Printable View
Folk from CA have invited the Org to compile a list of common issues with the patch that will likely come with an expansion pack (see the sticky in the Ludus Magna). That got me thinking, what is the one area that people would most like to see CA work on for the patch?
The context is likely to be an expansion pack (eg barbarian invasion) which will cover another time period, but I am not talking about that new content - just any changes to the existing game that CA make.
AI, AI, AI, AI, anything else is moot! ~:) :duel:
Make an export_descr_AI.txt to let us weigh the battlefield decisions!!
For campaign map as well (if there is time). That will silence those bickering Medieval TW fans for good this time!
Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs.
AI improvements, dilpomacy, etc can come with time (the sooner the better though).
Major bugs fixed and AI beefed up to a level where it doesn't do entirely stupid things. Nothing fancy, just so it looks like it might have a basic idea of using troops in a line. The fancy AI stuff can come later, just the basics.
Hasnt it already been confirmed that there isnt going to be another patch? That's why there's a big bug list in the other subforum. CA wants to know what needs to be fixed in the expansion.
Edit: Sorry, Kekvitrae, I meant the patch we'll get in the expansion pack.
One thing I would say is that going by past experience - STW and MTW - the patch with the expansion will be the last substantive patch we will get. Any further patch would just be to deal with new bugs introduced by the expansion (eg the 56 year old leader bug in VI). The patch that comes with the expansion may also be the biggest in the sense of making changes other than bug fixes. Mongol Invasion added a lot to the vanilla STW campaign - notably the different start dates. VI also brought some nice features to MTW. I think CA have money and time to work for an expansion, so can do a little more than squash bugs.
For example, implement some of those things that they left traces of in the files, those ones that most players have been drooling for.Quote:
I think CA have money and time to work for an expansion, so can do a little more than squash bugs.
I would like to see non-Roman factions boosted so that they have a chance of surviving against the Romans...
I always see Macedon and Carthage defeated early on, not to mention Seleucid Empire and Greek Cities. They're all exciting factions and it would be nice to see them progress to the late-game stage. ~D
Tough, you should've done some A&B, B&C, A&B&C type choices. I don't want to pick other stuff, because I want CA to get a specific point.
You should edit the title to avoid confusion :tongueg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
I voted Other. The MOST important thing CA could do in the next patch/expansion is open up the game a LOT more for modding. That way we can fix everything up any way we like it, and ppl will make their own changes wherever they personally feel necessary. For example, if you open up AI for modding that INSTANTLY fixes both campaign and battlefield AI because the community will do it themselves. If you open up diplomacy for modding, that will instantly create 1st class diplomacy for the same reasons. etc.
Balance. And not only the relative balance between arms, also the balance between different units of the same type and faction balance.
Singleplayers be damned... bwahahaha! :devil: (Not very likely, but one can hope... ~D)
I changed the thread title for you, Simon.
Do carry on.
So, if you look at this poll, you will find a large majority really aren't looking for an expansion pack (more armies, units, factions) but an improved game:
Bugs, Batle AI, Strategic AI, improved Carthage.
Very interesting.
I'd like to see three different eras to start from as in MTW. By the time I get to the higher tech levels, where I can enjoy the better units, I am bored with the retarded backstabbing diplomacy and the way the Romans and Egyptians have already mowed over every other faction. Starting later means I can utilize primo units for a few turns before my trusted ally decides to attack my capital with two units of peltasts while his real enemy sieges his last remaining province with two full stacks. :dizzy2:
I dont want to pay 30 dollars JUST for a patch. I want to pay 30 dollars for an expansion pack. I voted "More stuff"
The more, the better! More! More! More!
More Content for sure.
A bigger Map would be nice too.
So far I have never been able to Engage nor the Parths nor the Seleucid, (althought in the present Campaign they somehow managed to Rule and they are the ones pushing on Egypt for once), to say nothing about the Armenians.
A bigger Map would insure that these Factions get some more Provinces and consolidate an economical base permiting them to survive longer.
As far as the Greeks are concerned, well, they did fall early in History, so to make them last longer would be less Historical, that being said, an improved AI could enhance their Fighting Prowess and make them more difficult and - To be remembered - to Conquer.
Alternate perriods would be good as well, however, from Marcus Aurelius up till near the decline nothing much really hapened except for the empire to be separated in two.
So a near "Fall of Rome" perriod with Huns and the Tribes they displaced would be nice to have!
1. Bugs
2. Strategic AI
3. Battle AI
4. New gameplay features
all of the above
AND some serious QA...makes me wonder is the xpac under contract to Activision or SEGA? either way pls don't rush it..iron out bugs, balance issues etc.. we don't want new ones introduced...
All of the above. The battlefield AI is hurting the worst, but there are so many other problems and bugs that I really can't narrow down.
Aargh! I was asking about what people want to see in the patch that will come with the expansion - the changes to the existing campaign, not the new campaign (barbarian invasion or whatever). That's why I was not excited about having this thread's title changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kekvitirae
It's a complete no-brainer. Improve the battle AI.
If you'd given me a choice between that and making the melee battles last longer though, it would have been a tough choice. But I still think I'd go for battle AI.
wtf?
isn't there a "make it work as advertised" option?
GAH!
even the polls are ridiculous - getting a game without bugs and with a decent AI shouldn't be something we have to pay for
+insert 12 explicatives+
The AI of Battles seems to be the greatest concern for sure here.
I still long for the intense and more tactical fightig of Shogun, the one in the series that started it all...
It was trully Move Counter-Move, one could feel the battle swinging between a Victory or a Defeat, but the best part of it was really the fact that one could turn the tide in the midst of battle. :duel:
I do wonder why this tactical aspect, this feeling, never made it in to RTW, where its basically all or nothing and a battle's outcome most of the time is pretty much decided with the first strokes of metal upon metal. :charge:
Reflecting upon it I can but agree, the AI in battlefields should be of outmost importance, a priority...to finish what has started ~:cheers:
IMO, that is wishful thinking. To make a "moddable" AI would be a major task in its own right. You'd have to invent some sort of scripting language, and even then you would be limited by what the language allowed you to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
There is no "instant" or easy fix for poor AI. If there was one, we would have had it by now.
I think that is probably a more viable option, but then you would still be limited by whatever toolset is made available.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
Voted battlefield AI.
What I´d really like to see is that CA would produce a genuine war-engine with all the required contents for all types of war from 3000bc to the modern day and let the community of modders and players create their own mods. This way we can get the kind of games we want while CA only work on the AI and the platform of the game itself.
You all know HTW, NTW, RTR, (EB) etc. they are all very good work. IMHO better than the original game itself or games like MTW XL that enhanced the vanilla game to a maximum extent. CA should provide the tools and the modders should develop the actual games. That´s my dream in the future.
LOL, that's a fairly radical proposal, but one I kind of like.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseRamesses
Who knows, maybe one day the game industry will really work that way.
OK - yeah, I wanted to vote for all of them. I chose Improved Strategic AI because I figure if the army stacks contain better units, and move about the campaign map in a more cohesive and threatening way to the player, then by default, the battles will be better. OK - I know this only partially address the community's concerns regarding battles, but it's a start. Obviously I also want all the other stuff listed, but that's a given.
Battlefield AI, but it was close between that and strategic AI
My reasoning is that no matter how many troops the AI brings to the field of battle, it will be stupid unless they can fight well with them :) so we need improved battlefield AI, including more reaction to your actions and better startup position depending on your army (ie don't put phalanxes out front when i have lots of archers, deploy skirmishers instead)
Voted for a boost of the non-roman factions.
Espescially the Seleucid Empire, who would be really challenging if they could conquer the east, no matter how stupid the AI is.
1) Battle AI
2) Bugs
3) Strategic AI
4) New shizzle
The whole game is pretty pointless if the AI doesn't know how to fight!
I'm getting a little tired of winning when 3:1 outnumbered with a 10:1 kill ratio because the AI doesn't understand that his 15 phalanx units shouldn't attack one-by-one. Sometimes the AI isn't too bad, like with fast cavalry armies - but it just doesn't get infantry tactics.
MTW's AI managed to keep a solid battle-line with the units covering each other, but RTW always attacks piecemeal and gets massacred.
1. More Factions like VisiGoths; The Rus; anyone from Zimbabawe; Attila the Hun? Which Alexander descendant was running N.India?
2. A Naval BattleScreen, even a very simple 2D one would be better than the AutoResolve
3. The Battle of Troy?
The Romans loosing for a start. ~D Also slaughtering Romans ! And finaly burning Roman and everyone elses citys to the ground in true raider faction ! Should actually be an option to sackk cities that would be cool.
Sorry, I thought I was helping. The original title was confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Tell me what you want the title to be and I will make it so.
1. Battlefield AI
2. Strategic AI
3. Bug Fixes
4. New Factions appearing during the game (like Swiss/Burgundians in MTW)
5. Gloss - Musicians/Signalmen/Officers/Runners - I want to see those drummers and hornblowers they were trying to put in the original, I want a movie of my naval battle, even if I don't get to do anything about it
Troy was years before Rome, but as a historical battle would be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyez00
Cheers, Nelson. I think most people interpreted the poll correctly so it's no big deal. I wonder if the clearest wording might be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
"What do you most want to see patched in the expansion?"
I know i never shut up about this but anyway, Bring back the HISTORICAL CAMPAIGNS!!!!!!!
Except this time bigger and better. There would be so many to do. It really would give the game a whole new lease of life. And maby silence some bad critics........ :bow: :bow: :balloon2: :charge: ~D ~:handball: ~:eek: :dizzy2: ~:cool:
Improve the battlefield AI. I'm sure CA will add more fluff to the XP, but the last 3 options can be modded in somewhat. It is too much to ask for CA to add a gazillion options for factions, units, and timeframes. Too many options, and you can't satisfy everyone.
Improving the battlefield AI would help the computer factions more than anything else. Fewer crushing defeats on the battlefield equals better generals, more experienced units, and higher town populations for the computer, while offsetting these same advantages the human player gets as it stands now. This would help the strategic AI in turn. And it would be more fun (and tense) to play.
It would be just great if only the AI was good enough to inflict substantial losses on your forces, even when it got beaten.
I consistently inflict 6 to 10 times the losses on the AI that my own side suffers, in battle after battle, almost regardless of the odds. Some battles now I'm only getting 5 or 10 dead guys, sometimes none! And the mainstay of my armed forces is nothing more than the humble Greek levite, one step up from peasants.
If the AI could at least maul your own armies, it would stop you from expanding so fast and deplete your coffers - which would in turn give the AI more chance to recover its own losses. So apart from the extra fun a good AI would provide, it would also restore a lot of the currently missing game balance.
Good point,Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I picked Battlefield AI. Particulary bad is siege AI, and I would include Siege pathing in that, which some might call a "bug".
I would also like to see a heckuva lot more information released about the game mechanics. It's remarkable how little is understood about how this game works as long as it has been out.
Exactly what I was thinking. Lopsided battle results have a snowball effect on a faction, he has to spend a lot of money/population/time to rebuild the shattered army, while you just pay the maintenance and reap the tax dollars. Medieval was like that, you usually won, but the attrition was higher, which slowed you down.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I'll tell you what i want back.
Being albe to save replays in the campaign.
1) strategic AI. They don't do anything. The later the game gets, the less they do. It's like 20bc, and nobody but me has lost or gained a territory in a hundred years. Except maybe egypt. But only sometimes.
2) battlefield AI. Phalanx armies fough as one. Not as twenty individula little armies. AAAAAAAAAARRTRGAGGGGGAYYYYARGGGHH!!!!
3) More stuff. I agree with assmod K. I am not paying 40 or 50 bucks for a patch. This better be worth it. And I am a big fan. If I'm not impressed, I'll just stick with EB when it comes out.
4) Bugs. I can deal with it now. Whatever.
5) Whatever.
Good poll Simon.
Improving unit attack behavior would be good. Redoing the phalanx would be nice. They should've figured out how to switch from an overhead positionwith the spear to an underhand position by now. Phalanxes need a charge and push animation as well. And give them a special ability for toggling between pushing and stabbing.
I want to see all of it: VASTLY improved AI, on the battlefield and strat map, more units, options, factions, ADD DEPTH to the gameplay, fix the great plethora of bugs and MUCH more moddability.
If it is not the best possible game, I will not buy it. Heck, I don't know if I even would buy it if they weren't so mean to their customers and had such a terrible product. By the time it comes out (and I give it the obligatory 6 month wait to see if its bugged up the wazoo), I'll have a new comp, and that means HL2, and that means a semi-truck full of mods.
Crazed Rabbit
CA will fix the bugs (they have to; imagine Barbarian Invasion + Siege Bug = disaster)
Barbarian Invader Leader #1: "Attack and destroy Rome!"
::after reload:: + ::reassessment::
Barbarian Invader Leader #1: "Alright, let's all go Home!"
~D
so my pick would be to improve the "Strategic AI". (I don't know if CA can improve the Battlefield AI)
lol...how abt a patch 1.3 to fix the current bugs then we can further "playtest" it so they won't introduce ones in the xpac!! and they can concentrate on improving the strategic and battle AI, which can't be done in a patch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
but of course this can only be so far fetched...
I am relatively sure that "patch 1.3" = the expansion pack. There won't be a stand-alone patch 1.3 for RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackker
The foremost thing to fix for me is that battle AI since it's not challenging, followed by this "save game" bug which makes the AI lift all sieges after a reload.
Sorry, but I can't simply pick one in the list.
The bugs NEED to be fixed. It's simply unthinkable not to do it.
The AI require drastic improvements.
The diplomacy is actually totally and utterly useless, it require a lot of enhancements.
These three are required, and I can't really "vote" for one. All three are equally important.
Ah, one thing that is NOT needed : more traits/V'n'V. There is already far too much of these.
Interesting results from the poll - looks like improving the battlefield AI has emerged as the clear winner. If I could, I would switch my vote to that as well. It's particularly obvious fighting phalanx armies. I faced a full stack of Macedonian phalanxes and cav last night with only 3 hastati and a mix of sundry other troops. If they had just ploughed forward in a line, weight of numbers and the phalanx bonuses would have overrun me. (At least this happened every time my German phalanxes met AI Romans). As it was, they kept breaking their line up to go hither and thither, allowing them to be flanked and defeated in detail, one by one.
Just one big hope, allow mod access to the AI, campaign and battlefield.
errrr... how about all of them?XD
though i guess most probably AI (espically field... campaign wise it's acturally not THAT bad espically in the early stages) and balance up the factions a bit more (Carthage and Gaul is too crap)
Well, gamers just complain and they´ll end up playing a mod anyway so CA should go along with the flow and produce an all-open, totally moddable TW collectors edition for the gaming community complete with graphics tools, editors etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
* Improve AI (in battle and in campaign game)
* Reduce speed of batles to a realistic one, (one level under actual speed)
* Naval battles
* Like in MTW, campaigns that will begin in later ages with high tech. (I've finished a long campaign with the julii and I never saw the marians reforms). Perhaps historical campaigns: Anibal, Julius Cesar, etc..)
* Like in MTW, it could be fun if you can take prisoners (soldiers and characters) and negociate: The idea is, that when a battle ends and you, or the A.I., have prisoners, the diplomatic screen appears, like a pop-up and you can negotiate the live of soldiers and generals. If you reach to an agreement prisoners where send to a near city and can't be used in one turn. (that also will affect trait characters...) If not, for soldiers, you just kill them or let them be killed. For generals you can kill them or continue having them as prisoners and use it in future negotiations of peace.
* Use hostages as a warranty. When you broke an alliance, nothing bad happen. It could be fun, an realistic, that when you make an alliance, one posibility is to send one character (perhaps a young boy of ten or even an adult) automatically to the other faction capital, as a way to assure that you will respect the threaty. If you broke the threaty, you can kill him or use as a prisoner (see above). That was very realistic. In those ages, It was comon that they send one or more members of the royal family to a foreign court as a warranty of a treaty.
All of those things improving. Am i being fussy now?
Yes I suppose all is being greedy ~;), so bugs, closely followed by AI, though they kind of go together in my opinion. I just want to defend some decent sieges. Since 1.2 in my campaigns the AI hardly ever assaults - it just sieges and then lifts repeatedly, and I'm not even reloading! :dizzy2:
1- Bigger Maps 2K X 2K.
2- More geographical improvemets on battlefields like historical battles itself.
3- Far distances between fighting armies. Like older TW series.
4- Longer battles for realistic battles.
5- Provincial Campaigns.(Ceasar in Gaul, Hannibal, Phyrus of Ephyrus, Daidochi)
6- More historical battles. (Cannae?)