How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?

I can't imagine that this question hasn't been asked, but I haven't seen it posted lately. Anyway, anybody have any insight into this? Has anyone from CA even mentioned this, even in passing? Anything like, "yes, it is always difficult to get a game 100% perfect, but yes, I really can't believe we didn't fix that problem." I want to know what nimrods tested the game and failed to mention it. I want to know why those who created the game, if aware of the problem, didn't fix it. I only mention it because IT WAS THE SAME PROBLEM IN SHOGUN AND MEDIEVAL!

I really haven't posted much, but after, what, a month of its release, I'm sick of the game. I only hope that the patch, when it arrives, fixes the majority of the problems.

Yep - it sucks.....

To be honest I've never noted suicide generals particularly, even having played all three games. Perhaps it's a question of play styles.

Is this the situation where the two lines are static, facing each other and the enemy general charges through his own line to charge into your centre and then get wiped off the map as your hastati all fire into him and your general counter-charges?

I've seen that once, but I attributed it to:
1. The German general (no stars) thinking he could break my line, since for the most part it consisted of hastati in lines only three deep and a couple of reserve units behind
2. The enemy general being called "Carolus the Mad" and having three separate negative command traits

The problem is the AI's tactics really involves just charging your position and trying to pound you... (mostly fromt he front) and because general's are a cavalry unit they outrun the rest of the army and hit first, and they die first.

I have seen generals charge my Phalanx head-on trying to do a "Two Towers Charge" and getting made into a kebab!

In MTW it was not so much of an issue because of the insane valour and hitpoint bonuses a general could get (jedi generals anyone?) you could surround them and they would not die.

Now we no longer have jedis but still have really, really bad AI tactics.

Yea I see this ALL the time and find it hard to believe the play-testers didnt pick up on it. I think CA needs new testers-preferably ones with eyes...

I would also echo the comments that tactics is very lacking.

eg- AI general reinforcements + his 3 units of peasants. There should be a flag here that says 'hang on a min, my troops are really crap' and act accordingly. Why would a general and his peasants then proceed to charge 12 units of armoured hoplites?!?!

But then you have a AI enemy army, who will retreat from the field if you outnumber 2:1.

Is there any logic here?

this game was based primarily on graphics in my opinion.

the campaign is on par with MTW, but the battles are seriously a step backwards.

this game engine has so much untapped potential its unbelievable, imagine online multiplayer with a system like battle.net. where it keeps track of your wins and losses and has a ranking system and ladder.

they could even make it so each person had a sort of "avatar" that could gain vices and virtues based on your battle outcomes, what units you use often, etc.

single player is no challenge whatsoever unless you do something like play numidia on vh/vh which you gotta hack the game to even do.

really i think the testers just consisted of some suits at activision drooling at the graphics when someone demo'd the game for them.

hope this post isn't viewed as a flame, its really not, i like the game and i think the modding community will pick up the slack that activision left hanging.

rome:total realism really made the game better but still the AI is abysmal, and theres no way to play multiplayer. (no cheat protection or ranking system)

Speaking as the "voice of reason"tm

It is entirely possible that the issue was picked up but there was insufficient time before release to resolve it and it not have been seen as serious enough an issue to delay the release... If this is the case we may see a change in the up coming patch...

Working in a software company myself I see the developers having to prioritise their work on the run up to a release, and if your work list included a number of CTD errors and serious incompatabilities then "overly aggressive generals" might drop down the work list a bit...

sorry for going OT but there isnt much to add to the topic anyway - just read bobs post ;)

but i have to say that i just fell in love with this idea:

Quote:

---

they could even make it so each person had a sort of "avatar" that could gain vices and virtues based on your battle outcomes, what units you use often, etc.

---

I know what you mean, but it's not a 'game ruiner' for me - just try to avoid using AI assisted allies - move your general out if there's going to be a battle, merge him with your other army, whatever - I know that's all pretty obvious.

But one thing I've found playing with the Seleucids on v.hard, is that your general is often - at least at the beginning of the game - not onlyyour best, but your only real offensive unit. As the manual says, throwing him into battle at the right moment can often change the tide of the fight, often, it's your only chance of winning. I'm not saying this forgives an AI general charging a pack of spearman head on, but I've had to accept quite a high attrition level for my generals just because they have to be used as an offensive unit, usually in the thick of the fight, and you can't afford for them to just hang around behind your infantry line boosting morale or just pelt round mopping up routing units.

And look at Alexander - he'd lead charges, was first to the walls in many of his sieges and would always fight in the front line; Ceaser himself would always be in amongst his troops where the fighting was most intense. We've heard about those two, but maybe CA are right and most generals were like that in classical times - we just don't hear about them much cos they all died aged 16 after charging an enemy phalanx... ;)

The only times I have never had an Enemy General do the ultimate sacrifice was when they did not even bother to fight. I find these rare occasions very funny and realistic at the same time. Almost human in fact.

Last night I had two battles I remember very well. One battle was in a forested area. The enemy did not set up a batle line, they just booked it right for the edge of the map. The other battle had the enemy lined up in front of me (just like always) and then has my archers were heading for their front line the enemy line turned around inmass and went running for the edge.

It is like the little AI General is saying "Screw you, I aint fighting today".

i knew it was a stroke of genius when i thought it up, i'm glad you agree it with me that it would be very cool.

now if only i could be a genius about something besides what i wish was in a video game :P

|
|
|
|
|
V

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medieval Assassin

|
|
|
|
|
V

---

Criticising a game for poor ai gameplay is entirely different to criticising a game for pedantic historical accuracy.

It almost always happens when I have an archer unit/skirmisher out in front of my line, and the AI's cavalry consists of only their general. The AI knows that charging missile units with cavalry is a good thing, but doesn't know when to abort that action. What happens is I see the AI cav charging me, so I pull my missile units behind the front line. The general then impales himself trying to reach the skirmishers.

The AI has a big problem with fixation on a unit with cavalry. Many times I'll have a horse archer unit or militia cavalry unit chased by an AI cavalry unit. The AI keeps chasing them so I'm forces to put a spear unit between the vulnerable missile cavalry and the AI cavalry unit. The AI doesn't see the threat and gets carved up.

IMO, the cavalry (and maybe all AI units) need some way to detect nearby threats. This way it can choose to abort the chase and retreat to a better position. This will solve much of the suicidal General problem.

Another issue is that charging non-spear foot soldiers *is* a good idea most of the time with a unit of heavy cavalry. The problem is that it needs to be done at the right time. In general, you want to charge a vulnerable unit only if there is no supporting units nearby that can collapse in on your unit once they get stopped by the target unit. What probably happens is: 1) AI sees vulnerable foot solder. 2) AI determines general unit is the nearest and best positioned cavalry. 3) AI orders the attack. 4) AI general dies as the human front line collapses in on the general unit

I think a large part of the problem is that when you group units, they don't all march at the same pace.

Try it sometime: group your infantry and cavalry and march them towards the enemy. The Cavalry will outpace the infantry, and if you ordered them to attack in such a formation, the cavalry would charge first and then the infantry far behind.

Does anyone know how to move the army without having the cavalry outpace the infantry?

I really doubt that this escaped the notice and comments of beta testers. More likely, CA didn't have the time to fully address the problem. There are quite a few similar probelms with unit stats, phalangites trying to chase down archers, the stamina bug, pathing, flaming arrows, etc. The more I look through the unit stats, the more convinced I am that they decided to go ahead and hit a release date, with a clean up patch to follow.

There are some real positives to doing an extensive patch after getting community feedback, especially with respect to historical balancing and gameplay issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen

Criticising a game for poor ai gameplay is entirely different to criticising a game for pedantic historical accuracy.

---

It's still hurting my baby. . .

Ah... ...those suicide generals. I suppose I haven't noted them particularly simply because the enemy AI overall is equally short sighted.

I seen the AI form reasonable battle lines. I've seen it deploy flankers fairly well. I've even see it use skirmishers correctly on the odd occassion.

But ever time it goes for the big melee crunch it just loses it. I've seen solid lines of phalanx suddenly charge apart in different directions losing all cohesion. It'll recklessly charge any cavalry (not just generals) after skirmishers regardless of how many heavy units are packed together right behind them.

It's not broken as such, but the AI could use some more tweaking in general, rather than just Generals.

I agree with Parmenio. Something was lost in the MTW to RTW transition. MTW AI armies were very good at forming up battle lines outside of arrow range, then charging them en-masse into your battle line. In RTW, I rarely see that. It's like they get close, then they individually choose targets, which screws up their formation.

There is likely a core simulation change that accounts for a lot of this (like the lead computing nature of unit vs unit intercepts). It could be the differences in Morale and Killing speed (when the AI does mass attack me, half the line reaches me first, and routs before the second half has arrived, due to losing many of their number in the interval)

It could be my experience (this is my third total war game) allowing me to "play" the AI like a fiddle. While my ego would prefer that to be true, I suspect more is going on.

Yes, suicidal general units are just one of those things TW fans have endured throughout the series. Even when we thought it was addressed via a patch for MTW it comes back again!!! The TW fans have now reached the point where we collectively roll our eyes and groan, "Oh, not this again!"

Quote:

---

I seen the AI form reasonable battle lines. I've seen it deploy flankers fairly well. I've even see it use skirmishers correctly on the odd occassion.

But ever time it goes for the big melee crunch it just loses it. I've seen solid lines of phalanx suddenly charge apart in different directions losing all cohesion. It'll recklessly charge any cavalry (not just generals) after skirmishers regardless of how many heavy units are packed together right behind them.

---

Exactly. The more I play RTW the more disappointed I am with CA because they didn't overhaul and revolutionize the tactical AI in RTW in the same fashion as strategic map and the graphic engine. I was desperately hoping that RTW's AI would raise the bar considerably, with the tactical AI setting a new standard in the industry. And yet the reality is that we have a tactical AI opponent in Rome that is in many ways worse than the one in Medieval! Ideally I wanted to see the AI actually formulate and adopt a simple, overall strategy for each battle, much like the tactical AI in the Combat Mission games where a 'commander' level AI would set the tone and basic strategy for the coming battle and direct the units in a sensible manner until contact was made and they would fight their own battles as their individual AI routines saw fit. As Parmenio said, more often than not everything looks great for the AI until the battle lines get close and then it seemingly loses its mind and its shoots itself in the foot.

I've said it countless times before but having a reasonably effective AI opponent is the key to this game's long term success. Once the 'gee whiz' factor of the graphics and strategic gameplay/features wears off we're left with a game that doesn't hold up well, even after extensive modding. To me the Total War games were ALWAYS about the battles with the strategic gameplay coming in second.

Suicidal Generals wasn't a problem in the version of Viking Invasion I bought, In fact, there is no AI control for your units in MTW. Did I miss an older version of the game or something? ~:confused: Player has complete control over his units in MTW, in fact, get this: when you order a unit to do something, it does it! (the concept is amazing, CA really needs to get in touch with the guys who made MTW and get them to help them to apply it to Rome)

DisruptorX,

You misunderstand. The AI still controls the enemy in STW, MI, MTW, & VI...and RTW of course. In early versions of each generals were very prone to charging to the front to die. This was toned down somewhat with VI. It is back with a vengeance in RTW. The AI needs some sort of rules to tell it not to engage the general unless various criteria are met such as: 1. There can be no effective retreat. 2. The force of his unit can decide the battle and the risk is acceptable. 3. All/most other units have already engaged, and his unit is needed. 4. He should choose to engage where he won't be plowing into pikes head long, etc.

However, let's all not forget that MTW/VI was bad about keeping multiple heirs in a stack, so that whether or not the King died, he might lose all, most or several of his heirs...even in a winning battle. That was a strategic AI blunder. It still exists in RTW, but to a lesser degree. The only time it made sense in MTW/VI was when the heirs loyalty was so low that they had to be kept in the same stack to prevent civil war, or if the faction had lots of excess cruddy heirs that needed to be "cleared out."

Ah, well I found that the enemy general in MTW was often able to retreat successfully after losing the assault (more than 50% of the time the enemy general lived). In Rome, I kill their general EVERY time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parmenio

I seen the AI form reasonable battle lines. I've seen it deploy flankers fairly well. I've even see it use skirmishers correctly on the odd occassion.

But ever time it goes for the big melee crunch it just loses it. I've seen solid lines of phalanx suddenly charge apart in different directions losing all cohesion. It'll recklessly charge any cavalry (not just generals) after skirmishers regardless of how many heavy units are packed together right behind them.

---

Actually, you would see exactly the same thing happen with your armies if you targeted for each unit in your line...and didn't change targeting as units shift. I even did it myself a cpl times when I started playing ~D

The difference is we get smart and update/modify our attack as conditions change. The "suicide" generals would probably just say: It seemed like a good idea at the time ~:cool:

it's not a bug. It's just realistic.... every 3rd general wants to be the next alexander the great so attempts to emulate his "tactics" whenever possible.
It's going to make the alexander expansion pack easier as well... no need to code new AI for generals.

A tad bit concerning historical accuracy: The Roman generals never fought in the first line. So much is true also for all (bar none) "Easteners". And for the Karthagenians too - they wouldn't commit to battle unless everything was lost - Hannibal himself, for instance, had escaped more than one crushing defeat (to die off poisoning later...) by simply not being among his troops.

On the contrary, of the "civilized" factions represented in the game (since the "barbarians" are a completely different story), the Greek leaders always led the battle from the first line, and in the most dangerous position possible (if in a hoplite phalanx, that would be the right wing).

That is the reason that in Greek warfare the generals usually are among the victims of any battle - they always led from the first line, that's the Greek way.

The Greeks are like that (we still are, actually): we don't like going to battle without being led directly by our supreme commander. We want him to share our fate, and put his arse on the line, just as we put ours.

It's... a Greek thing, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Actually, you would see exactly the same thing happen with your armies if you targeted for each unit in your line...and didn't change targeting as units shift. I even did it myself a cpl times when I started playing ~D

The difference is we get smart and update/modify our attack as conditions change. The "suicide" generals would probably just say: It seemed like a good idea at the time ~:cool:

---

That's true more or less. However I've been charging (or advancing to connact) my whole battle line on mass by ordering it to move to a point behind the enemy line since STW. (With Legions I set to fire at will and charge the line to just before the enemy line to trigger pilums first.)

Yes, the breakdown of the lines will happen if you or the AI targets individual units. What happens is that if the targeted unit turns or moves, the "lead computing" is done to plot an intercept course. This makes a mess of the lines since both the human and the AI end up with a bunch of odd vectors.

As humans we are learning to overcome this problem. With phalanx units I order my entire battle line to "march through" the enemy battle line. I do the same with some other infantry. When contact is made I take control of individual units to redress the line or halt/turn/flank/etc. as needed. CA needs to program the AI to do this as well. Presently the AI battle line is prone to disintegration. However, it does a somewhat better job of meeting mine if I do the "march through" because the lead computing is nice and symmetrical.

There are some problems with group marching that can cause faster units such as cav, etc. to advance in front of the heavy infantry, even if they were grouped behind (another area CA needs to address.) I think this is causing a portion of the suicide daimyo behaviour. Still the AI should not be charging the general forward in the first place.

Forgot to post this yesterday:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen

Is this the situation where the two lines are static, facing each other and the enemy general charges through his own line to charge into your centre and then get wiped off the map as your hastati all fire into him and your general counter-charges?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "static", but YES.

Quote:

---

In MTW it was not so much of an issue because of the insane valour and hitpoint bonuses a general could get (jedi generals anyone?) you could surround them and they would not die.

---

Did you miss the loud and consistent whinning, that lead to a fix in either the patch or VI (forget which)?

This was serious then, and its serious now.

BobtheInsance,

Quote:

---

Speaking as the "voice of reason"tm

It is entirely possible that the issue was picked up but there was insufficient time before release to resolve it and it not have been seen as serious enough an issue to delay the release... If this is the case we may see a change in the up coming patch...

Working in a software company myself I see the developers having to prioritise their work on the run up to a release, and if your work list included a number of CTD errors and serious incompatabilities then "overly aggressive generals" might drop down the work list a bit...

---

I find the "runup to release" theory TOTALLY implausable for the following reason(s):

1) Shogun: Suicidal Damiyos

Fixed, I believe in MI.

2) MTW: Again, upon release, Suicidal Generals

Forget, Fixed in either the Patch or VI.

One would wonder how it is that issues presented in the first insance are recognized and addressed effectively, creep up in susequent releases.

What happend? Sloppy truly sloppy to have this creep.

3) RTW: Suicidal Generals, AGAIN?!

Unfreaknbelievable.

Don't these people keep a Checklist, previous issues that have been fixed? Don't they have a CONCRETE *Prioriized* Policy, not to have previously fixed issues to creep into a new release?

Suicide Generals is not something to be left until the "runup" period. Even before, but, I'd accept directly after the first playtesting period, this s/h been addressed in a prioritized manner. The FIRST priority in formal playtesting s/b to ensure that prior *fixed* issues are not existant, and if so, someone needs to be called into the office and, ahhh, instructed to get this right, pronto.

It's ***Unprofessional***, pure and simple.

I've worked professionally in two demanding areas of business, where on every level from the highest to the lowest, decisions and actions impacted the bottom line or firm's reputation.

In each are, people would be fired for such inattentive carelessness to detail. Fired on the spot, call security, get em outta here.

I mean they're running a business ain't they? They're producing a product for sale, aren't they? I mean their ENTIRE business is based upon GOOD WILL!

After the Patch, Suicidal Generals should never occur in another release of a TW game. At the very least, the effective occurrence of this issue should persistently match that of the *fixed* MTW. Nothing less is acceptable, nor execusable.

Crap, let me run that company. :whip: :whip:

---

On that hardline note, TS truly hopes RTW is a runaway financial success, so that CA can get out from under the yoke of these Producer/Publishers. The Community would be well served if CA were to gain Id and/or Valve like industry leverage and could call their own shots, for the most part. Let us all pray that Valve prevails in court against their publishers regarding *Steam*.

Quote:

---

How did the suicidal Generals get past the testers?

---

This is the same as asking, how do you make a game with a thousand possibilities, and get every one right.

I am more than happy with a game that's gotten more things right than any other game I know of, in it's category. (Of course it can't be compared to "best FPS" or whatever.)

They'll fix some things in patches to come. But they won't fix everything. They can't - there are unlimited possibilities. There is no perfect game, and it's much easier to be a critic than a producer.

Meanwhile,

Let's go kick some Gaul ass.

My 2 denarii ~:cheers:

I'm with those who think that this issue should not, in a professionally produced piece of software, have appeared again. It has slipped past three sets of internal and beta testing and into three off-the-shelf packages despite being a known problem with the AI routines (which lets face it have not changed much since STW). It just highlights the sloppy lack of attention paid, for whatever reasons, to the tactical AI in RTW. It is also the reason why I have stopped playing it and why, unless I see conclusive evidence to the contrary, I shall not buy the next TW product. I don't care whose fault it is, I just feel that AI should have been a priority and it clearly was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedKnight

This is the same as asking, how do you make a game with a thousand possibilities, and get every one right.

---

I dont think that is an exactly fair statement. We are talking about a 'feature' of the game that sends AI general galloping off through their own lines, miles ahead of his own troops, straight at the nearest wall of spears. Repeatedly.

Not only is this completely a-historical, it makes zero sense.

We are not talking about a broken tab, or some other minor glitch, this is a major problem that ends up killing a good proportion of the 'characters' in the game. Couple this with the fact that CA trumpeted this game as a revolutionary combat engine and the point still stands that this should not have been missed through (im assuming) multipe checks.

Cool quote by Nelson, Lance - and who am I to argue against Nelson?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

I dont think that is an exactly fair statement. We are talking about a 'feature' of the game that sends AI general galloping off through their own lines, miles ahead of his own troops, straight at the nearest wall of spears. Repeatedly.

Not only is this completely a-historical, it makes zero sense.

We are not talking about a broken tab, or some other minor glitch, this is a major problem that ends up killing a good proportion of the 'characters' in the game. Couple this with the fact that CA trumpeted this game as a revolutionary combat engine and the point still stands that this should not have been missed through (im assuming) multipe checks.

---

In theory I agree with you, but we live in a very real and very harsh world where I'm prepared to cut CA some slack.

All companies work on cash flow.. and game companies only generate cash-flow by having newer games out there being sold. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of 'getting it absolutely right' before release, because you have to actually pay your people.

I don't personally know whether CA has had this issue or not, but I'm certainly prepared to cut them slack in this area.

To my mind most instance where game companies release buggy software come under this heading. If you were running a game company you wouldn't knowingly release bugs because you would know how much it would anger your users.. but if you are faced with not releasing software to hold it back for more bug fixes and that meant not paying your folks, what would you do?? I'd personally choose to try to make the best of it, release the software with the known bugs and pay my folks. Yes its a risk, but sometimes those risks pay off.

Given all the wonderful positives in this game, and the fact that there are very few truly bad bugs in it, I'm prepared to cut CA a big amount of slack in this area. You might want to consider it too. Its not a 'big buggy mess' that some folks on this board are whining on about.. It does have bugs, surely.. but so did MTW and STW when they first came out.

(and btw, if you hadn't picked up on it... I work in software.. not games, but software never the less.).

If they don't fix some of the issues via a patch, I'll complain right along with you.. but its still not that much time after release.. so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what they do to make things right.

Suicide Generals Suck. I hate when i get two armies in position to attack the enemy from two sides, and i have to watch the AI controlled general running in front of his army and charging ALONE towards the enemy. The only thing that resulted from these battles were dead generals, even when i outnumbered the enemy 3to1.
It just pissed me off.

The AI as a whole is worthlessly inadequate. Especially since we were promised a good one.

Pathfinding - Units will consistently take retarded routes and flat out refuse to carry out simple orders. Unlike MTW where a formation would mash itself up against a wall or march directly to the destination regardless of intervening terrain and gaps, and it was your problem to fix, this has been replaced by units recalculating your orders to their own braindead whims. Your orders should be a command from f***ing GOD. I do not care if you believe your formation cannot fit in there. I do not care if you think your formation will not fit through that gap. If I want you to take the long way without compromising your formation, I have a waypointing system. Go where I tell you to. Go there directly. Stand exactly where I have commanded.
Conducting a battle, most especially a battle in a siege, becomes a chore instead of a delight because your units will flat out disobey what you ask of them. I firmly believe that in the development time of Rome: Total War, I could learn how to code a pathfinding AI from my current total ignorance and still do at least a job as good (ie; pants) as this one.

Strategic command - Single units all over the place practically demanding to be obliterated. Attemping to commit sieges against massive stone walls when the defenders have just as many men, who are all vastly superior. Doesn't ever hunt down an enemy who retreats, I've watched the Julii and Gauls stare at each other over their borders all the way to the end of the game because they both had massive stacks unwilling to fight without superiority, and said stacks would fail to hunt down the smaller roving bands because they back off once. Then the smaller stacks obviously won't attack the maxed out cities. It's so crap, they gave it infinite money so it could swamp you with huge armies. A computer should work out its expenditures to the very last florin with sickening efficiency and squeeze more out of their treasury than you ever could without a calculator and way too much time on your hands. Screw that, it wouldn't have a chance in that case because of crappy....

Field command - Suicidal generals. Charging headlong into phalanxes. Doggedly pursues your general if nearby to such an extent you can ambush them with...anything you like, they don't care that your general is nothing compared to what you're running round behind them. Will gleefully turn its battleline into a vast, mangled blob of units by individually targetting like a retard and will also wander about the place in front of you as it makes what is seemingly a laughable attempt to outflank YOU so you can just charge right on in and squash them. Has no concept of what happens when units get bunched up under boiling oil, will make forlorn attacks up ladders with inadequate units (Bowmen vs Urban Cohort! Get in there lads!) whilst standing there getting mown down. Doesn't even know what siege artillery is. On the defence will happily stand naked under a rain of arrows until dead. Own ranged tactics consist of 'General or closest unit', even if the closest unit is a bunch of armoured hoplites who laugh at your arrows, followed swiftly by a bunch of Spartans, who may as well commit Seppuku when facing arrows.

Rome: Total War is like the greatest battletank the world has ever known. It has the biggest gun. It has the heaviest armour. It can go the fastest. It's as fuel efficient as a BMW.

....but it is crewed by monkeys.

Must be possible to mod this. Couldn't just the General unit be set in Guard mode or something ??

I'm not willing to cut CA any slack on this particular issue since they have had some many chances to fix it, including two previous releases and their subsequent patches. Sorry but that is just plain lazy to let the same issue creep into this release. If it was a new issue then fair enough, but it is not new at all.

normally what i tell myself when facing a crappy ai is: "why waste time coding an AI when you can just have kickass multiplayer, since humans will always be better than AI"

can't really apply that logic to this game and it saddens me, the multiplayer scene is pretty dismal. compare it to warcraft3 that was released how many years ago? gamespy? haha give me a break i was playing quake1 on gamespy in like '95, i know its probably some suit at activisions fault.

activision is mainly who i blame by the way, i'm sure the guys doing the actual work on this game slave away at it and wish they knew why marketing insisted on including an imaginary "egypt" and "spain".

right now i'm playing rome:total realism on vh/vh it gives a decent game on single player, but of course thats only because it just gives kill and morale bonuses.

I just don't know what to think, it seems to just be the way games are going in this day and age. Spend all your time and money on graphics because its the picture on the back of the box that sells games. Or perhaps most people that buy the game play 3/4th of one campaign and put it on the shelf next to grand theft auto, never having heard of these forums.

btw is it true they delete posts on the official forums if you post anything critical?

For my experience the AI just uses the General as another standard unit. I’ve cut down 2 units of Cavalry on then the AI General charges right into the fight. There should be a way of somehow “marking” the General unit and having the AI protect that unit. Then again I’m not sure that is possible with the AI coding. Like has been stated, In MTW this was combated by giving the General a lot of bonuses so even if they did charge headlong into an attack they wouldn’t die right away. That option seems to be an easier fix than redoing the AI programming. I hated the uber Generals of MTW but I honestly could tolerate that a lot more than these Generals that throw their life away needlessly.

Quote:

---

Rome: Total War is like the greatest battletank the world has ever known. It has the biggest gun. It has the heaviest armour. It can go the fastest. It's as fuel efficient as a BMW.

....but it is crewed by monkeys

---

LOL. Classic. ~D

Quote:

---

Given all the wonderful positives in this game, and the fact that there are very few truly bad bugs in it, I'm prepared to cut CA a big amount of slack in this area. You might want to consider it too. Its not a 'big buggy mess' that some folks on this board are whining on about.. It does have bugs, surely.. but so did MTW and STW when they first came out.

---

Fair enough points, but I would counter with-

1) I was not complaining about a 'buggy mess'

2) As I mentioned before, I dont consider this just a bug, I consider this a pretty BIG, game altering bug. Even after considering your points I still believe this was too big to let through. Yea, everyone expects a bug or 2 but this one isnt like the 'ships get stuck' one, this one can have a profound effect on the game.

3)IIRC, the demo generals didnt have this problem. Which again leads me to believe that this problem should not have got through because at one point it WASNT a problem.

Okay sure Rome still has some problems with the AI, but the AI is still one of the best I have ever seen in an RTS during battles and it also makes quite intelligent moves on the campain map aswell. Plus there are very few problems with moving your troops during battle... Something i really hated in other games where it was very difficult and time consuming just to form a simple battle line!!

Schnief

Veni, Vidi, Vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) Julius Caesar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

LOL. Classic. ~D




Fair enough points, but I would counter with-

1) I was not complaining about a 'buggy mess'

2) As I mentioned before, I dont consider this just a bug, I consider this a pretty BIG, game altering bug. Even after considering your points I still believe this was too big to let through. Yea, everyone expects a bug or 2 but this one isnt like the 'ships get stuck' one, this one can have a profound effect on the game.

3)IIRC, the demo generals didnt have this problem. Which again leads me to believe that this problem should not have got through because at one point it WASNT a problem.

---

Go back and re-read my post. Yes, I also don't like it. But I'm cutting them slack on it until I see a patch or two.