Printable View
I have not heard one word about gameplay improvements. All I hear is how beautiful the game is now. I am starting to get pretty worried after reading a couple of those with not one word about the AI. Should I be worried or do the Aussies have it all under control?
They've said they're working hard on both the battle and campaign AI. They've said, IIRC, that they're working to streamline the interface. They've said there'll be more detail and therefore more tactical options on the battlemap. I mean, what would you like them to say?
The only thing I read that bothered me this time around was the phrase "finishing moves". Have they gone right overboard with the animation? I hope not.
Anyhow, we've only had a couple of preliminary interviews so far, I'm sure we'll be learning more about the game as time goes on, and then we'll have a better idea where things are headed.
What they've said regarding "finishing moves" is that if soldier 1 knocks soldier 2 off his feet soldier 1 will plunge his sword/ spear/ axe whatever into soldier 2 to finish him off. This is a perfectly realistic addition and is a big improvement on the hilarious phenomenon in Rome where you would see soldier 1 knocking soldier 2 onto his arse, only for soldier 1 stand there while soldier 2 gets back on his feet and stabs soldier 1 in the gut.
I think the majority of the interviews is actually about new features, like the princesses, assassin videos, the new city/castle system, battle system, The new world conquests, the new merchant unit and mud and blood.
Marketing talk. Gotta get the low-brow end of potential customers interested, you know.
It might be true, but these people pay the same price that you and I pay for the game - even if they don't spend half their waking hours arguing with people about the military history of Sweden or the equipment of lanciarii on these forums. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
So every knockdown is now a kill? Is MTW2 going to have the hilarious phenomenon where a soldier is invulnerable while he's performing his finishing move?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I want to hear if the AI has stopped making frontal charges it can't win.
I want to hear if archers still prefer to melee rather than shoot.
I want to hear if the AI army fights as a whole instead of piecemeal.
I want to hear if the AI will stop chasing cavalry with slow infantry units that have no chance of catching the cavalry.
I want to know if skirmishers can be used as they were historically out in front of your melee infantry instead of having to be kept behind it.
I want to hear if the AI will protect the flanks of its army.
I want to hear if the AI general has stopped attacking units he shouldn't.
I want to hear if the AI can now manage fatigue properly.
I want ot hear if AI units that engage in city streets will stop the men in the unit who are not actually fighting from constantly running and getting exhauted.
I want to know if the fatigue indicator will be put back on the unit icons.
I want to hear if the main AI army will wait for its reinforcements before attacking.
I want to hear if you are going to have time during battle to coordinate most of your individual units.
I want to know if using a tactical reserve during the battle is going to be viable.
I want to hear how much time is going to be allowed for flanking in hammer and anvil type tactics.
I want to hear how much time is being allowed for a unit to come to the aid of a fighting unit in trouble.
I want to hear if "streamlined interface" means less controllable modes for units.
I want to hear if the delay to orders has been removed.
I want to hear if a speed setting below "normal speed" is going to be offered.
I want to know if attacker and defender will have separate denari settings.
I want to know if the mouseover info in the army purchase screen is going to be fixed so that it displays the correct info for weapon and armor upgrades.
I want to know if any individual units are going to be intentionally overpowered to balance factions in the SP campaign to the detriment of MP gameplay.
I want to know if the men will suddenly go into slow motion when they fight the way they currently do in RTW/BI. This reduces the number of combat cycles which increases the uncertainty in the combat results. We don't need more uncertainty in combat results. The amount of uncertainty in STW with it's 60 man units was about right.
I want to know if battlefield upgrades will be removed from MP. They are detrimental to the gameplay, and were removed in MTW/VI.
I want to know if there will be a 60 man unit size rather than 40 then jumping to 80 for the next setting.
I want to know if artillery is going to stop being so unrealistically accurate.
I want to know if castle battles are actually going to work instead of being buggy as they are in RTW/BI.
I want to know if all the important strategic parameters are going to be saved and reinstated in a save/load cycle.
I want to know if seasonal weather conditions are going to be important in planning attacks as they once were in this series.
I want to hear if the bias favoring the AI in auto-resolve battles has been removed on normal difficulty.
I want to know if you can play historical battles and get anything close to historical results when the historical tactics of that battle are employed.
Yes, they have it all under control and won't let it escape to the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyr
Do you honestly expect answers to all these questions? I can not remember CA ever giving such detailed information so why would I expect it this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
With regards to the AI and reinforcements, I agree entirely, wouldn't it be great to see the main force delay until they arrive. The thing is it never has, STW saw units entering from various places on the map AFTER the main force was routing. In MTW it was worse, the reinforcements all appeared from the same point so you routed the main army and camped on the edge of the map slaughtering all the units that tried to enter the map
..........Orda
Don't you think it would be easy to satisfy both lots, though, with a few simple checkboxes in the options? The kiddies who want something like AoE with more men on the screen can simply turn off all the "realism" options and they have their 20 minutes of fun while the hardcore military history dorks can tick yes to all these options and have proper feudal recruitment, a detailed economy, and no ahistorical units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
It really is something I think CA could have realised by now....they can still sell a lot of copies while not "selling out" or their game being considered "boring".
I want to know when CA are going to put Puzz on their design team!!! ~:cheers:
Yeah, I totally agree with that and for the life of me I can't understand why CA aren't giving the player more options.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
I mean, heck, if they're so worried about making the game too "hard" for the kiddies, just make the default mode the RTS one and then tuck most or all of the realism options into a configuration file where the hardcore gamers can go and tweak them. That way there is no chance of the poor little kiddies getting all confused with the different choices.
I think Puzz's questions are valid. I also think any real Q&A session with a developer would include those questions and their answers.
While unfortunately uncommon, such questions are appropriate to ask, and if the game design has progressed far enough allong where the devs actually know the answers, they should provide them. If the game has not progressed that far yet, then the devs should be honest and say 'We haven't made up our minds about that yet.'
No, actually, the Ca spokesman made mention of the attacker "spinning around" before delivering the finishing blow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I don't think too many soldiers fighting for their lives would stop to execute a pirouette before delivering the coup de gras, do you?
I've gotta admit, I havent heard much to get my hopes up about since they announced the game. I loved MTW/VI and was looking forward to it with updated graphics and a new strat map, but since then I havent heard much that hasnt sounded disappointing. Well, here's hoping. :sweatdrop:
In case you missed the finishing moves thread...
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61341
I really hope finishing moves are no including... it wasn't like knights spent days with trainers working on "finishing moves" or anything.
I'd definitely like to hear more details on improvements to the gameplay as well, but I'm encouraged that they mentioned they do study player forums and incorporate ideas they run into there. I know any time at all they've spent here has meant getting bombarded by 'graphics are all well and good, but we want gameplay first!' along with plenty of great suggestions and legitimate worries. At least they're aware of what we want, and I'm sure they're doing their best to create a fantastic game.
Here's hoping the stuff we aren't hearing is still happening behind the scenes, and that we'll get the game we so badly want. And here's hoping our modding teams get plenty of tools and options to tweak the final product as necessary. I'm not going to let myself worry too much until they've finished it and I hear the reviews of my much-respected fellows here at the .org.
Ajax
I do think that it would be pretty easy. However, the developers might not have the time or the money, and the producers might not be willing to give it to them. There might also be technical considerations that I know nothing about that make it harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
I'd really like for there to be more customisation options - just like the ones you mention; I am not sure if it will happen simple because of the economics of game sales.
Of course he is not. He hits the nerve, though, with his questions that are rather sarcastic and somewhat bitter/filled with disappointment. I feel exactly the same, and these questions are far more interesting to me than the number of polygons the soldiers are comprised of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
We’ll get the answers to those when we get the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
On this one point, this is a hardware limitation... If the game decides that your hardware can't handle 3000+ units on the field at once it will delay reinforcement until sufficient causalties have been sustained but one or both sides to allow the machine to handle them.
You can disable this feature being going into your Preference.txt and setting Unlimited_Troops to True (or something like that, I can't remember the exact setting right now), but if you have a battle between multiple full stacks be prepared for a side show...
To be honest when I stopped expecting historical reinactments from CA and started looking for a fun, historical based game I start appricating the TW series a lot more. It's "Hollywood History"...
I do however agree with the various observations about the battlefield AI and is "limitations"...
I am however optimistic as I have seen the improvements that BI and the latest patch has made with the Battlefield AI now appearing to be remotely competent (not particularly challenging, but less prone to outright stupidity)...
Ot, You should see what Darth's acomplished with His latest mod v6.8:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
I would gladly give up on improved graphics for a vastly improved AI. The eye candy is all well and good, but it sounds to me that they are almost at the point of going overboard on battlefield graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I want more of a challenge in a fight then visual enjoyment.
I see that I am starting to sound like Puzz " I want..."
There is some frustration there but I don't want to vent.
As far a improving a challenge.
Haven't tried multiplayers on line, I feel that 56k modem wouldn't be much fun. cheap I know!
The finishing move is killing the bloke on the ground! That's perfectly realistic. Besides the spinning I really don't see what the problem is. For some reason though this seems to have become some kind of icon for attacks on CA, as though people actually prefer the robot soldiers of RTW.
That's like saying, besides the corruption this politician is really honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
No-one has a problem with "finishing moves" per se. The concern is whether or not these moves are going to be exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Talk of soldiers "spinning around" like rap dancers before delivering the final blow is clearly a cause for concern.
Okay now I must admit this is impressive http://www.3djuegos.com/juegos/1301/..._war-62428.jpg
I really hope though that their putting as much effort into all aspects of the game. I'm beginning to think that the RTW 3D map will need a major overhaul to match the battle maps in quality (not that I don't think it needs a overhaul anyway). Smurfland just won't cut it. Nothing short of a map of Europe with proper DEM topographic relief maps will suffice if they want to maintain an even level of graphical quality throughout the game.
Where is that screen shot from?
From a Spanish site I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Thanks alot
I think Puzz3D will be disappointed in many of his questions about the 'skill' of the AI. IMO, graphics would seem to be a far more easily solved problem and add to the visual quality of the game, but getting a computer to be able to think and react with anything like near-human abilities is still beyond the tech level we have today. When you really think about it, how many factors pop into your mind when deciding whether to send two cavaltry or three on the left? To pin the entire enemy line or just the center and left? To chase off skirmishers before they can attack or simply stand there and take their shots? Within a fraction of a second we formualte a plan, react to the opposition moves, change our mind, change it back again,...and on and on. Simply put, we are not limited by mathematical algorithims. ~:yin-yang:
It all seems blatantly simple to us, but I would bet the developers are more hamstrung by limitations of technology than we would like to think. There are also the time and cost considerations to be dealt with and just how much of each can be put into any *problem*.
Just an opinion. Cheers. ~:cheers:
Wow, new screenshots! even though I think, the castle entrance is a little bit exaggerated :-)
I saw these screens in the .COM.
Just by the looks of it, the battle maps seem to be bigger.
The only other thing is sallying. If one sallies, then the armies would be fighting in that narrow pathway :inquisitive:
It certainly looks better...but I'd really like to know if this is a IN game screenshot rather than a nice constructed screenie just to give the community fals hopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Well I do like the sounds of having to sally on such as map, would certainly - given the AI knows how to handle such a map - be an epic battle.
:balloon2:
I am not very worried by the lack of details regarding the playability and A.I. of the game. You tend not get this kind of information in the first previews; most likely because the designers themselves don't know this yet either. However, I would be really grateful to CA if they allowed the same kind of Q&A as we had leading up to the release of BI. It might restore some of the communities faith in the company. I think the relative silence since the release of R:TW has made the community feel ignored, though it was not suprising CA was unwilling to visit the fansites given the amount of hostility at that time.
Yeah, the castle entrance looks like a mock up to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ivoignob
Two things that strike me about all the screenshots so far.
First, there seem to be an awful lot of full face helmets. Too many I think. IMO, the units should contain a mix of soldiers both with and without full face helmets.
Secondly, there seems to be a lot of armour. I'm hardly a great medieval history buff, but I've always had the impression that knights in full armour were very much an elite. Most soldiers were men-at-arms with some plate armour but a lot of leather as well.
Most of the troops I've seen in the screenshots seem to be kitted up like full knights. Somehow this just isn't how I envisage Medieval combat.
I wondered about all that armor too. Maybe they're using all elite units in the screenshots to make it look impressive and colorful, but the actual game might have more mixed armor types when you (and the AI) can't afford full stacks of elite knights. I hope that's the case. I'm not an expert on this period, but I also had the impression that full-kit knights didn't turn out in the numbers we see onscreen, and there should be other more pedestrian units on the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivoignob
Yeah, if that's an actual castle somewhere on the campaign map, I think I may just try bribing the garrison first, as that would probably cost a heck of a lot less than assaulting it! ~:rolleyes: ~:shock:
Well spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
We complained ad nauseam about peasants hordes, so they give us knights and what do we do? Right... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
These are just screenshots: off course they show the flashy bits. We'll have to wait until the full game before we know how the actual armies will be composed. Even then, I doubt it will be an accurate representation of medieval warfare. Small armies followed by large peasant mobs make for poor gameplay.
we're not asking for a near-human AI, just an AI that doesn't make completly obvious stupid mistakes. For example in RTW the AI doesn't even use their missile units properly. Give them 19 archers and 1 cavalry unit and they will still charge in that cavalry unit as soon as they can, instead of waiting until the archers have depleted their ammo.Quote:
It all seems blatantly simple to us, but I would bet the developers are more hamstrung by limitations of technology than we would like to think. There are also the time and cost considerations to be dealt with and just how much of each can be put into any *problem*.
Writing AI is hardly limited by technonogy, it's just a matter of investing enough time figuring out the AI algoritms and putting them in the game. AoE3 had a single developer solely working on water effects. I garantee you TW's AI could be more then acceptable if CA would let a single programmer work on AI and nothing else.
Well, Wikiman is back. Maybe the fella has something to say about all the queries....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
I hope they portray Antioch properly.
I agree. All I'm really trying to say is I'd be happy with a similar mix of units that were available in MTW. In that game, your fully kitted out Gothic Knights and so on were very hard to get and expensive. Mostly you just had archers, spearmen, pikemen and men-at-arms of variable quality. And that, IMO, is how it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I wouldn't get your hopes up based on screenshots. Go look at the RTW pre-release screenshots and tell me if half that stuff will ever occur in a normal game....
It would be nice if the CA crew solved the AI probably by adding the multiplayer campaign they've been promising since STW came out. If the AI can't be made to give the player a challange, let the player get a challange from other players.
Have anyone noticed how the scale of roads, trees and everything now fits?
No more giant trees (some does seem big, but that is to be expected in forests), that make your men look like hobbits fighting. That has got to be positive or can someone manage complain about that?
But it true that we won't ever have battles that look like this. These shots are structured for our benefit. They are meant to be flashy and dazzling. How else will you draw in enough customers? It is a fairly sad fact, but we just have to learn to read these shots like we read the annoucements of politicians. It is an entirely different language, just like diplomacy.
And what I can read from the shots is positive so far. But the shots can't tell if there is going to be RTW speed or the AI isn't going to stumble ahead. That can't only be speculated on. Yes even with Wikiman's comment on the matter. For has he really sai anything firm? Something that can't be bent if the reality doesn't fit the percieved comment?
Good, so let's just be happy that CA actually responded to it and seems to be working on it. Time will tell more effectively.
Correct. The first thing I thought when I saw the screenshots of MTW II....far too many great helms. Same thing with all the armour, there is just too much for the battlefield to look realisticQuote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
.....Orda
Well the screens are realistic with the troop selections.
If a faction is rich then naturally they will get the best troops money can buy.
No TW game has been realistic about that and never will be either since it goes against TW's "what if" idea.
Given that the guys in the screenies look like High to Late-period heavy-end troops (which also had a tendency to get pitted against one another - it's not like the light stuff could be relied on to contain them), not really. Those fellows were well armed, and the normal practice was to mass troops of roughly similar capabilities and equipement into large formations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
And, put this way: if you're doing a PR shot on the topic of Hastings, what are you going to show - the cruddy spearmen levies poking at each other on the wings, or the Norman heavy cavalry and Saxon Huscarles going at it in the centre ?
LOL. Yes I definitely noticed the properly scaled trees - not to mention their much greater level of detail. A return to appropriate scale would be very much welcome from my POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
But whether we actually get these features in the game, is as you say far from guaranteed. I guess we'll have a better idea as development progresses.
Remember the shots for MTW back in those days... Chivalric Knights galore! It is the same here. We see the cool and impressive stuff. In time we might get to see more lowly Sergeants, Spearmen and Archers. Who knows, but I doubt these low-end units will be left out, or even neglected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Misrepresentation is surely not for our benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Come on you know what I meant to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
We can have such battles... Chances are just low enough for us to never experience them.
But we just have to apply the normal filters we use when we scan new games. They always try to put their game in the most beautiful light of course.
While people here would love to see Spearmen, Archers and other low-end units they are simply not flashy enough for the people who happens to click in for a peep.
~:thumb: Down with R:TW's bloody giant sequoia's!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Yes I remember and I am aware that 'cool' sells, you are right of course but I was a little disappointed seeing all those great helms which were mainly used in tournament jousting. They were never really that popular and I can only hope that bascinet and chapel de fevre are more numerousQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
........Orda
Don't get me wrong, the AI does need improving and from what I have read it will be improved. My concern is that some may be actually expecting that "miracle" and it will set of another round of pages and pages of complaints. I am of the opinion that we are still years away from anything even remotely called *True AI*,...because of those very same alogorithims you mention.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
I've been playing these games since the days of Apple IIe and the first PCs,...the growth in game AI in 20+ years is both remarkable and strangely disappointing at the same time.
Cheers.
I don't think anyone is expecting a miracle AI from CA. In that many of us were reasonable happy with the AI in MTW and even STW (more so with the good mods like Medmod 3) I would expect that we have a good sense of what's reasonable. It is only the dissappointment of that other game (censored) that leads us to question what will be delivered.
Just look at Civ4 for an example of a game that is delivering an AI that has the community happy. Many people can't win on the 'even' level and most play only one or two levels up from that where the AI is only slightly cheating. The fact that there are three or four more challenging levels to go helps to keep the experts happy and probably provides the illusion that the players who aren't playing at those levels aren't very good (in their own minds). And I would venture to say that Civ4 has as nice a graphics as that other game (censored) did without sacrificing game play to achieve those looks.
I think Civ4 (or indeed earlier Civs) is a very good standard for a challenging AI that M2TW should aspire too. However, I am not convinced that the AI is that much better than in TW games and suspect it may just have more cheats.
Certainly, Civ4 AI is no great shakes at war fighting - which is what we are demanding from the TW AI. I can squash waves of AI troops with virtually no losses because it does not fight smart. And this is with a much simpler "battle map" (moves are confined to a few squares, so presumably there are fewer options to evaluate). It's been a while, so I can't remember all the gory details but I do recall the AI lamentably fails to bring enough siege equipment to bring down cities (although the BI AI also has the same failing). On the few occasions I have invaded AI Civs, it has been like slicing a sausage - the AI has no concept of concentration of force and just happily sits with 3-4 stacks in each city, while I dismember it's empire of 12+ cities with a stack of about 8 units. I would say STW or MTW provide a greater threat for any given ratio of AI to player resources. I just booted up STW as Useugi - try defending Shinano in turn 7 against 2 invading armies; when you are outnumbered 3:1 on the battlefield, however smart you are, you're probably going down.
I suspect Civ is so challenging partly because it cheats so much. It pumps up its cities and its armies so you have to work like crazy to keep a lead. Even on noble (supposedly "fair"), I think it gets great discounts for upgrading its units, so you it's less likely you will see AI "peasants" fighting your knights. I have not looked under the hood, but the reason the AI is so strong at Monarch and above is not because it is any smarter at those levels, just because it gets some massive advantages.
However, I will say that I love the Civ diplomatic AI - the way AI factions have distinct personalities and the way many launch opportunistic wars, get weary, back off and later come gunning for a round two. I am a builder in civ - war fighting is too tedious in that engine - but it is thrilling to try to hold off aggressive Civs while I prioritise bread over guns. TW AI diplomacy is rather brain dead by contrast - they often start pointless wars, refuse sensible offers of peace, make ludicrous demands and do not simulate any recognisably human personality at all.
If they put 1/10th the effort into improved AI as they seem to devote to their culture of cool, then at least it would be an improvement...
I just want the option of playing a historically accurate game that is both challenging and replayable against the AI or MP opponents. You'd think this wouldn't be too much to ask.
Yeah, seriously. Replayable is the most important thing to me. I want a games fun to last longer than 3 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
If you increase a unit's defence skill and / or attack value (+experience bonus to both attack and defence skill), you will see that once a unit is on the ground, the attacker (who knocked his opponent to the floor), if positioned correctly, will finish him off as he begins to get up. That is at least a realistic feature IMO, because naturally anyone trying to stagger to his feet in any sort of armour would be vunerable to incoming blows, which may well prove fatal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
However, this debate regarding finishing moves and the concern over the AI is indeed that...concerning. After witnessing the berserker animations in both BI and RTW (was this included with patch v1.3/v1.4?), they were at first impressive. Especially during sieges where a berserker (once in bloodlust mode and uncontrollable) would hack his way through wavering opponents, using sending them flying into the air, even more so on walls some distance up.
However, these berserker animations soon become repetitive and almost appear as fantasy; how would anyone - regardless of weapon skill - be able to string together perfectly-timed combo attacks? Doing so would leave the attacker open and vunerable to counter-attacks from those surounding him probably on more than one occasion.
I haven't played Spartan: Total Warrior, but after reading the console reviews for XBox, PS & Gamecube, I could soon picture what audience the game was primarily aimed at. I don't want to sound as though I'm criticising an unreleased product, but I seriously hope the finishing moves to be included in MTW2 were not influenced by Spartan: Total Warrior.
On the other hand, I like the sound of the increased chances of units parrying blows and then launching their own counter-attacks. As mentioned before, if you increase the defnce skill of your units in RTW, you will see them dodge, shuffle, parry more frequently. More importantly, however, they will actually react almost instantaneously to an incoming attack when in close quarters, depending upon defence skill, unit animations and so on.
As for the AI, well it would be good to see an improvement of the vanilla AI in RTW. Although to be fair to CA, the AI was improved marginally through its patches, changes and fixes. However, as mentioned numerous times already in this topic, the AI has never really offered a seriously challenging test of skill which many would at least expect to appear in MTW2.