podcast 5 : battlefield

Hi,

Ca has released podcast number 5.In this edition, a Ca-member is talking about the battlefield experience.More important,you hear CA talking about the improved AI! So,all go check at http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?p...medieval2/3/3/

I have my mp3 headphones jacked into my monitor here at work and am listening to the podcast now. Wow, lots of discussion regarding the AI; this is the most detailed and in-depth response regarding AI I have ever heard from a CA employee.

Here are some select passages regarding the AI...

Battle AI has developed incrementally since Rome. Example: Cavalry will now behave more logically. They will make more flanking maneuvers and better analyze the enemy army composition and select targets for maximum effect. This also applies to heavy infantry & archers.

- Overall expect better unit target selection and army cohesion (units sticking together as a whole).

- Crossing defense (bridge battles & river crossings) - AI will analyze its army composition and strength and that of your army along with the number of crossing points and plan its defense or assault accordingly.

- Missile heavy armies (or those with a decided advantage in missile units over the enemy) will delay melee combat as long as possible so as to take advantage of its missile troops.

- Missile poor armies (or those with a decided disadvantage) will attempt to engage in melee combat much more quickly.

- Siege AI has also undergone radical changes. Street fighting, wall defense, unit selection and placement and multi-ring logic (i.e. the 'rings' of walls surrounding a castle or city) have all been improved. Example: If a player's artillery begins pounding a specific tower then the AI will anticipate an attack in that area and will remove archers from the walls and replace them with infantry. Regarding street fighting the AI will determine choke points and dispatch heavy infantry to defend them. With multi-ring castles the AI will determine when is the best time to deploy back and guard the next ring to maximize the damage inflicted on the player.

Oh the AI sounds great. :medievalcheers:
Also the guy that gets interviewed is hilarious :laugh4:

Originally Posted by TB666:
Oh the AI sounds great. :medievalcheers:
Also the guy that gets interviewed is hilarious :laugh4:

He was so excited :laugh4: I supposed that he'll attack to interviewer for several times.

By the way podcast was good on AI but overall battle speed never spoken :idea2:

Wow, if all that is true, I think we got ourselves a game here. As for unit speeds, this video might give a better idea of how that's coming along.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=122

Personally, I thought it looks pretty decent. Didn't notice any overly fast units or anything that would piss me off. Maybe M2TW is gonna be something special afterall?

well this certainly was the most interesting podcast so far, and probably the most interesting bit of information about MTW2 we got so far. Obviously we'll still have to see it in action, but they mensioned a lot of improvements that we asked for (army cohesion, proper use of missile weapons, picking reasonable target for each unit). The only thing they didn't mension is suicidal generals :P

now lets hope the battle speed as acceptable too, because if it isn't then I don't think those improvements will have much actual effect. But atleast mods would benefit from it.

"Did I hear you say ROOOOOCKKEETT LAUNCHERS!!!!"

"FOR KING AND COUNTRY!"

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

God, this is pure comedy gold, the interview and the, shall I say, enthusiastic? CA dude. :laugh4:

Oh, but the game does sound great :2thumbsup:

When he did his grunt or what ever when he talked about how the battles feel I was rolling on the floor laughing.

Excellent and funny, at least they're thinking about these things, now to program it right... hope they have enough time left to tweak it juuuuuust right.

This is great. I seriously didn't think they'd talk about the AI since anything they say can only be subjective, but its good anyway! :grin:

I really think that all people who criticize the ai,should dl this podcast.If they don't,and they still whine about the ai,then they have no longer any right to speak:D

I am at work and can't listen to it. Any other interesting details in there somebody would like to share?

Thanks! :2thumbsup:

That's very encouraging! Sounds as if the battlemap AI's going to be a lot more logical this time around.

If they manage to significantly improve the campaign map AI as well, I'll be very happy.

Thank you CA... thank you. You have answered the pleas of the community, and most importantly, you may shut up the whiners a bit...

First thing I will do when I get M2TW is try a battle using Parthian tactics and see if I can bowl over the enemy with very few casualties as I was consistantly able to do in RTW. That is the one basic test the AI will have to pass.

what are Parthian tactics?

Anyone else getting an error message whilst opening the file with winzip? I cannot open the file:no:

light Missile cav+ a few Knights and nothing else.

lars573 got it pretty much right, except instead of Knights think Heavy Cavalry in general.

Now that we have received some reassurance about the battlefield AI, will the Campaign map AI be good enough to ensure that the battle AI in the campaign will have a strong enough army on the field to begin with? The recruitment pools look promising in providing that.

battle AI is way more important then campaignmap AI. Obviously it's best to have both. But challenging battles will make the game stand or fall. Campaignmap AI is much easier to program though. Aslong as it follows a decent building order, and keeps it's armies together it should do ok.

Fingers crossed

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal:
battle AI is way more important then campaignmap AI. Obviously it's best to have both. But challenging battles will make the game stand or fall. Campaignmap AI is much easier to program though. Aslong as it follows a decent building order, and keeps it's armies together it should do ok.

Well as I am a big-time autoresolver (yes, it's true) I beg to differ. But then again you are a big time battler (it would seem so anyway). I guess I mostly autoresolved in RTW though to make the game more fair on the AI but I won't have to do that anymore.

"It makes you go ...awwwwwwwwww...fantastic!"

:laugh4:

Great interview, very positive news! Looking forward to the next podcast now!

Originally Posted by Divine Wind:

Great interview, very positive news! Looking forward to the next podcast now!

Actually this was the last CA podcast :no:

Originally Posted by :
Well as I am a big-time autoresolver (yes, it's true) I beg to differ. But then again you are a big time battler (it would seem so anyway). I guess I mostly autoresolved in RTW though to make the game more fair on the AI but I won't have to do that anymore.

I bet that makes the game more challenging, but then why not play something like Hearts of Iron or something that has a much deeper campaign and better AI?

Lame. Oh well it was a good one.

Incidentally the guy in the pod cast refers to a crazy Italian 144 barrel ribauldequin exploding, suggesting that it isn't in the game. But if you see some of the screenshots of Leipzig GC it looks like there is a ribauldequin in the game (as well as an organ gun), if not with 144 barrels.

He said that multi-barrelled guns are in the game, but not the 144 barrel gun. They seem quite eager to show that the game is not going to be ridiculously unrealistic - whenever he mentions the rockets etc. he keeps stressing that they are very scarce within the game.

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal:
I bet that makes the game more challenging, but then why not play something like Hearts of Iron or something that has a much deeper campaign and better AI?

The reason I don't play them is because I haven't got them and can't be bothered to get them. Actually, I was meaning to get EU2. Maybe I will someday.

Originally Posted by :
Actually, I was meaning to get EU2. Maybe I will someday.

comes recommended :2thumbsup:

I'm glad a guy who likes having fun so much is working on improving the AI.

I liked the comments on the terrain. Other options besides putting all my troops on the highest hill would be nice. Multi-ringed fortifications sound great, too.

Originally Posted by damiekpe:
what are Parthian tactics?

I think that they are talking about Cav. Archers shooting and retreating just out of range of any other units...they had it in Age of Empires II (I think)


EDIT: woo hoo that=member status

The CA guy reminded me of Steve Irwin, that crazy crocadile hunter guy on animal planet. They both sound so giddy. Other than the cool stuff he mentioned I was laughing the whole time at the CA guy during the interview.

AI sounds very good. Great that they've apparently worked on it.

Mongol rocket artillery and Danish war clerics does not sound so good, but that's what mods are for.

Anyone else tired of hearing those corny aussie accent saying Medieval 2: Total War over and over again :laugh4: ?

Originally Posted by Ringeck:
AI sounds very good. Great that they've apparently worked on it.

Mongol rocket artillery and Danish war clerics does not sound so good, but that's what mods are for.

Anyone else tired of hearing those corny aussie accent saying Medieval 2: Total War over and over again :laugh4: ?

I just like it rofl :D

Danish War Clerics?! Uh no another Druidlike unit is on the way again. Then what are they gonna do in battlefield for their army? :inquisitive:

Is there anybody have an information about them? However they smell some fantasy unit and i see sparkles on horizon :laugh4:

Let me present you next historic unit for the Turks:

Turkish Pehlivan Warband.

https://img342.imageshack.us/img342/...ehlivanle4.jpg

Just wait and see them in action. They'll break your bones. :2thumbsup:

Nothing wrong with rocket launchers. They did exist in the Middle Ages and they WERE used by some Muslim armies. I wish people would actually verify that something is ahistorical rather than assuming that it is simply because it seems counter-intuitive to them.

I have no word against rocket launchers or cannon elephants. They were exist in eastern warfare but what's this Danish Clerics?

Plus new unit references me from CA

"Egyptian Belly Dancer Auxialia"

Causes abnormal behavior on enemy units
May Charge without order
Convert enemy units
Moral Boost for friendly troops

here we go :2thumbsup:

https://img336.imageshack.us/img336/...lydancevt5.jpg

I don't find Danish war clerics that implausible. Can't Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Order etc utlimately be regarded as something similar? Or Shogun's warrior monks? Religious zeal often seems to manifest itself on the battlefield.

Excellent podcast, BTW. I liked the sound of the more lively battlefields and especially the mention of improving army cohesion and use of missiles + cav.

The visceral stuff is good and still seems to be the main focus, but finally someone from CA talks about improving the tactical flexibility and the tactical decisions the AI makes, and gives some specifics on how that's being accomplished. I know we heard about the AI utilizing impassable terrain before this interview.

Mods can get rid of inappropriate units, address speed issues and improve playbalance for singleplayer. I think multiplayer is still very questionable for players who do not like the current RTW/BI gameplay. I don't recall hearing anything about how that is being improved.

Originally Posted by Ringeck:
Mongol rocket artillery and Danish war clerics does not sound so good, but that's what mods are for.

Nothing at all wrong with Timurid rocket launchers although I have not been able to find anything at all about this 'war clergy'. Even if there was some kind of tradition like this in Denmark it probably wasn't anywhere near popular enough to actually make a large appearance on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by econ21:
I don't find Danish war clerics that implausible. Can't Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Order etc utlimately be regarded as something similar? Or Shogun's warrior monks? Religious zeal often seems to manifest itself on the battlefield.

In Shogun, there were no units with a special ability to inflict a morale penalty on enemy units. The manual said that warrior monks did, but they actually didn't. The monks could charge spontaneously, and when they did that they received +4 morale.

In MTW, we saw horses get a negative morale penalty when in the presence of camels, but that's an animal with a much lower intelligence than a human. At least, I think it has lower intelligence than a human. I can see religous units giving a morale boost to their own troops, but I can't see them inflicting a morale penalty on the enemy because a monotheistic enemy believes their own God to be the true God and the enemy's god to be a false god. Even if both sides worship the same God, each side believes they are in the right and therefore God is on their side. Even in a polytheistic culture, each side would feel protected by their gods and any calamity being the result of falling into disfavor with one of their own gods.

Originally Posted by Puzz3D:
In Shogun, there were no units with a special ability to inflict a morale penalty on enemy units.

I did not hear the podcast say the priests gave a morale penalty to the enemy; if it did, that would indeed be odd. It might be appropriate, however, for some pre-Christian Viking units. I think they (especially the berserkers) did scare the heck out of many of their opponents.

As a principle, I think there's nothing wrong with having elite units that cause fear (in all combat, there are issues of psychological warfare and intimidation) but I agree tying it to religion is dodgy.

The Danish War Priest sound pretty interesting to me...

in the deep forest in central england there will be a secret province with the unit carring the holy hand grenade of antioch being protected by knights prancing forward with their attendants banging coconuts together......

While rockets certainly were used now and then, and are a regular part of late medieval and early modern artillery manuals (primarily as siege weapons, as usual with artillery) what he is talking about is the Katyusha-like missile batteries we've seen in the demos. He seems to imply the mongols brought them in, which we have no real sources for (the descriptions we have of gunpowder in the western invasion seem to be some sort of catapult/sling-thrown charge), although of course they could have adapted chinese war rockets - but those were not as a rule explosive weapons, they were rocket-propelled arrows. Charged rockets amply described in 13th-14th century islamic artillery manuals also seem to have primarily been intended as a psychological measure - in fact, using gunpowder to scare enemies, or rather more common, the horses of enemies, seems to be the main purpose of almost all gunpowder weapons well into the 14th century. Some was pretty creative, such as using gunpowder-primed lance-heads and infantry with small charges on coats. The effectiveness of such weapons seems to have been questionable - it seems at the very least not to have been a battle-winning stratagem in itself. Implementing rockets as psychological weapons would have been fun, but as it is, it seems like muslim rocketry in M2TW are going to look more like Hezbollah vs Israel than the far more interesting devices of Muhammed ibn Ankali.

Originally Posted by econ21:
I don't find Danish war clerics that implausible. Can't Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Order etc utlimately be regarded as something similar?

Not the way he described it in the podcast. It seems like they have misunderstood the tradition of high-ranking (and therefore landowning) priests going off to war, which happened now and then all over Europe - they would fight pretty much in the same way as other noblemen, with their own retinues (King Sverre of Norway started his career as a priest, for example). The ceremony he is talking about could be some sort of penance ritual related to going to war (although it would have to be carried out after the fact rather than before), but of course it is difficult to tell exactly what he refers to with so little information. There was no equivalent in Denmark to the orders militant, only individuals taking part in warfare. Clerics taking part in fighting was forbidden in the 1500s - because the danes converted to Protestantism and the royal bureaucracy was starting to monopolize the right to fight. As far as I know (and this is a field I know well) there is nothing in Scandinavian history dealing with units of "war clerics" running around.

It didn't even have to be high-ranking clerics. In the battle of the golden spurs ( Courtrai 1302) The commander of the French army was slain on the field by a monk. But I doubt that monks had some moral boosting quality.

Originally Posted by Puzz3D:
The visceral stuff is good and still seems to be the main focus, but finally someone from CA talks about improving the tactical flexibility and the tactical decisions the AI makes, and gives some specifics on how that's being accomplished.

Watch it Puzz, you were almost starting to get fluffy there ~:pat:

Originally Posted by :
in the deep forest in central england there will be a secret province with the unit carring the holy hand grenade of antioch being protected by knights prancing forward with their attendants banging coconuts together......

"What is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
"What do you mean, an African or European swallow?"
"Well, I don't know... WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!"

I'm thinking that all of this sounds very positive. I like the battles, especially at the beginning of the game when they are a bit more challenging. Of course, after the TW masters have played for awhile and gotten a good handle on the tactics used by the AI, they will figure out the best counter-tactics and share them with the rest of us. Then, we'll all be complaining about how dumb the AI is!!!! Until programmers come up with a system that learns from its human opponent and uses its imagination to think of new tactics AND can be run on a common PC this will always be the case with all games in this genre.

I think that the occasional oddball unit such as rocket launchers, etc. will lend a bit of spice to the game. If they could be spammed and used exclusively, they would be horrible, but can you imagine the fun of taking your army into another ho-hum battle and being surprised by explosions all over your front lines? As long as these units are reasonably historically accurate, and they are deployed by the AI (or human player) as an occasional diversion from the common types of battles fought, I think they will add a great deal to the game.

Originally Posted by Ringeck:
in fact, using gunpowder to scare enemies, or rather more common, the horses of enemies, seems to be the main purpose of almost all gunpowder weapons well into the 14th century. Some was pretty creative, such as using gunpowder-primed lance-heads and infantry with small charges on coats. The effectiveness of such weapons seems to have been questionable - it seems at the very least not to have been a battle-winning stratagem in itself. .

I have read that as late as the American Revolution well-trained longbowmen would have been more combat effective than the musket-bearing troops of the time. Longbows have a much greater effective range and a much faster reload time than the muskets of that era. So, why did they use firearms, then? There are two reasons, and one of them was fear. Witnessing the power of a few thousand muskets going off while pointed in their direction was terrifying even to the troops of the 1700's, and, as most people here know well, battles have always been won by scaring the enemy off the battlefield, not by killing him. So, I would agree that the use of gunpowder weapons well into the 14th century, and even beyond, was to cause fear, but I would also have to say that this was certainly a very effective strategy.

(BTW, the second reason for using the muskets was that it was easier to train men to use them than longbows).

Reason 3- By the 18th century muskets had bayonets.

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill:
It didn't even have to be high-ranking clerics. In the battle of the golden spurs ( Courtrai 1302) The commander of the French army was slain on the field by a monk. But I doubt that monks had some moral boosting quality.

I don't know... If I saw some guy from our side dressed in a sack cloth robe and sandles dash up to the enemy commander and lay him out with a swift judo chop my morale would get a boost... :laugh4:

Didn't they drop the morale dropping magic units in BI and replace them with morale boosting magic units instead? i.e no screeming women or Druids, but they did have the Christian Priests for the Empire but I am not sure if the other factions got anything...

sunsmountain, at least one person caught my joke!

Originally Posted by :
"What is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
"What do you mean, an African or European swallow?"
"Well, I don't know... WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!"

i thought, well....maybe the joke was too dry.

Originally Posted by :
in the deep forest in central england there will be a secret province with the unit carring the holy hand grenade of antioch being protected by knights prancing forward with their attendants banging coconuts together......

Wait a second... aren't people already using these fairly extensively in RTW?

[http://cicero.modwest.com/tactics/handGrenadeUnit.jpg

Tamur, that is brilliant! :laugh4:

tamur, i am absolutely rollin on the floor! i saved a copy for my computer background.

:jumping: :bounce:

maybe a monty python: total war has our vaunted k-nig-its vs. the evil nasty naughty zoot with a band of flasher wenches trying to get them to lose their chasity until.........run away........

Timur, that was a riot! I very nearly fell out of my chair at work, I was laughing so hard.... :laugh4:

Originally Posted by highlanddave:
maybe a monty python: total war has our vaunted k-nig-its vs. the evil nasty naughty zoot with a band of flasher wenches trying to get them to lose their chasity until.........run away........

You're a disturbing man, highlanddave.....I like the way you think! :2thumbsup:

Tamur, I am rendered insensible!

ha, glad you all liked it. The main problem was that I had about thirty "Abilities at a Glance" come to mind, was tough to pick the right combination! ~:)

Ermm, sorry for aiding and abetting dave in hijacking this thread, we now return to our regularly scheduled programming...

Finally listened to the podcast, great stuff...

A point that has not been mentioned and will make some people happy, they describe cannon balls bouncing through the enemy knocking down rows of men... It also sounds like you will have the choice between regular cannon balls and exploding ones...

Originally Posted by :
Didn't they drop the morale dropping magic units in BI and replace them with morale boosting magic units instead? i.e no screeming women or Druids, but they did have the Christian Priests for the Empire but I am not sure if the other factions got anything...

In BI:

Night Raiders = Scare enemy infantry.
Chariots = Scare enemy infantry.
Berserkers = Scare enemy infantry.
Arian Priests = Scare Christian and Orthodox units.
Orthodox Priests = Scare Christian and Arian units.
Christian Priests = Scare Orthodox and Arian units.

I'm not sure wheather they are called Christian Priests, or Catholic priests..

P.S. That info about priests is what the game tells you.. But I don't know if it is true. And if it is so, well, your Orthodox priest won't effect your Arian allies ..

Funny, I thought the priests just boost the morale of your own units, not scare people belonging to different denominations. Eh, either way, they still make excellent targets for my cavalry.

I think the CA guy might want to calm down

Originally Posted by :
Sometimes, you just wanna destroy a load of buildings!

That said, it does look good.

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr:
In BI:

Night Raiders = Scare enemy infantry.
Chariots = Scare enemy infantry.
Berserkers = Scare enemy infantry.
Arian Priests = Scare Christian and Orthodox units.
Orthodox Priests = Scare Christian and Arian units.
Christian Priests = Scare Orthodox and Arian units.

ahh...

Well you know it is interesting but I don't really have a problem with some unit types intimidating the enemy (i.e. lowering their morale when close) when those units are just well 'ard and scary looking or have an intimidating reputation (i.e. Night Raiders). And i would not have an issue with Priests boosting friendly morale with their presence.

I do agree however that the magic chanting thing lowering the enemy's morale is a bit silly (not of mention that the chanting itself is not so much scary as just pain annoying)...

Did anybody else feel like rockin' out to AC/DC after listening to it? KnOYgts!!! (krikey). Oy! Oy! Oy! :drummer: :thrasher:

When does anyone NOT feel like rocking out to AC/DC???!!!

I don't have a problem with fearsome units causing morale penalties (but not for elite or disciplined units) but religious units? I can get them giving morale bonuses to your own units (god(s) is/are on our side) but morale penalties to the enemy? Surely they think exactly the same thing.


To be honest, I don't get the point of religious units on the battlefield at all...

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane:
A point that has not been mentioned and will make some people happy, they describe cannon balls bouncing through the enemy knocking down rows of men... It also sounds like you will have the choice between regular cannon balls and exploding ones...

Exploding cannonballs will detract from the historical flavor. I would expect they can be easily modded out.

Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Did anybody else feel like rockin' out to AC/DC after listening to it? KnOYgts!!! (krikey). Oy! Oy! Oy! :drummer: :thrasher:

RESPECT brother :hippie:

Originally Posted by Furious Mental:
When does anyone NOT feel like rocking out to AC/DC???!!!

Respect to you too :hippie:

Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
I don't have a problem with fearsome units causing morale penalties (but not for elite or disciplined units) but religious units? I can get them giving morale bonuses to your own units (god(s) is/are on our side) but morale penalties to the enemy? Surely they think exactly the same thing.


To be honest, I don't get the point of religious units on the battlefield at all...

Basically I agree... It would be better to have religous warrior types (if that has any historic basis) who fight and boost morale a little by their presence. It is certainly no less ahistoric than the existing religious units...

Elite units tend to have beeter morale anyway so the morale lowering effect would mean less to them anyway. As for disciplined units, I thought they simply held their formation better rather than any morale type of thing?

Those Danish War Clerics are interesting to say the least.

I'm Danish and I have been taking a liking to medieval Danish history, though it hasn't been so specific as to know all this. But one thing is certain, the Danish clerical class wasn't the only clergy to go to war. Remember Odo with William?
What I can accept is that the tradition for war among the Danish clergy was higher. For instance Copenhagen was founded by archbishop Absalon who built a castle near the current parliament. He also waged plenty of war on the Wends, which his successors followed up on andeven expanded on (by going to war in Estonia as well, the Northern Crusades as the wars are called). In fact there is prominent statue (at a square) of Absalon sitting atop a warhorse, armoured in maille (and helmet of course) and armed with a battleaxe. He was very much warlike.

Several important clergymen had also been killed previously and after him. For instance the battle of Fodevik in 1134 is renown as the battle where the most bishops were killed in battle. All the bishops of Jutland were killed as well as the powerful bishop of Roskilde. And even a Swedish exiled bishop fell (fighting on the side of the other bishops). In total five bishops and sixty priests were killed.

Pretty conclusive evidence that the clergy fought and fought hard and in the frontlines.
However, as I said that was hardly anything special as that happened elsewhere too. But perhaps it happened more in Denmark (it seems that Sweden also had that tradition of heavy involvement of clergy in warfare, but Sweden is not included).

So make of this what you want. Personally I both like the prospect of the unit and is a bit suspicious about it, for the basis is fairly weak (not terribly special compared to the rest of Europe), it smells like an excuse to create a factional unit. No doubt the War Clerics should be fighters, and not BI Priests. They should be good warriors that grant a moralebonus, not a supporting unit with not strength in fighting. But I guess we will see.

I don't think denmark had a higher propotion of fighting clerics than anywhere else i northern europe (or anywhere in europe, for that matter). Asides from the other scandinavians, who resembled the danes closely, we have the german and baltic church-principalities, italian communal priests partaking in militia units, norman clerics á Odo, and so on and so forth. The Salian line of HRE Emperors actively granted military fiefs to churchmen, taking them back upon the death of the cleric (this would eventually be one of the reasons for the the investiture conflict) to preserve imperial control of fiefs. Byzantine sources on the crusades often comment on the high proportion of armed and fighting clergymen in the crusading armies.