfied with the game no matter what happens.

No, i knew you were baiting. If I'd took it and said what i wanted to say, i'd just get banned again, there are mods here who are watching every little thing i say right now and are simply dying to ban me for life.

Of course i went on a rant. CA have committed advertisement fraud and i feel scammed. I want my money back damnit.

Also, sorry for double posting buy junior members can't edit posts :whip: but i know there are people here who will never be satisfied with the game, and seem to bash CA as if it's a hobby of theirs, and I'm not one of those people. If you look back at my posts here from the day ETW was released until present you will see that i have both defended and criticized the game, and even told people who were exaggerating their criticism to tone it down and be realistic, otherwise nobody will take any notice of them.

And I'll continue to do that. There are improvements on this game from Rome and Medieval, such as diplomacy. There are more options, diplomacy is overall much better than Rome and Medieval, the problem is that the AI doesn't know how to use it, so the diplomacy overhaul is entirely pointless. That's just one example.

However, like i said, the honeymoon period for me has well and truly wore off, and my attitude toward this game is becoming more sour by the day, no matter how many things i tell myself have improved from Rome and M2.

My advice would be to do one of two things.

a) Take the game back to the shop and demand your money back. It clearly doesn't perform to specification and the shop doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they give you any hassle demand to know the name of the manager, then write to him explaining why the product doesn't meet spec and ask for a refund.

b) If he doesn't give you your money back, or if you don't want to part with the game report then report the whole thing to Trading Standards. Thats what I did. Remember to contact both your national consumer protection organisation and the European Trading Standards agency. I actually found the EU one more interested, but that might have been because Blizzard were based in France.

Remember to keep copies of all correspondence, just in case it goes to court, and remember to get the names of the people you talk to on the phone or by email and always confirm conversions in writing afterwards.

If it does go to court remember that you are not just entitled to your money back, but you may also be able to claim damages, so don't forget to ask. A judge forced to try one of these cases is going to be pretty annoyed and in my expereince they will award hefty damages against any company that makes them sit through a trial, just to get their own back.

I had a friend who took a shoe shop to court becuase they would not give her a refund for a £50 pair of shoes, and the judge was so annoyed he awarded her £500 pecunary damages, just for wasting his time. You should have seen the shop managers jaw drop.

Well I'm glad you didn't take the bait completely Dayve. Getting banned doesn't help anyone.

And yes I agree with what you say about how you were in the beginning and how you are now. I guess I'm just getting battered down with all the criticism of which some is certainly valid.

I end up sounding more positive and taking a less critical role just to try and balance it out a bit.

I've stopped playing until the next patch, so that says something. It's been two weeks now and I really want to play. But not until they get their next set of improvements out.

I assume you've been set to "Junior Member" for a reason? After 1600 posts it seems a little strange.:egypt:

Not sure, although i don't see what the point was... junior member just means you can only post once every 9849853 seconds and you can't edit your posts. The problem they had with me had nothing to do with the amount of posts or editing them, it was alleged racism, so i don't know.

Anyway, i haven't played either. I started a new campaign earlier out of sheer boredom, and now i have another problem. When i right click and drag a unit to set its facing or depth, half way through the line disappears and the unit begins to march to how it was before it disappeared. It's like i've let go of the right mouse button before i was finished setting the unit, even though i haven't let go of the mouse button. Switched on a couple of other games to see if it was actually my mouse playing up, but no, it's fine with the other games.

It's not even once every so often either, it's literally every single time i right click and drag, so i just said bollocks to it and turned it off. When it's got to a point where i'm so demoralized i don't even want to look at the icon on my desktop let alone CLICK IT... you know something's wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The diplomacy can certainly use some improvement, but I still think it's a great deal better than in RTW and M2TW. Contrary to the OP's statements, I tend to be able to get peace treaties from many AI nations. Sure, many of them declare war again a few turns later if they are still adjacent to you, but peace is certainly possible at least for short periods.

I think one of biggest problems isn't that the AI declares war too often, it's that it declares war at the wrong times. I'm currently playing an Austria game, which is very different from my previous post-1.2 games due to a total lack of trade income. At the start I was only able to afford about 1 army stack and I had a devil of a time fending off Poland. If ANY other nation had declared war on me, I would have been in serious trouble. No other nation did however. I was able to finish off Poland and consolidate my position shortly before the Ottomans declared war on me. If the Ottomans had declared war while I was still invovled with Poland, they could have wrecked me. Instead, I am able to beat them by focusing on them alone.

Europa Universalis 3 deals with this situation very well IMO. In that game, the more wars a nation is involved in, the more likely that other nations that dislike them will declare war on them as well. It's a typical human strategy that works well: strike when your enemy is pre-occupied elsewhere. CA needs some kind of coding like this.

---

Yes definitely. You also see dogpiles like that in the Civ 4 games. Where one nation would be put under by 1 or two civs, and all of a sudden it was a 5 on 1 venture.

What I would love to see is diplomacy AI which works more like Civ 4. It looks like CA made some attempts to make their diplomacy more like this (With the "friend o meter" and the ability to immediately open negotiations). However it sounds to me like the AI in Civ 4 acts more logically. Sure there are certain leaders such as Shaka and Monty who are often perfectly sporadic, but there are other who make perfect sense (Such as Isabella, who can be your best friend if you share religions, and your worst enemy if you don't). The funny thing about Civ 4, actually, is the human player is the one who ends up looking more like the AI from this game (They develop a long standing relationship with someone and then just up and betray them out of the blue with no warning). Also in Civ 4 there are certain signs that a civ is about to go to war (The We Have Enough on Our Hands Right Now note in the diplo screen tells the player right away that that civ is preparing for war, and to start checking the relations screens to see if it might be them).

Sure a lot of people say that the game is more interesting when the AI is "unpredictable", but unpredictability does not equal humanlike. Ever since I started with R: TW, all I've really ever wanted to see is allies who I can feel somewhat emotionally connected to, all I get is factions which I may try to befriend now, but just know that someday they are going to attack me, and I will have to kill them (Kind of like the feeling in all those zombie movies where the protagonist's best friend/girlfriend/mother gets bitten, and they know that they will turn eventually...)

Sorry for the long rant, I hope at least some of it makes sense to someone...


*EDIT* Also in Civ4, I really like the fact that going to war is no laughing matter. Your economy (Military upkeep), and city happiness (War Weariness) take such a big hit from the declaration itself that the player really has to consider the options, and figure out, not just if he can win, but if he'll be able to deal with the implications of winning (higher upkeep, changed political status, science affected) It's really neat actually, I'd love to see things from Civ4 implemented in these games (But with the neato battles, and minus all the complicated micromanaging and math...)

I agree Owen. There are so many games on the market that do the diplomacy thing better, you would have thought CA would have been spoilt for choice on which system to adopt. Instead they seem to have opted for no system at all, which is really 'dumb'.

I played RTW, MTW, and Shogun for 50+ hours on each indivisual game. I stopped playing RTW because it felt like I beating up a bunch of retards. Until threads like this turn into threads saying how hard the AI is to beat (something that did happen on MTW and Shogun, less so on Rome) im never buying a TW title again. My hope is by 2015 the AI will be competent, then that will make for a kickass game.

Ah, what i wouldn't give for this game to have the AI quality that MTW had 10 years before it. The AI in MTW may not necessarily have been any better than this game, and I've said this before, but it had the illusion of being smarter due to the way the map was laid out and the emptyness of the map. Each province had one thing in it, a city, and there was only one aim, to conquer it, and damnit the AI knew how many troops you had in any given province, and would NOT move troops in unless it outnumbered you and had a good chance of winning. It also knew to wait and attack on a weak front, and it knew how to use its victories and keep up the momentum.

Here is a perfect example of one of the big problems, the suicidal AI, from my current game.

https://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l...nhorst/sai.jpg

They have no allies, they are feeble and destitute, I am terrifying and spectacular. They are already at war with many countries, I am not. So obviously the perfect climate for a fresh campaign!

That's pretty funny commentary GFX707. Made me laugh.

Just reload from the Autosave and it will probably go away. You don't have to accept this sort of crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

Here is a perfect example of one of the big problems, the suicidal AI, from my current game.



They have no allies, they are feeble and destitute, I am terrifying and spectacular. They are already at war with many countries, I am not. So obviously the perfect climate for a fresh campaign!

---

lol, my reply? "So be it"

After playing a little while in 1.3, I have come to the conclusion that ETW is now becoming more like M2TW with every patch, i.e in 1.0 the AI countries were "Passive" but they would at least accept peace. Now in 1.3 everyone you have a border with declares war on you no matter how weak they are compared to you and will never accept a peace deal no matter how badly you are beating them, stubbornly refusing to accept peace even when you are sieging their last province. It looks like we are back to the M2TW cycle of everyone around you taking turns using the player as a means of suicide.

So, in essence, with every patch the game is moving backwards. I wouldn't be surprised to see the troops wearing plate armour and using arquebuses in 1.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Just reload from the Autosave and it will probably go away.

---

Unfortunately, that rarely works anymore. Trust me, I've tried reloading after a ridiculous DOW, and it only goes away about a third of the time. "The Black Knight always triumphs!"

Yep! looks like they've even screwed that up now.

In my current campaign as Prussia (which I keep going back to despite having quit in disgust at four or five senseless war declarations by AI nations who already had 4 or 5 wars already on their hands, a couple of which were my allies) I have conquered nearly all of Europe solely on the AI declaring war on me.

At the start of the campaign, I was considering who to squash first - Denmark for their ports or Poland-Lithuania to join my nation together. It turned out I didn't need to make that decision as turn by turn everyone just declared war on me and subsequently put up no challenge whatsoever, and despite that NO ONE WILL ACCEPT PEACE. So I am forced to exterminate everyone until I run out of borders. 1.0 might have been a buggy mess but at least the campaign was varied and the AI at least *seemed* to make reasonable decisions other than "COMMIT SUICIDE".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

Here is a perfect example of one of the big problems, the suicidal AI, from my current game.

They have no allies, they are feeble and destitute, I am terrifying and spectacular. They are already at war with many countries, I am not. So obviously the perfect climate for a fresh campaign!

---

Yes, that makes no sense. The strat AI is hopeless on the army assembly level as well. What is with the numerous 1,2 unit captain commanded stacks always milling about, going to and fro' but getting nowhere? Why can't the strat AI be programmed to group units into high count stacks under generals, much like a human playwer would?

I am playing as Prussia and I took West Prussia from Poland, followed by the inevitable DoW from Poland, Saxony and Courland. Then I took Warsaw a few years later. And the Poles just mill about in low count stacks at the periphery waiting for me to crush them. What has saved them - up to now -is my deliberate style of play and the taming of the Polish province, which takes some time. But, guess what? I now have that province well in hand and am almost done absorbing Saxony - and then it is party time in Eastern Europe and I doubt that the Poles can do anything to stop me as spread out as they are.

Finally - what is not debatable is that the game was released half finished. And while the support has been very good to date the AI (pick ANY level) is just not that good. And promises were indeed made that THIS TIME it would be different. Sorry, nope. :no:

Guys don't be so critical, as they said, they worked a full two years on the AI, to make it the perfect experience for us.

The problem is, the definition of what the customers wanted and what they thought we wanted.

As in we wanted an AI that worked, and they thought we wanted a 'rabid lemming'. I can see how that might cause a problem.

Yes, clearly what they thought we wanted was an AI with the relentlessness of the terminator coupled with the logic and planning skills of a recently trampled broccoli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

I was sceptical as always about this game when I heard about it at first. I pre-ordered it anyway because there is just nothing else like it. I have been playing since Shogun, and I have witnessed the series's decline after MTW.

The main problems with RTW and M2TW were:

1) Bad AI.
2) Useless diplomacy and suicidal enemies.

So, I have been playing since release and despite the BUGGY MESS that this game has been I have been more or less having a good time. In two months of playing through the campaign (and enjoying it) I have come to the following conclusions.

1) The AI is still just as bad, if not worse.
2) Diplomacy is still largely pointless.

Here's why: The AI on the campaign map always does the same thing. If you border Dagestan or Georgia at some point, they will always declare war on you, no matter how good your relations or whether you are trading. They will always be crushed with minimal effort. Then, you now border Persia. Inevitably, they will declare war next and be wiped out after a few turns. They are coded to be suicidal. To seal their own stupid fate they will absolutely NOT accept peace. Time and time again, there I am, at the "diplomacy" screen, my country terrible/spectacular (or whatever), theirs weak/destitute and they will still NEVER accept peace. This goes on throughout the game. Sometimes you can get a peace but they don't seem to understand that they are in a very bad situation - that by asking for peace you are SAVING them from certain destruction of their handul of 2 stack raiding armies, and even if you offer them twenty thousand to save their lives they won't take it. So, that's our new diplomacy which incidentally should go beyond having some new buttons to click.

The strategic AI is also the usual terrible CA game situation again. When I was playing yesterday I bought Quebec from the French - I hadn't realised it bordered an English settlement and an army was standing right beside my new town as I hit "end turn". There were no troops in my town as I had just bought it, and there wouldn't be until the next turn when I had finished building some. There was a large English army across the river to the south. I think "Woops".

So what does the AI do? It can reach the town in 1 turn. There are no troops to defend it.

It walks its stack PAST the *undefended* enemy town and raids the nearby seminary instead. The AI's strategic approach to war seems to just be chucking tiny two stack armies at you to raid your settlements, even if, combined, all those stacks would crush you. This results in a tedious campaign of chasing piddly two stack armies around which ISN'T FUN.

So since I am now bored of typing, in summary, does this game have exactly the same problems as the past two CA offerings in my opinion? Yes....and more. Did I buy it anyway, pretty sure it would be the same old story? Yes.

Why did I buy it? Why did all of us pessimist CA diehards buy it anyway? Because there is STILL, after almost 10 years, nothing like the Total War series. If this was nature, the Total War series would be the Dodo. It has survived because it has no predators. It can get as fat and as stupid and as useless as it wants because it will still have nothing to fear from any other game because there are no other games of this type to compete. It's in a genre all of its own, and until someone basically does a Blizzard and rips it off, but improves and supports it, it's going to be the same old story.

(same old rant, too)

---

GFX

I was thinking exactly this then I found your post

quoted for truth

I love your analogy in the last paragraph

Hey if we all beat our heads against the wall long enough - we might make a dent :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

(Such as Isabella, who can be your best friend if you share religions, and your worst enemy if you don't).

(Kind of like the feeling in all those zombie movies where the protagonist's best friend/girlfriend/mother gets bitten, and they know that they will turn eventually...)

Sorry for the long rant, I hope at least some of it makes sense to someone...

---

Dont trust Isabella man!!! that :daisy: stabs you in the back

perfect sense

good post

The sense of entitlement is obscene. You bought the game. You were not forced to buy the game. You bought the game knowing full well that in every TW game they promise the AI will be better (which it is), but fails to meet your expectations.

Seriously, if you take one step back and look at what you're doing it's a self-written comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by resonantblue

The sense of entitlement is obscene. You bought the game. You were not forced to buy the game. You bought the game knowing full well that in every TW game they promise the AI will be better (which it is), but fails to meet your expectations.

Seriously, if you take one step back and look at what you're doing it's a self-written comedy.

---

Yep I agree. It's funny that I bought ETW expecting it to be somewhat challenging and enthralling and ended up with a nicely decorated toybox.

I guess what isn't funny is I've told everyone of my friends (with much smaller gaming budgets than me) who have inquired to pass on this one despite the media generated hype.

Likewise, we usually buy three copies in our family. But only one this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by resonantblue

The sense of entitlement is obscene. You bought the game. You were not forced to buy the game. You bought the game knowing full well that in every TW game they promise the AI will be better (which it is), but fails to meet your expectations.

Seriously, if you take one step back and look at what you're doing it's a self-written comedy.

---

You might be right, but there are laws against describing a product incorrectly.

Plus, they had FOUR YEARS to fix the AI. Four entire years. At the end of that four year period we have worse campaign AI than RTW. At least in RTW the AI would frequently invade by sea. In 1.3 every single thing that was bad about the AI in RTW is present in the ETW AI. Stupid suicidal war declarations (actually much worse than RTW because the AI is usually feeble and in about 5 wars already when it declares war on you) and never accepting peace.

So I shall ask you: Do you think it was unreasonable or stupid for us, the TW fan, to expect CA, in a period of four years, to make *some* improvements to the campaign AI in their game?

I'm afraid the bottom line for CA is summarized here:

"Week one sales of the title were nearly double those of both Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War, and is the first in the series’ to claim the Top 40 top spot. It also becomes the first PC exclusive title to reach the top since Football Manager 2008 in October 2007 – another Sega PC title."

[from a March report posted at IGN.com]

"If you make a hit game, you make good money out of it. But you only need to fail once or twice in a row and you're dead."

[a quote from Mike Simpson, the creative director for CA as quoted by the BBC in a March interview]

Obviously, with sales at the top of the charts, I don't expect anything will change anytime soon.....:no:

That doesn't surprise me, because unlike their previous titles they are finally tapping the Napoleonic Wargame market, the single biggest area of historical interest in the world with millions of potential customers, who like me have been waiting for a decent historical computer wargame for decades.

Problem is, if your going to tap that market and keep it then your game better damned well be historically accurate, because these guys are going to rip it to shreds if its not, and once the word is out that your a bunch of ignorant idiots who can't be bothered to do your research then you won't get a second bite of the cherry.

Quote:

---

and once the word is out that your a bunch of ignorant idiots who can't be bothered to do your research then you won't get a second bite of the cherry.

---

Judging from the increase in sales of ETW over the previous two releases, a lot of folks disagree with that. Don't get me wrong.......I'm of the same sentiment as you. I just think it's going to take a competitor to step in and do something better for people to compare to.

While I fully appreciate that CA is in the business to make money (and oh, btw, here's a game for you folks to play), and that it is impossible to please everyone, one would think that after all this time, and with the experienced garnered from previous releases, that a more flexible game could have been produced.

By that I mean more option settings that actually determine gameplay. I design campaigns and scenarios for an old WWII game that has a much less complex game engine, and far fewer resources available for a modder to work with. Yet I, and others like me can create scenarios and campaigns that are fulfilling to all players both n00b's and veterans.

I just can't understand why CA cannot do something similar with a much more advanced game engine and a horde of experience from previous releases:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Judging from the increase in sales of ETW over the previous two releases, a lot of folks disagree with that. Don't get me wrong.......

---

Well I bought it because I believed the sales spin that it was a historical strategy game. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else with an interest in wargaming or history, and the only reason I'm still playing it is because I found some mods to correct most of the errors, and managed to work out how to switch off all the fantasy units.

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Well I bought it because I believed the sales spin that it was a historical strategy game. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else with an interest in wargaming or history, and the only reason I'm still playing it is because I found some mods to correct most of the errors, and managed to work out how to switch off all the fantasy units.

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

---

Which are you calling fantasy units?

There are things they have done in the game that disturb me and from a decent beginning, less the crashes and bugs of course, I see it getting farther and farther away.

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

Why do the French lack light dragoons but have rifles. Why does Austria lack rifles other than the air rifles and that is only two units. They also lack regular dragoons, at least in Europe.

Some of the things just seem totally subjective and I can’t see any reason for it, game play or anything else.

It would seem they are searching for their audience but only see the three hecklers in the back row and are trying to please all the wrong people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Which are you calling fantasy units?

---

Basically, any unit which would not have been available to the faction in question at the time depicted, or which would not be capable of being used in the role that the game allows it to be used in.

So, for example I have currently turned off. Native America Artillery, Native American Lancers, Bomb-Ketches and Rocket Ships. The main things I wanted to be rid of were the bomb-ketches and rocket ships, which are basically only in the game as a sop to the American flag and could never have been used in the way depicted by the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

---

I know what you mean. The sad fact is that if they just stuck to the historical theme the results would be far more playable and interesting. For example: Why depict the Royal Ecossais in kilts when their real uniform was just as distinctive and interesting?

To me such things are insulting, its basically the game company saying we think that your all too stupid to cope with a game that's historically accurate so to make it easier for you to understand and play we are going to give you the 'dumbed-down' version. Its terribly demeaning to be treated like an idiot, and as a customer I object to it, but its a common trait when producing products for the American market particularly when the supplier is an American company, and you get it a lot in film and entertainment industry. For example the title of the film 'Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone' had to be changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' and the entire film re-dubbed for American audiences just because the American distributors thought their audiences would be confused, and yet a Frenchman, German or Dutchman who did not even speak the language managed to understand it.

The other driving force behind a lot of these changes is of course the multi-player sub-game. Something that I don't have the slightest interest in and will never play but seems to be 'the tail thats wagging the dog' on a lot of these ridiculous 'play-balancing' idea's. Personally, I have nothing against the multi-player sub-game as long as it doesn't have any impact on the actual game itself. So, if they want to stick fantasy units and over-powered rowing boats in the MP game, I have no problems with that as long as they don't appear in the campaign. Just give the MP community their own version of the unit tables or something, then you can stick whatever you like in there and I don't give a monkey's.

Quote:

---

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

---

I reached that point with M2 and gave it away to a friend...........RTW only gets played because of all the mods, and the only one that gets played with any regularity is Samurai Warlords...........

Quote:

---

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

---

I do not mind ahistorical units or situations that may be placed in a game. They can make for fun diversions when you get tired of the same old, same old. But there should be in-game functions to turn them off when you don't want them.

Quote:

---

The other driving force behind a lot of these changes is of course the multi-player sub-game. Something that I don't have the slightest interest in and will never play but seems to be 'the tail thats wagging the dog' on a lot of these ridiculous 'play-balancing' idea's.

---

I might agree with that, but........that's where the money is and, whether one likes it or not, that is the bottom line.

Well, I steadfastly refused to buy the game, given what happened with M2TW (I loved RTW, though--still play it regularly). I must say that I'm very glad that I did: from what I see posted on these boards every few months, little has changed. The game still came out half-finished, and that's unacceptable. The only question that I have left, really, is if they'll pull another M2TW and stop fixing it so that they can release their next titles instead. Honestly, I kind of hope they do, so that more of us will learn our lesson for the next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I might agree with that, but........that's where the money is and, whether one likes it or not, that is the bottom line.

---

I don't think the TW money is in the multi-player scene - I suspect only a small minority of TW players do MP.

But in a more general sense, I agree with you - the money is not in a historically realistic game. Rather, CA, particularly Lusted, see better "balancing" as improving the historically flavoured game (both SP and MP) that most customers want to buy.

Ditto putting Scots in kilts, including rocket ships, mortars and other anachronistic battlegear, RTW Egyptians in Moses era outfits, geishas in STW etc - it's what is thought will most appeal to the mass market audience.

Personally, I am probably not in that target market but I can live and let live, so long as realism mods are possible. I still find TW a much more engaging platform for historical wargaming than most of the more drab hardcore games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goaswerfraiejen

I loved RTW, though--still play it regularly

---

Um, if you loved RTW, not buying M2TW and may be ETW could be your loss. M2TW is very similar to RTW, but with better AI. I can't see why anyone would love RTW and not like M2TW, unless it was due to lack of interest in the period.

ETW is a more revolutionary change and only time will tell if the AI has kept up with the change in the game engine. At the moment, it reminds me of RTW in that the AI has so far not kept up with the changes (in RTW, the changes were the move from the Risk style map and the change in the battlefield engine; in ETW, the changes include the reduced number of provinces per faction, trading theatres and the greater importance of naval operations).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Basically, any unit which would not have been available to the faction in question at the time depicted, or which would not be capable of being used in the role that the game allows it to be used in.

So, for example I have currently turned off. Native America Artillery, Native American Lancers, Bomb-Ketches and Rocket Ships. The main things I wanted to be rid of were the bomb-ketches and rocket ships, which are basically only in the game as a sop to the American flag and could never have been used in the way depicted by the game.

---

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Um, if you loved RTW, not buying M2TW and may be ETW could be your loss. M2TW is very similar to RTW, but with better AI. I can't see why anyone would love RTW and not like M2TW, unless it was due to lack of interest in the period.

ETW is a more revolutionary change and only time will tell if the AI has kept up with the change in the game engine. At the moment, it reminds me of RTW in that the AI has so far not kept up with the changes (in RTW, the changes were the move from the Risk style map and the change in the battlefield engine; in ETW, the changes include the reduced number of provinces per faction, trading theatres and the greater importance of naval operations).

---

You misread my post. I did buy M2TW (not Kingdoms), and was sorely disappointed by the quality of the game. The most egregious of my problems was that I could not control battles myself for the first six months, until a patch was released to fix the specific problem I was having (one frame per minute or so due to bugs with the animation). I was even more disappointed in the decision to stop fixing M2TW so as to release Kingdoms, and the subsequent decision to stop fixing Kingdoms so as to release ETW. These decisions have resulted in three unfinished games with serious bugs and promised but non-existent features, and that's just not acceptable to me.

Again, you did not read my post properly. My reasons for not purchasing ETW have nothing to do with the style of the game, or with its perceived dissimilarity to RTW: they have to do with the quality of the products which I purchased after RTW, which seems to have been in steady decline. Reading these boards since ETW's release, I find few indications to the contrary. I mentioned RTW because I considered its engine and concept to be significant improvements over MTW's, and not just mere graphics-glitz. RTW certainly had a number of problems, yes, but in my estimation they were fairly minor and were largely fixed before M2TW was released. This was not at all my experience with M2TW.

I would love to play ETW, or to properly enjoy M2TW--but that's extremely hard to do when I am forced into the role of an un-consenting beta tester, and when the efforts to complete the game and streamline the product are half-assed at best, and quickly abandoned for the empty promises that come with a new release. Many people have enjoyed M2TW, Kingdoms, and ETW, and that's great. Nonetheless, I stand by my decision and refuse to purchase any more half-finished products from the TW line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

---

I think what he means is that they were never used in sea battles. They were for shore bombardment.

They had to be anchored on springs to swing and adjust to the target. That wouldn't work at sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

---

Never said they were, seems that Fisherking understood the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I think what he means is that they were never used in sea battles. They were for shore bombardment.

They had to be anchored on springs to swing and adjust to the target. That wouldn't work at sea.

---

That's true. I misread Didz's point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

That's true. I misread Didz's point.

---

The problem is that whilst as a player you can avoid using these ships (they actually have no legitimate purpose in the game, as CA failed to include any land in the naval battle game) you cannot stop the AI recruiting them, so the best idea is just to remove them until CA get round to finishing the naval battle engine.

It become pretty clear to me that while graphics, game development, map development and economic models have greatly increased over time, the AI team can simply not keep up with the ever increasing level of resource and relational management.

Essentially they have gotten to a point where they have over-engineered these aspects and this has left the AI team producing an under developed AI as they have simply not been able to keep up.

I don't want to overstate this because producing an AI that can handle all this would be an incredible acheivement, but that is the situation they face.