Normal Vs Hard/VH difficulty

Well since STW the only difference between norm and hard/veyhard on the battlefield was bonuses the A.I. would get on the battlefield was bonuses minus a few(very Few). Now the battlefield A.I. can be a spaghetti messs to program as there are so many variants. Of course the campaign is a spaghetti mess too but IMO less noodles to deal with.

One of the big gripes of RTW was the cheap upkeep of cavarly, IMO just feed the horses straw and grass. Obviously the game has to be catered to all crowds of people and to the fans.

So to help cater to all crowds perhaps cavalry would be cheap on normal and easy difficulty and on hard and very hard certain troops esp cavaly recieveve a substantial upkeep cost to maintain.

RTW was designed by default or mistake that 1 unit could dominate the whole battlefield, yea it really sucked 1 in every 100 battles the A.I. just annilated your army with 1 unit............ then again there are those other 99 battles.

Anyways on harder difficulties the elite units should become more costly at least in upkeep making them harder to keep, by 2-4 fold or more while weak units don't increase but are not a great introduction to yr stack

IMO the battlefield AI was never lacking much considering that quite often the AI would field losers (there was l in the shape on her forehead)

The battlefield AI was quite a joke, not because of how it handled the situation (ok to a degree). but if it brought knives to a gunfight why program the battlefield A.I. So hopefully the A.I. will make better decicions on the campaign so that us fans can legitmately criticize the battlefield A.I.

Until then programming the battlefield A.I. is worthless as I am only seeing knives in a gunfight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

Well since STW the only difference between norm and hard/veyhard on the battlefield was bonuses the A.I. would get on the battlefield was bonuses minus a few(very Few). Now the battlefield A.I. can be a spaghetti messs to program as there are so many variants. Of course the campaign is a spaghetti mess too but IMO less noodles to deal with.

One of the big gripes of RTW was the cheap upkeep of cavarly, IMO just feed the horses straw and grass. Obviously the game has to be catered to all crowds of people and to the fans.

So to help cater to all crowds perhaps cavalry would be cheap on normal and easy difficulty and on hard and very hard certain troops esp cavaly recieveve a substantial upkeep cost to maintain.

RTW was designed by default or mistake that 1 unit could dominate the whole battlefield, yea it really sucked 1 in every 100 battles the A.I. just annilated your army with 1 unit............ then again there are those other 99 battles.

Anyways on harder difficulties the elite units should become more costly at least in upkeep making them harder to keep, by 2-4 fold or more while weak units don't increase but are not a great introduction to yr stack

IMO the battlefield AI was never lacking much considering that quite often the AI would field losers (there was l in the shape on her forehead)

The battlefield AI was quite a joke, not because of how it handled the situation (ok to a degree). but if it brought knives to a gunfight why program the battlefield A.I. So hopefully the A.I. will make better decicions on the campaign so that us fans can legitmately criticize the battlefield A.I.

Until then programming the battlefield A.I. is worthless as I am only seeing knives in a gunfight.

---

are you a fan of Total War?

Quote:

---

are you a fan of Total War?

---

:laugh4:

I can't say I fully understand the first post but I do have an opinion on difficulty levels...

I just want one where the AI has all it's clever tricks enabled but without an bonuses or penalties applied to the troops...

Seperating the strategic and and Battlefield difficulties in RTW was a step in the right direction. But I would like to see the some separation of the AI's tricks and bonuses and penalties...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

I can't say I fully understand the first post but I do have an opinion on difficulty levels...

I just want one where the AI has all it's clever tricks enabled but without an bonuses or penalties applied to the troops...

Seperating the strategic and and Battlefield difficulties in RTW was a step in the right direction. But I would like to see the some separation of the AI's tricks and bonuses and penalties...

---

That's always been my sentiments exactly. In all genres, not just the strategy genres, it's bothered me that STILL we watch improved AI be in the form of a predetermined advantage given to the AI side, not a more challenging strategic approach. Was the same with Madden Football for years (has gotten worked out by now)...instead of better strategy and reads by a defense on All-Madden, DB's with 65 speed could run just as fast as WR with 99 speed. That's total garbage.

With Rome, I can't say it's as bad. This is why I don't play video games anymore and focus on pc games...they're just "smarter". But still, giving the AI unit an "invisible" chevron or weapon/armor boost isn't improving the AI. That's just candy-coating the lack of it. I want the AI to perform smarter on the campaign map and on the battlefield..period. Nobody has ever asked for invisible stat buffs to units on the AI faction's side.

I'll tell you the other thing that doesn't cut it either: Phalanx units controlled by the AI running AS FAST or FASTER than cavalry units, strictly because they were about to be flanked and decimated. Now that's exactly what I'm talking about...not better AI, just a cloak.

Still though...I would never have started a thread on this myself as asking for "better AI" is kind of like saying "life's not fair". Obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420

are you a fan of Total War?

---

Yes he's a fan or Total War, and his point is a very good one which you totally missed. You have gone off talking about battlefield AI which is what he's saying isn't worth talking about unless the strategic AI brings competitive units to the battlefield. His other point is that a lot more could be done with the strategic difficulty settings besides just giving the player less money to start. He gives an example of increasing the upkeep on elite units on the higher difficulty settings. This would increase the difficulty of the battles since the AI would be fielding better units.

Another related point that I've been harping on is that there are features in the game that the AI hasn't been programmed to handle. The seemingly weaker battle AI is the result of changes to the battle mechanics since STW that the AI hasn't been adjusted to handle. The AI doesn't even know how to use a shield which is a pretty blatant omission. Shields were introduced in MTW, and the battle AI still doesn't know about them in RTW/BI. The more this type of thing is done, the easier Total War campaigns become. Sure there is more to manage, and maybe a huge number of battles to fight. So what? The player is just going through tedious micromanagement and battles without any real competition.

Quote:

---

Until then programming the battlefield A.I. is worthless as I am only seeing knives in a gunfight.

---

I wonder how you see it.. If you play on VH difficulty, you get exactly what you're asking for.. Knives that can beats guns in a gun fight.. A general unit that can beat 7 units head on alone.. A Hesitati unit that somehow just goes through that line like a hot knife on butter..

Quote:

---

Another related point that I've been harping on is that there are features in the game that the AI hasn't been programmed to handle. The seemingly weaker battle AI is the result of changes to the battle mechanics since STW that the AI hasn't been adjusted to handle. The AI doesn't even know how to use a shield which is a pretty blatant omission. Shields were introduced in MTW, and the battle AI still doesn't know about them in RTW/BI. The more this type of thing is done, the easier Total War campaigns become. Sure there is more to manage, and maybe a huge number of battles to fight. So what? The player is just going through tedious micromanagement and battles without any real competition.

---

Which is why I'm against the "Men Pool Production System".. I can just see how well the AI will handle it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The player is just going through tedious micromanagement and battles without any real competition.

---

Precisely. It has become so easy to create an army that dominates the battlefield time and time again. The AI insists upon attacking your seasoned army with a bunch of peasants; you destroy them with minimal losses.
In one battle I sent my newly come of age family member with only his bodyguard to meet up with one of my field armies. He was instantly attacked by a Gothic army of 800+. I targetted a HA unit and coralled it to the map corner where it was killed/routed. Next I began to lead the infantry (a mixture of runaway slave spears and Gothic spears) around the map, trying to encourage their general away from safety. Sure enough, after a while he attacked and I defeated him before his army arrived. When they did it was only a matter of some flank attacks before they were routed from the field!
I gave up playing after that. The AI needs attention more than any other part of the game. Good grief, in STW the AI would keep a cohesive army formation at least but even invisible upgrades would do little to save an army that acted like those Goths

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

In one battle I sent my newly come of age family member with only his bodyguard to meet up with one of my field armies. He was instantly attacked by a Gothic army of 800+. I targetted a HA unit and coralled it to the map corner where it was killed/routed. Next I began to lead the infantry (a mixture of runaway slave spears and Gothic spears) around the map, trying to encourage their general away from safety. Sure enough, after a while he attacked and I defeated him before his army arrived. When they did it was only a matter of some flank attacks before they were routed from the field!
I gave up playing after that.

---

I've experienced things like that. They can be quite fun but not really a reason to stop playing. What you are doing is basically an exploit and I would not use it to fault the AI. It's programmed to fight a pitched battle, not a chase a lone cavalry unit (and having chased lone horse archer units, I know that such chases are not trivial). Once you've killed it's cavalry, it's not really a "battle". Given your manouvrability edge, he's brought a knife (ok, many knives) to your gunfight.

Rather than a problem with the AI, I think it points to problems with the settings: cavalry is too strong (mod your bodyguards' hit points down from 2 to 1); spears are too weak against cavalry; and morale is too low. Try those tactics with a "realism" mod like EB or RTR. They might still work - and in reality a body of what are effectively knights often could beat up large numbers of mediocre infantry. But I would not count on it and you certainly wouldn't have many cavalry left.

The thought of blaming the stats rather than the AI is wrong.. (IMO that is). If the AI kepts his men together, and carefully surrounded Orda's general unit, it'd have won.. BUt.. As I said manytimes, it can never get high to such a level.

Yes, but trying to trap a lone cavalry unit is different from trying to fight a pitched back with 20 units each side. What the AI is doing is basically chasing Orda's cavalry. When I chase a lone cavalry unit, I often get lazy and just select all and click on him. That's what the AI is doing.

I agree, it could be smart and try to box him in, but that is rather advanced tactics. It's actually quite hard to trap a cavalry unit even with several infantry units, the movement speeds are so different and the map is so open (you have to snare them on a map edge or even better corner, but how realistic is that?). Such tactics are also different from those you'd want programmed for a pitched battle.

The fact that Orda can set up multiple flank charges is more worrying, I guess, but I suspect that is due to the extreme maneouvrability of cavalry in the game. Sprint to their flank and turn, you can get a charge in before they have redressed their ranks and settled on the new facing. A human would be more cautious, I guess, but the AI is just trying to catch you as fast as it can.

I wonder what would happen if you did this in STW or MTW? I remember STW had an "insta-rout" mechanic that meant your units would run if you simply trying to lead the superior AI on a wild goose chase. But I don't recall it boxing in lone cavalry units any better. I suspect it still just groups all and clicks on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Precisely. It has become so easy to create an army that dominates the battlefield time and time again. The AI insists upon attacking your seasoned army with a bunch of peasants; you destroy them with minimal losses.

---

The AI attacking with a weaker army might be a result of the bias, put in by the dev who programmed the strategic AI in RTW, which favors the AI in the auto-resolve. This bias isn't in effect on the battlefield, so it's an easy win for the player. This in turn makes the campaign easier because the AI suffers massive casualties while the player suffers few casualties. This auto-resolve bias may also have adversely affected the design of the battlefield AI to prevent the AI from withdrawing its army and not engaging its units on the battlefield eventhough they are weaker. I've seen the RTW battlefield AI make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the unit they are attacking. I never saw this in STW which I tested extensively.

A bias in the auto-resolve on normal difficulty is a bad idea. It should only come in on the harder difficulty levels, and should be made to track the combat advantage given to the AI on the battlefield. I would say the auto-resolve should be tied to the tactical difficulty setting not the strategic setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I wonder what would happen if you did this in STW or MTW? I remember STW had an "insta-rout" mechanic that meant your units would run if you simply trying to lead the superior AI on a wild goose chase. But I don't recall it boxing in lone cavalry units any better. I suspect it still just groups all and clicks on you.

---

In STW, it didn't group all and attack one unit. It would attack with a units that had an advantageous matchup. If it didn't have such units, it would try to flank your unit with the best melee unit it had. If you turned to meet that threat, it would attack you exposed flank with some other unit. Since yari had a strong anti-cav bonus, the AI would chase a cavalry unit with a yari infantry unit up until the cavalry unit left the proximity range. At that point the yari infantry unit would return to the army. It would also chase a cavalry unit with a cavalry unit if its unit was better. STW had a yari cav unit which had an anti-cav bonus that was ideal for that since it was also the fastest cav. If your units were not in range, an attacking AI army would march toward you as a group or march around trying to find you if your units were hidden. In any event, the Benny Hill code would eventually cause your unit to slip into an unrecoverable rout if the AI couldn't catch you unless the timer ran out. STW/MI refined the Benny Hill code by not incrementing the retreat counter is the unit was a skirmisher which still had ammo. MTW further refined the rout characteristics by giving a morale penalty to partial units if the majority of the army had been decimated.

There were quite a few refinements in the older battle engine that are not longer present in the new battle engine, and even some players who consider themselves vets aren't aware of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

The thought of blaming the stats rather than the AI is wrong.. (IMO that is). If the AI kepts his men together, and carefully surrounded Orda's general unit, it'd have won.. BUt.. As I said manytimes, it can never get high to such a level.

---

In STW/MTW, you couldn't have the situation that Orda describes with a lone general starting out on the field, and an army coming on as reinforcements. You could lure AI units to chase you, but the AI general rarely was one of them. However, STW did have the suicide general problem where, if he was a high command star general, he would throw himself at your army at some point, and it was only partially corrected during STW. It was more fully corrected in a patch to MTW. In my opionion, Orda's strategy wouldn't work in STW/MTW. If you had multiple cav units, you could lure an infantry unit or cav unit to chase you and then surround it with your cav or maybe pull it towards a hidden infantry unit, but you had to do this several times during a battle to achive a significant advantage out of the tactic. Fatigue was working against you as well which was higher in STW/MTW than it is in RTW. Cavalry was relatively expensive and had 2x the upkeep of infantry in STW, so if you lost the cav it was costly. Even without an AI that knew how to surround you, the AI could do quite well given a game mechanic that matched up well with its abilities. This AI works best with a strong rock, paper, scissors design and a high enough morale level to ensure attrition in the enemy even in a loss, so stats are a factor. However, you don't want morale so high that maneuver is rendered ineffective except for possibly a few elite units that will fight to the last man. The system is actually very sensitive to the morale level. You don't get a good tactical balance between attrition and maneuver unless the morale level is kept within a fairly narrow range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

In STW, Orda would never have won doing that...

---

I don't think it's an AI problem. I think it's just due to the fact that Orda always wins! :knight:

I don't think that is a good thing in STW.. Maybe a strong Rock-Paper-Scissors is the best to balance the game, better said, make the AI use it's units better, but it is just unrealistic.

A bunch of "Runaway Slavemen Spearmen" would rout if charged by a known famed general on armored horses.. Wouldn't it? And just because they have the word "Spearmen" doesn't mean that they should beat any cav unit..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I don't think that is a good thing in STW.. Maybe a strong Rock-Paper-Scissors is the best to balance the game, better said, make the AI use it's units better, but it is just unrealistic.

---

What's unrealistic: strong rock, paper, scissors or making the AI use its units better? You ever hear of combined arms? I hope you enjoy the kind of battlefield gameplay that's in RTW/BI because it looks like more of the same in M2TW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

A bunch of "Runaway Slavemen Spearmen" would rout if charged by a known famed general on armored horses.. Wouldn't it? And just because they have the word "Spearmen" doesn't mean that they should beat any cav unit..

---

They don't beat any cav unit, and ashigaru wouldn't run away before fighting because there were horo-shu standing behind them who would kill anyone who ran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

I just want one where the AI has all it's clever tricks enabled but without an bonuses or penalties applied to the troops...

But I would like to see the some separation of the AI's tricks and bonuses and penalties...

---

yes, definetly. i had to play on medium battle difficulty as i just couldn't accept those unrealistic and lame bonuses, i hope i diden't miss out on any true AI smartness because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikhal

yes, definetly. i had to play on medium battle difficulty as i just couldn't accept those unrealistic and lame bonuses, i hope i diden't miss out on any true AI smartness because of that.

---

That's the whole point. You didn't miss out on much except the stat bonuses. However, after the 1.5/1.6 patch I did notice battlefield AI improve slightly on H and VH difficulties. Medium, which I see MOST players playing on, is just so trivial it's not even worth it. And I don't even consider myself one of the "better" players. Medium is a joke.

I dunno...my point was stated, but now...I think people are just worrying too much about problems which either a) aren't going to be in the game anyway so there's no sense in panicking or b) 99 percent of the gamers won't notice anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420

That's the whole point. You didn't miss out on much except the stat bonuses. However, after the 1.5/1.6 patch I did notice battlefield AI improve slightly on H and VH difficulties. Medium, which I see MOST players playing on, is just so trivial it's not even worth it. And I don't even consider myself one of the "better" players. Medium is a joke.

---

That's the problem. The only way you can avoid the stat bonuses is to play on medium. I haven't see any statements that this is going to change in M2TW, so there is reason to worry if you're not in the 99% who don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

That's the problem. The only way you can avoid the stat bonuses is to play on medium. I haven't see any statements that this is going to change in M2TW, so there is reason to worry if you're not in the 99% who don't care.

---

I didn't say "don't care" I said "won't notice". Big difference.

And yes...99.9 percent of the community couldn't care less about this stuff. Now, don't assume that I personally don't...I'm just stating fact.

1) you are totally powerless in what CA does with the game anyway...so don't spend time or energy worrying about it. It'll be what it is. Bottom line.

2) I just have faith that CA won't intentionally shoot themselves in the foot by making that kind of a mistake with this kind of a project. I mean come on...I've used this example before too: You think that the testers are going to start playing the game, see that the aformentioned problems exist and that they're visible to advanced users, and then say "ah ok...let's ship this baby gold!!". Do you really think they're going to do that? Why would they?

edit: My other point was this: 99.9 percent of the community WAS able to find a setting that provided them a challenge that they were satisfied with. Again, if you have thousands of posts on here you assumably have spent hundreds of hours in game. What did you think CA could do...make a game that provides an EPIC challenge to the user every time they play, no matter how good the user gets? If you do ANYTHING 15-20 hours a day, you get good at it. Most gamers would never DREAM of having almost 4,000 posts on a forum. Imagine if you have put something like just 400 hours of time into RTW. Mastering the game at that point would be expected...don't you think?

Its still just a game...they can only go so far man...they can't guarantee you that three years from the day you first install the game, and after playing 40+ hours a week, that the game is still going to challenge you to your core. That's simply impossible.

Quote:

---

And yes...99.9 percent of the community couldn't care less about this stuff.

---

Ironic how you accused screwtype for talking for everybody else, while you are doing the same here and also stating as a fact. This community (the Org) is probably not larger than 1000 people and you can bet on it there are more than 1 having issues with these stat boosts.



But I certainly wouldn't like to see a dumber AI on medium difficulty. Although it probably would be fighting better if it didn't try to do "intelligent" things like flanking or any attempt to outmanouevre the human player. The AI should alway do it's best on all levels. It would better if the AI got increases in ammo and a smaller fatigue rate. These kind of bonuses gives the AI an advantage without drastically changing the gameplay; I mean cavalry suddenly destroying a phalanx and peasants not routing when under attack by cavalry doesn't make sense, that is just bad design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

Ironic how you accused screwtype for talking for everybody else, while you are doing the same here and also stating as a fact. This community (the Org) is probably not larger than 1000 people and you can bet on it there are more than 1 having issues with these stat boosts.



But I certainly wouldn't like to see a dumber AI on medium difficulty. Although it probably would be fighting better if it didn't try to do "intelligent" things like flanking or any attempt to outmanouevre the human player. The AI should alway do it's best on all levels. It would better if the AI got increases in ammo and a smaller fatigue rate. These kind of bonuses gives the AI an advantage without drastically changing the gameplay; I mean cavalry suddenly destroying a phalanx and peasants not routing when under attack by cavalry doesn't make sense, that is just bad design.

---

Looks like that post addressed me first and then everyone else. I'm not understanding why.

Look...I'm trying to be civil with a couple of you and follow forum guidelines but now you're hopping on here coming to some morons defense. He made a statement which didn't sit right with a few people. Instead of admitting that he made a mistake, he argued. Then argued some more. Why would you defend that? Why would you defend ANYTHING that has NOTHING to do with YOU?

Mind your own business. When you make a mistake, I assure you I'll jump all over it (promise...even if it's in 3 months) and then you can debate it with me all you want. Until then, it looks very "corny" (we'll leave it at that) to rush to the defense of someone who's not your wife.

Duke, you're another one with almost 3,000 posts. If you are spending any comparable amount of time in game, you're NEVER going to get a challenge. They can't guarantee a challenge for a person who spends half their life playing the game. There's no way.

It's also interesting how you first told me that he didn't address multiple parties, then when I wrote why in actuality he DID, you didn't respond. You pointed a finger at me instead. That certainly doesn't look good. A bit immature perhaps. When someone proves something you said wrong, you address it...you don't hide.

I made a statement that was OBVIOUSLY not meant to be taken literally. If you think I have figures that prove undeniably that 99.9 percent of the community doesn't care or won't notice, you're crazy. The point was that people with 3,000+ posts should probably realize that spending HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of hours talking about the game and playing it...is going to make the game easier over time. You act as if the game was so easy, that on NO difficulty could gamers as a whole find a challenge...and this is not the case. I would bet you 20 grand that the MAJORITY of gamers who played RTW were challenged. Then again, that same majority doesn't have 3000 posts on a forum for the game, nor do they spend 40+ hours a week playing. Nothing wrong with this behavior but it does give a little insight into why the game may have become unchallenging for you.

Quote:

---

Its still just a game...they can only go so far man...they can't guarantee you that three years from the day you first install the game, and after playing 40+ hours a week, that the game is still going to challenge you to your core. That's simply impossible.

---

It seems to me that playing vanilla RTW even half of the hours mentioned per week is the impossible thing here. Sadomasochism wasn't what the doctor suggested me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420

I didn't say "don't care" I said "won't notice". Big difference.

---

If you don't notice something, you won't care about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420

And yes...99.9 percent of the community couldn't care less about this stuff. Now, don't assume that I personally don't...I'm just stating fact.

---

Where did you get this 99.9% fact? Maybe the reason the community is now filled with people who don't notice or don't care is because those that do have left a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420

1) you are totally powerless in what CA does with the game anyway...so don't spend time or energy worrying about it. It'll be what it is. Bottom line.

---

I'm not trying to change what CA is doing. I'm criticizing what they are doing. The thing I'm not going to spend on it is my money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420

2) I just have faith that CA won't intentionally shoot themselves in the foot by making that kind of a mistake with this kind of a project. I mean come on...I've used this example before too: You think that the testers are going to start playing the game, see that the aformentioned problems exist and that they're visible to advanced users, and then say "ah ok...let's ship this baby gold!!". Do you really think they're going to do that? Why would they?

---

Yes. They did it before. They do it to get the game out on schedule. They don't do advanced testing. Where did you get that idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

If you don't notice something, you won't care about it.


Where did you get this 99.9% fact? Maybe the reason the community is now filled with people who don't notice or don't care is because those that do have left a long time ago.


I'm not trying to change what CA is doing. I'm criticizing what they are doing. The thing I'm not going to spend on it is my money.


Yes. They did it before. They do it to get the game out on schedule. They don't do advanced testing. Where did you get that idea?

---

I've gotten two pm's from people agreeing with me wholeheartedly and expressing that you do this on a regular basis (cry over mundane details). I don't know what to tell you man. Just don't buy the game. Don't spend "your money" on it lol. Take your computer, unplug it, and forget about TW...it's horrible, they don't test it, it's too easy, nothing but peasent armies, they're going to release it basically broken, etc. What are you even doing here if you have this many complaints with the TW series?

Again, I can assure you that your criticism is going well unnoticed. You think CA cares about your opinion when they don't get this from the OVERWHELMINGLY LARGE BULK of gamers (as opposed to 99.9%). They'd probably tell you the same thing I did at this point: Fine...don't buy it then. Goodbye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

It seems to me that playing vanilla RTW even half of the hours mentioned per week is the impossible thing here. Sadomasochism wasn't what the doctor suggested me.

---

The problem Alex is that you notice the problems in the game. Too bad you can't lower your intelligence level so that you don't notice the problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The problem Alex is that you notice the problems in the game. Too bad you can't lower your intelligence level so that you don't notice the problems.

---

Or you could just get a job and then playing 20-40 hours a week wouldn't be possible.

Again, this is why MOST gamers won't agree with you nor ever get to the level of disgust that you have. They have lives outside the game that they prioritize over it. You'll never see them make 5,000 word+ posts detailing mathematical equations on units. You'll never see them hawing and heming at such anal details. You'll also never see them play the game half of any day. Never.

This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with this behavior (as I've already stated in either this thread or another) but CA knows this well. They're more interested in 2 million of the mainstream gamer's than one or two of you Puzz. Your money's not greener than anyone else's and the majority of the money coming into CA will be from gamers who aren't this anal and concerned about the play mechanics. It's just a game for them, not life.

Warmachine has now got a temporary ban, so I hope I can safely re-open this thread without it going any further downhill.

Hrm, well, as an aside, I bought RTW and loved it. It was sweet, unlike anything I'd ever played. So I thought "Why not get Medieval TW, as it sounds sweet and must also be good!" I installed and played MTW, and haven't gone back to Rome since. I have absolutely no reason to, and no one I know will buy Rome from me. ~:mecry: And while I would love an updated, new-features-included version of MTW with a working 3D campaign map, I for some reason am wary of M2TW after having seen what went wrong with RTW (as outlined by Oaty in post #1).

Personally, I think I am entitled to be cautious about purchasing it (after all, I don't have a whole lot of money--college is expensive!).

Quote:

---

What's unrealistic: strong rock, paper, scissors or making the AI use its units better? You ever hear of combined arms? I hope you enjoy the kind of battlefield gameplay that's in RTW/BI because it looks like more of the same in M2TW.

---

Actually, in BI it's really enjoyable. Or at laest, I really enjoy it.. The only annoying thing is those tanks called clibs.. (There is no SPAM armies in BI nowadays.. Maybe except for a few ocasions, which get beaten down easily by a well oriented army)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarMachine420:
Most gamers would never DREAM of having almost 4,000 posts on a forum. Imagine if you have put something like just 400 hours of time into RTW. Mastering the game at that point would be expected...don't you think?

---

Well you you have 88 posts and have joined the community in july 2006 i.e one month ago. Puzz has 3,952 and he has joined the community in october 2000 i.e 70 month ago.

Then your rate of posting is 88 posts per month while puzz's rate is 56 posts per month. So by 6 years you will have more than 4000 posts :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I wonder how you see it.. If you play on VH difficulty, you get exactly what you're asking for.. Knives that can beats guns in a gun fight.. A general unit that can beat 7 units head on alone.. A Hesitati unit that somehow just goes through that line like a hot knife on butter..

---

The problem --- I never tried easy difficulty, but I'm sure all I would need to recruit troops for is breaking the walls and garrison. I then could use my generals to destroy whole armies as I can do this on normal difficulty. Now if when the A.I. is on very hard I may win the battles until I hit a general and will lose everybattle after that. Not a very enjoyable game when I see 1 cavalry unit go charge, wham, route, charge, wham, route through a whole line of infantry. In the TW's predecessors cavalry (and infantry for that matter) was tied up long enough to make this impossible. With RTW 1 unit is the whole battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

With RTW 1 unit is the whole battle.

---

I noticed something like that going back to vanilla with RTW. A barbarian general's unit can do an awful lot of damage, even to a phalanx. But surely this can be modded? Cut them down to 1 HP and trim the armour, defence and attack. They will still be very powerful, due to their mobility (even the AI knows hammer and anvil if you give it a chance), but this time mortal.