Thinking of uninstalling the patch!

I am tired of the new bugs introduced into the game with the patch and I think I am going to uninstall it/reinstall the game. There are a few items that just seem too broken to keep it. I have suiciding generals back. I have terrible pathing in cities for cav and cav archers in particular. I have cav that seems even worse at charging (at least I knew how to handle the old behavior) and also seems just as bad at chasing and killing routers. I have cav, and to some degree infantry, that just can not maintain unit cohesion and doing the 'loose/tight' microing doesn't seem to work as well anymore either. I generally don't play with archer heavy armies so I hadn't had too much trouble with the passive ai bug so I am probably going back to the original game. Anyone else thinking of doing the same?

After the RTW fiasco I sure am disappointed. Hopefully they can actually get something right in the next patch otherwise I am done with new CA games.

I agree with the cavalry. They should just have left it the way it was. I was actually getting used to it. Now cavalry just charges all over the place with their lances. It just doesn't look right anymore. Other than that I like the more agressive AI.

The foolish chasing-down-routers pathing is still there, but from a cohesion standpoint I think that it's markedly improved for all units. It's still not as good as it was in RTW (which I actually think has the best cohesion of the games so far) but it's definitely a step up. Charging still seems pretty wonky but at least I can get most of my cav to line up and hit the enemy at the same time.

The pursuit of routers, where one or two advance individuals make contact with a fleeing enemy, only for their whole unit to halt the chase and reform, is frustrating to say the least.

Watching 10000 florins worth of King evade capture time and again by several hundred seemingly lobotomized pursuers is enough to drive me up the:wall:

The 2 items that are pushing me in this direction are the inability of cav archers to get out of their own way, let alone the spears coming after them, in cities. If left untended they get caught and slaughtered every time. And having the general suicide into my spears battle after battle is putting a serious dent in the challenge. I mean he dies, the whole army routs, then my stupid cav can't even chase down and capture/kill the runners, I thought this got fixed in the last game! Oh well, I do enjoy that the AI is pushier and that they are invading via the sea, but I am not sure the cure isn't worse then the disease.

Chasing down routing units need be seriously fixed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tora

The pursuit of routers, where one or two advance individuals make contact with a fleeing enemy, only for their whole unit to halt the chase and reform, is frustrating to say the least.

Watching 10000 florins worth of King evade capture time and again by several hundred seemingly lobotomized pursuers is enough to drive me up the:wall:

---

I wonder if putting a unit chasing routers under AI assistance would help. Will test and find out.:computer:

I just played tonight for the first time since installing the patch, and I have to agree. The mounted units chasing routers is even worse than it was prior to the patch. In 3 different battles I sent some mounted sergeants after routers only to have this disjointed gaggle of troops scattering all over the battlefield. It didn't look like cavalry pursuing a target to me. In fact, what it looked like makes me think I need to mod in some new battle music. Can anyone tell me where to download the music they played over the ending credits of The Benny Hill Show?

The problem with chasing routers was there pre patch also. And it was just as bad. After a unit routs the attackers immediatly halt, stop reform, then wait a moment, turn to face the correct direction. Then they return to fighting. During all that they will also halt all attacking, even if the enemy king is right in the middle of 10 of them. Most irritating thing I've ran into.

Best way I've found to deal with this is to move them quickly, then after they get going attack again. Not a real solution but it sorta works. Granted thats what I did prepatch, havent gotten into a position post patch for that to work. There's also the problem when chasing routers for them to completely halt for a minute or two. Or cav will also when pursuing spread out into hugely spaced formations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The problem with chasing routers was there pre patch also. And it was just as bad. After a unit routs the attackers immediatly halt, stop reform, then wait a moment, turn to face the correct direction. Then they return to fighting. During all that they will also halt all attacking, even if the enemy king is right in the middle of 10 of them. Most irritating thing I've ran into.

Best way I've found to deal with this is to move them quickly, then after they get going attack again. Not a real solution but it sorta works. Granted thats what I did prepatch, havent gotten into a position post patch for that to work. There's also the problem when chasing routers for them to completely halt for a minute or two. Or cav will also when pursuing spread out into hugely spaced formations.

---

My experience with chasing routers is that the chaser will spread out in every single direction like a supernova instead of staying as a single unit trying to kill the chasee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

My experience with chasing routers is that the chaser will spread out in every single direction like a supernova instead of staying as a single unit trying to kill the chasee.

---

Aye thats what I meant. No real way to describe what happens. They'll be 3 men left in the routing unit, they'll be clumped together, but the pursuing cavalry will spread out and try to fill the entire map while chasing them.

theme song frm benny hill show is actually a song called yakety sax, i believe frm the 50-60's,

Try to keep on topic mate :laugh4:

THANK YOU. I thought I was the only one with cavalry that is physically and intellectually incapable of catching routers. It's definately worse after the patch. I CANNOT stand to see that I tell my Turkomens to chase an enemy general down, only to see they ran along side the unit the whole time and ESCORTED them off the map instead of killing them. Sigh.

It's not only the pursuers that scatter all over the place, the pursued do too.
I've had several incidents post-patch where a routing unit has left the field yet the pursuers are still trying to get at them, the reason being that an individual of that unit is still on the field and a considerable distance away too, - on one occasion stuck behind a ladder - but he doesn't have a banner or marker on the radar to show he's there, and with this seasons relatively drab outfits he's rather difficult to spot.
Oddly one routing unit came back on the pitch and only when I killed them all did a banner pop up above the individual, about 400m away. May be a partial explanation for the behavior of some pursuers. I remember having similar trouble with stray individuals after installing DarthMod in RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer

THANK YOU. I thought I was the only one with cavalry that is physically and intellectually incapable of catching routers. It's definately worse after the patch. I CANNOT stand to see that I tell my Turkomens to chase an enemy general down, only to see they ran along side the unit the whole time and ESCORTED them off the map instead of killing them. Sigh.

---

Nice of them to ensure nothing bad happened to them as they left the killing fields. :laugh4:

That particular issue cropped up back in RTW. The game tried to put the center of the pursuing unit in the center of the running unit. If the running unit was scattered, by terrain or knockdowns or whatever, there would be a gap, and the pursuing unit would sit happily in the gap, never dropping back to pick off the stragglers or catching up to the lead units.

As to the Benny Hill them song, I know the title, but if I just asked where I could download Yakety Sax I don't think many people would understand the reference. Everyone who's ever seen an episode knows exactly what I'm talking about at the end credits.

Unit cohesion is horrible. It was SO good in Rome. I mean, I remember in Rome being able to form amazing army formations of gaps and holes to trap units and flank..

But in Medieval, I can barely hold my guys together to do any kind of honest to god manuvering.

It just becomes one big melee with every unit smashing in the center while my calvalry and archers TRY and move around!

Unit cohesion is definitely wonky. I've had a case where I was chasing an enemy infantry unit and it got killed down to 2 men who were 1/2 a map's edge distance apart! My light cav got confused and kept expanding and contracting, not catching either one of them.:laugh4:

You know, after playing for a while now, and loading a couple mods to help things along, this game is so close to being really good but it just annoys the hell out of me so that I almost hate playing it. At this point I just wish CA would ignore any other small issues and just fix unit cohesion, cav charging (which still sucks big time), and pathing in cities. Everything else would be easy to live with if these things worked right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

You know, after playing for a while now, and loading a couple mods to help things along, this game is so close to being really good but it just annoys the hell out of me so that I almost hate playing it. At this point I just wish CA would ignore any other small issues and just fix unit cohesion, cav charging (which still sucks big time), and pathing in cities. Everything else would be easy to live with if these things worked right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

So he trading in hemp you say?

---

Agreed.

What mods are you using?

Personally, the 2H and Towers fix as well as the 'Ultimate AI' mod for me.

I think I liked Shaba Wangy's mod more though.. in a test between the two, I can't figure out the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

My experience with chasing routers is that the chaser will spread out in every single direction like a supernova instead of staying as a single unit trying to kill the chasee.

---

I actually believe this is more realistic. During Routers typically aren't going to take off all in the same direction. Therefore, the units you send after them will spread out to kill them all.

After Alexander defeated Darius at Gaugamela the Persians dispersed. And a lot of Alexander's army, including himself, rode out after them. Not necessarily all in perfect formation either. From what I read he left a lot of his men behind in pursuit.

Then they had to call him back to help out Parmenion. It was total chaos. So you all want a bug to fix the total chaos that occurs when one army is defeated and is in flight (in all directions)?

An even better example of this would be the disorganized Turk hunt that the Christians went on after they broke the siege of Vienna in 1683. Or you could even use the disorganized chaos the Turks experienced leading up to the siege. Units scattered all over the countryside pursuiing their defeated enemy.

When you smell blood, there are very few who can issue orders to curb your ravenous desire to feast on it.

Sorry, but you cannot use any sort of historical justification for the present state of unit cohesion and router chasing AI. Yup, I'm sure battles were quite chaotic, but in a game, they should be managable or else it won't be fun. And sending in my heavy infantry to attack and watch only 15 of the guys in the unit actually attack while the other 105 chill out behind them is, oh, what is that word that I'm looking for, oh yeah, it's the exact opposite of fun.

I don't think it's a bad game by any means. It's fun, but that doesn't negate the fact that CA should be embarassed for being okay to release this game in the state it was/is in. It shows a major drop in quality and care in their products that is easily visible to the customer.

Ironic, in that this game is the most indepth and best in almost every quality except the SMALLEST details!!!

It's hugely funny to me.

Although I imagine it's to be expected. Shogun wasn't some massive undertaking but it was unique so it did well. M2TW is much bigger on every scale (duh) so i'm sure bugs get through, but I can't imagine they're too hard to fix.

I wonder sometimes if they do it because they know the community will go 'NO NO NO NO, *THIS* is how you do it!'

I mean, look! There are mods fixing the bugs for the towers, 2H problems, improving campaign AI beyond what CA could dream of doing, and mods for Vice and Virtue issues.

If they had just given the unpacker since day one, there'd be less complaining since.

HECK, they should make the entire thing neigh open source (not fully, obviously) and people will fix just about any bug. We're just that loyal to the game. :P

That isn't unique to this game; when they released the SDK for Civ 4, a few of the fans started playing with the code heavily. Some AI improvements were made that got incorporated into the official patches even. Games are complex, and get more complex every generation. Bugs are going to slip through, and there are a lot more people playing after release to find those than in any beta test period. The more tools we have at our disposal, the more obvious stuff we can fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

That isn't unique to this game; when they released the SDK for Civ 4, a few of the fans started playing with the code heavily. Some AI improvements were made that got incorporated into the official patches even. Games are complex, and get more complex every generation. Bugs are going to slip through, and there are a lot more people playing after release to find those than in any beta test period. The more tools we have at our disposal, the more obvious stuff we can fix.

---

Absolutely.

CA's only MAJOR mess-up was not giving the unpacker at day one. Had they, they could have just worked with the community instead of pissing them off.

Quillan, the thing to realize though is that only one person, in his spare time, in a couple months, did more for the AI of Civ4 than all the patches before that. If all it takes is one Blake to fix the program, why can't the developers bother? Take a look at GalCiv2 and see how much effort the developers have put into the AI and game play. That is a GREAT game now because someone cares.

As to unit cohesion, if it was only an issue chasing routers I would have no problems. But as was pointed out above, when only 12 of your infantry are fighting and all the other guys are sitting in the back playing poker and taking a toke, that is broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

Take a look at GalCiv2 and see how much effort the developers have put into the AI and game play. That is a GREAT game now because someone cares.

---

Is that game really any good? My friend lent it to me once, I installed it, and forgot about it.

If it's worth anything, ill go play it and try it out. It looked clunky and overly indepth to be any fun.

If it's anything like Orion, i'll give it another go.

Agreed about the cohesion by the way.. it's just stupid.

It makes me want to autoresolve battles. I have to just double click behind the melee area to get them to lump together.

Whats sad is that we won't see a patch till Feb or March EARLIEST !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

If all it takes is one Blake to fix the program, why can't the developers bother?

---

Because the developers aren't Blake. Blake plays Civ 4 with a skill I can barely conceive. I hang around on Noble and Prince, while Blake routinely wins on Deity. Top off his play skill with strategic skill and programming skill, and Blake (and others like him) can take the game places the developers couldn't. They come up with the ideas, and give them a direction, but the players take that to places they never imagined. How many times have games been patched for exploits that seem obvious in hindsight but nobody ever considered in advance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

Quillan, the thing to realize though is that only one person, in his spare time, in a couple months, did more for the AI of Civ4 than all the patches before that. If all it takes is one Blake to fix the program, why can't the developers bother? Take a look at GalCiv2 and see how much effort the developers have put into the AI and game play. That is a GREAT game now because someone cares.

---

It's also a great game because the dev team can focus only on the strategy map AI. There is no tactical combat in that game, and IIRC there is also none in the Civ series (never played it). With the TW series, you're getting twice the game, twice the potential, twice the bugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMGLAZERS

Is that game really any good? My friend lent it to me once, I installed it, and forgot about it.

If it's worth anything, ill go play it and try it out. It looked clunky and overly indepth to be any fun.

If it's anything like Orion, i'll give it another go.

---

No tactical combat like Orion -- you do everything on the strategy map. Space battles are auto-calc'd, and you see a 3D movie of the action. I enjoy GalCiv2 and still go back to it once in a while. It's pretty deep on the diplomacy side, and has a very cool Lego-like ship builder module. It also allows other than military wins; you can win by cultural domination or reaching the end of the tech tree before anyone else. It's a very different flavor from RTW or M2TW... less action in the early game when everyone is colonizing planets and not in direct conflict. In TW games, the fighting starts early and it's the only way to play the game.

Sorry if that was getting a little OT here, but we are discussing game design. Given today's budgets for games, advertising etc., I like the fact that I'm getting both tactical and strategic AI in the TW series. And even though the developer disagrees (he says he'd never do it), I think GalCiv2 would be a better game if it had a deep tactical combat module.

well you guys are LUCKY!!

after installing the patch, my game now stops in every battle

locks up :( I have to physically turn of the PC to get things going)

I haven't loaded up the patch yet due to a present campaign which I don't want to tinker with, as well as all the complaints I've been hearing.

I'm really curious, though, to what extent does the patch fix/break things? I'm big on heavy cavalry usage, and people are saying cavalry behave worse than before? This would really put me off, especially since I've gotten used to working with the current cavalry system.

Also, what is the current state of the passive AI bug? For a quick recap, pre-patch AI pretty much doesn't do jack when you attack, when you sally out, when you siege. In fact, the only time it actually makes the first move is when it attacks and during sieges after all its artillery has expended its ammunition. And then, it's usually a nice long wait until all its archers have expended all their ammunition. Really it's like practicing on a punching bag, nothing ever happens on the other end. Terribly boring :(
Has this been improved upon significantly in the patch? Is it still painfully slow and one-sided?

Thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

Because the developers aren't Blake. Blake plays Civ 4 with a skill I can barely conceive. I hang around on Noble and Prince, while Blake routinely wins on Deity. Top off his play skill with strategic skill and programming skill, and Blake (and others like him) can take the game places the developers couldn't. They come up with the ideas, and give them a direction, but the players take that to places they never imagined. How many times have games been patched for exploits that seem obvious in hindsight but nobody ever considered in advance?

---

When I played AOK seriously, the devs actually hired the best players to help develop and play test the game. While I agree that Blake and others like Vel play at a level that most of us can only dream of, the devs ought to take advantage of people with the fortitude, brains, and stamina to learn a game inside out and hire them to help create a better game. The budgets for a major game like MTW are huge and a couple more people working on the AI is not going to have a serious impact on the bottom line. If you really care about your product you do what is required to make it as good as it can be. I have seen several companies do this and am always disappointed that CA doesn't. It is my firm belief that the only reason CA has been as sucessful as they have been is because they have a monopoly on this type of game. The first time a serious competitor comes along that actually tries to create a great game, CA are in trouble.

I agree that CA seem to have it all to themselves..there is no real competition as such...

Imperial glory was a sort of competitor...kind of...though that was a flawed game in itself...(though not bad if you overlooked some areas)

Rest of the bunch are more specialist wargames..much more serious such as Take Command 2nd Manassas...etc etc...but they are really not mainstream appeal..and are for the more heavy wargamer..strategy player.

Competition is good..CA has little almost..and this doesnt help drive them to improve games as much as they could. Most of the criticism of the latest game..leaving aside issues as such is that it does not push the genre....

I still think CA are afraid to get down 'n dirty with a more intensive or advanced game...fearing that the casual gamer may be put off...games like Civ 4 show that you can have great depth..but also newer players need not be put off by it..or bogged down in micro management..

In many ways it is easy to spice up the eye candy...a lot of games do this...few deliver..maybe ones like Oblivion do...most great games I have played are so so on the graphics..gameplay is really what counts..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

Games are complex, and get more complex every generation. Bugs are going to slip through, and there are a lot more people playing after release to find those than in any beta test period.

---

I'm not sure I read this correctly, but if you're suggesting that something like unit cohesion just "slipped through" than I must say I have troubles swallowing it. I noticed the damn thing the very first battle I ever played in M2, and became seriously annoyed by it quite soon afterwards. I'm sure CA knew about it, it was just too difficult to fix before release and they gave us (again) only 75% or so of the game, with the rest of it coming, hopefully, next year, in small installments dubbed "patches".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

The more tools we have at our disposal, the more obvious stuff we can fix.

---

True. This isn't however an excuse for the sorry state this game was released in (and still is, one patch later). I don't play it now, no time with the holidays and all, but I plan to start again in Jan.'07. My big problem is - I'm contemplating a large amount of modding, bugfixing, rebalancing, tweaking etc. that needs to be done before starting a new campaign. It'll probably take me 1-2 weeks to cover all the holes that can be covered. And then, in Feb. after the patch, I'll probably have to do it all over again.
It's so very true (and thanks to CA for this) that this game offers a lot in the way of modding and customizing your playing experience. Modding in itself can be quite fun, too. It should be optional though, not mandatory as it stands now - having to fix it before you play it sounds like a DYI project. Too much like work, and I didn't pay 50$ to work on the game, but to play it.

Phew, there it is...
Sorry for the slightly OT rant, but I needed to vent some steam about my love-hate relationship with TW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cras

well you guys are LUCKY!!

after installing the patch, my game now stops in every battle

locks up :( I have to physically turn of the PC to get things going)

---

I had a bit of trouble with that too... I had to set graphics to minimal and then it seemed to work. Never mind that the system should be more than capable of running this program!

I agree with you Ars. But a lot of things do slip through the cracks, because not enough people were playtesting seriously. And those who do playtest aren't the same quality players some of you are. Personally, I detest the way games come out now: "Oh, that's good enough. Go ahead and release it, and we'll just patch it later." I'd much rather wait for a finished, polished product than get a buggy early release, but that's the way things are and I can't really change it.

Blakes AI changes in Civ 4 came because Blake is a superlative player, and has enough programming skill to be able to rewrite the AI code to do things the way he would. Now, perhaps if we had the code for this game, and some of the best players of Medieval 2 combined their playing skill with the same ability to rewrite the code, improvements could be made. However, how do they hire the best players before the game is released? Those improvements have to be done after the fact. I have a feeling the AI code is more complex in this game than in Civ 4 also, though it probably does have two different sets of codes: one for the campaign map and one for the battles.

I have no idea how complex the AI code is in MTW2....none.

What I do know is that it in general is not working very well. Aka not providing enough of a challenge, or variety. AI is very predictable...very..

It shouldn't be like that.

I loaded up the original MTW..and whilst it looks pretty ropey by today's standards..the AI on the campaign map was a lot better..and the battle AI is in a different league'

I played the english v french in a custom battle..and had one of the most thrilling down to the wire fights ever. The AI was smart enough not to stand about and let me rain arrows on him for ages..smart enough not to charge my spear units with its cavalry..and smart enought to push an attack on my weak flank..and do so with guts and vigour..it really went for the win..I won the battle...but barely...it drew me into the game as a whole....

And the most important part is that it varies its strategy...so you don't get bored.

IN short a gripping battle with a game that is 5 years old+...

Now why is it with such a huge game such as MTW2 cannot deliver the goods? Excuses...there are none from where I stand....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

However, how do they hire the best players before the game is released? Those improvements have to be done after the fact.

---

Hmmm. While what you say is mostly true, I still can't reasonably find an excuse for some of the problems. See, for example, the previous posts about suicidal generals. It made me cringe, because it brought back memories of long threads about it in the times of the first MedievalTW game. That was, what, 4-5 years ago ? That's long enough "after the fact" for it not to be an issue anymore. Also, the best players would have been quite easy to find even before M2TW was released - they're the same as the best STW, MTW, RTW players, and quite abundant on these forums (and other places).

NOTE : I haven't experienced the suicidals myself in M2TW, or at least not very obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

I have a feeling the AI code is more complex in this game than in Civ 4 also, though it probably does have two different sets of codes: one for the campaign map and one for the battles.

---

I never played Civ, but I know that there are no real time battles in it, so I think that however complex its strategical AI might be, it pales in comparison with the difficulty of coding a working battlefield AI as in TW.

Your assumption about there being two different "AI brains" for campaign/battles is most certainly true.

Quote:

---

I don't think it's a bad game by any means. It's fun, but that doesn't negate the fact that CA should be embarassed for being okay to release this game in the state it was/is in. It shows a major drop in quality and care in their products that is easily visible to the customer.

---

They need a bigger team in future me thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ars Moriendi

I never played Civ, but I know that there are no real time battles in it, so I think that however complex its strategical AI might be, it pales in comparison with the difficulty of coding a working battlefield AI as in TW.

Your assumption about there being two different "AI brains" for campaign/battles is most certainly true.

---

As far as I can see campaign wise civ is far superior to the TW games..it uses some logic most of the time..and varies what it does.

As for the battle AI...the original MTW was far from perfect..but really I don't see how hard it would be to keep it for this version....it did give a good challenge on a tactical level...least to me...

Really not sure what has changed..after all the basics behind it must be very similar...as for the snazzy graphics..well that won't make any difference IMO to how units move on the battlefield..and how/why/where they engage.

Quote:

---

I haven't loaded up the patch yet due to a present campaign which I don't want to tinker with, as well as all the complaints I've been hearing.

I'm really curious, though, to what extent does the patch fix/break things? I'm big on heavy cavalry usage, and people are saying cavalry behave worse than before? This would really put me off, especially since I've gotten used to working with the current cavalry system.

Also, what is the current state of the passive AI bug? For a quick recap, pre-patch AI pretty much doesn't do jack when you attack, when you sally out, when you siege. In fact, the only time it actually makes the first move is when it attacks and during sieges after all its artillery has expended its ammunition. And then, it's usually a nice long wait until all its archers have expended all their ammunition. Really it's like practicing on a punching bag, nothing ever happens on the other end. Terribly boring :(
Has this been improved upon significantly in the patch? Is it still painfully slow and one-sided?

Thanks in advance.

---

Anybody have an answer to this question please? :beam:

Spark, with a little reading you could have all those answers, but here is my take. Cav is worse. In some ways it is better but it just seems harder to get the cav to work the way you would expect most of the time. I knew how to get a good charge before the patch but now I can get no consistent results. The AI is less passive unless you are breaking a siege then they just stand there and get shot to pieces. Unit cohesion seems worse most of the time with only a few men engaging the enemy while the rest sit back and do nothing. And then because of this cav can't catch routers. CA really needs to start beta testing their stuff with at least a select group of regulars before they embarrass themselves by releasing another crappy patch.


As to M2 vs Civ4, one of the things I really like about Civ4 is that the different AIs have different personalities. I mean Montazuma is quite psychotic, Tokagawa is very defensive, Ghandi is pretty nice, etc. I doubt that is very hard to program, it just takes a desire to offer the best to your customers.

What I'm gonna do is, I'm gonna uninstall the whole damn game, and wait for Shogun to be delivered into my mailbox. In the meanwhile I'll enjoy Counterstrike Source, or Sniper Elite.

One time the performance is top-notch, the other time it's messed up. Whatever the case.... I'll put it away and wait until it is totally patched in a couple months, half a year or so, or a year? Then it'll be fresh again to enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

Spark, with a little reading you could have all those answers, but here is my take. Cav is worse. In some ways it is better but it just seems harder to get the cav to work the way you would expect most of the time. I knew how to get a good charge before the patch but now I can get no consistent results. The AI is less passive unless you are breaking a siege then they just stand there and get shot to pieces. Unit cohesion seems worse most of the time with only a few men engaging the enemy while the rest sit back and do nothing. And then because of this cav can't catch routers. CA really needs to start beta testing their stuff with at least a select group of regulars before they embarrass themselves by releasing another crappy patch.


As to M2 vs Civ4, one of the things I really like about Civ4 is that the different AIs have different personalities. I mean Montazuma is quite psychotic, Tokagawa is very defensive, Ghandi is pretty nice, etc. I doubt that is very hard to program, it just takes a desire to offer the best to your customers.

---

I have cavalry problems more now post patch...not sure why that should be.

I agree with the sentiments regarding a Civ 4 personality...back to that though..Civ 4 got a lot of stick for being released too early (and it was really)...but fireaxis did bother to patch it properly...over time. And the AI is pretty good in civ...it doesn't seem to cheat..

I am getting a bit tired of this leave stuff out put it in the expansion pack mentality that seems oh so common nowadays..this appies to civ 4 also..warlords was ok..but really should have been in the original game.

I have a feeling MTW2 will follow this trend...aka the gameplay parts removed from MTW1, faction heir, titles, regional units...glorious achievements...may appear in the new expansion pack sure to turn up sometime next year....

But hey..it isnt as bad as the Sims 2...that really is taking the mick!

Erm the AI does have distinct personalities (priorities really). Crack open the descr_strat file and you'll see stuff like "expansionist mao" or "trader henry" under each AI faction.

dopp, it may say that in the config files, but in reality they all just attack with little clue how and no chance of success. The fact that one AI may build his markets up a little more while the other is building stables up doesn't have a sufficient impact on the game due to the other inherent difficiencies.

Quote:

---

What I'm gonna do is, I'm gonna uninstall the whole damn game, and wait for Shogun to be delivered into my mailbox.

---

Ahhhh! I reinstalled again today! My poor heart, lol.



I think CA could learn some things from Civ4. And the makers of Civ could learn some things from CA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Ahhhh! I reinstalled again today! My poor heart, lol.



I think CA could learn some things from Civ4. And the makers of Civ could learn some things from CA.

---

I think both games suffered from having been released too early. Civ 4 had some notable bugs..and some serious performance issues even on high end machines (lag/slowdowns..memory leaks etc), and got some serious criticisms from users too. Though...and it took a while..the developers did address the issues..and made significant changes to the game, including the AI and balance issues too...they also took the time to add extra bits to it...kind of a sorry we messed up thing. Though it shouldnt be like that in an ideal world.

We can only hope that CA take note of this and not only fix the issues, but enhance the gameplay..to me at present exploration of diplomatic and economic areas are not deep enough..and the game is pretty much flawed by having a tight time limit..and only one way to win (mass conquering of lands)

But whilst MTW2 shines on that battlefield (when it works right)..and it is fun..it pales next to civ 4 on the tactical map and strategic/diplomacy level..badly. Not that CA ever intended to compete with civ 4..but why make a what if game..if you only have one way of winning?

One of 2006's big titles that has been a huge let down....

I really dont mind modders playing about..and they do some good work..but really, it is not good enough to have the current retail release in such poor shape...you don't get paid for your work..the CA team do...

All this talk of not enough cpu power for AI is really smoke and mirrors...this simply isnt the truth at all

Barry, I know exactly what you mean and I agree.

Though I was more talking about the general gameplay of both. TW's poor strategy map could be improved by Civ's, and Civ's team could in return learn from TW's battles.
They should simply team up to make the ultimate (PC) strategy game.

Been trying to mod some things myself, learning about those files and their contents, but it's a pain in the ass, takes time: I also want M2 to be in good shape, and I wouldn't have minded if they released it far later than planned - like next year.

I think good production quality in games should be standard nowadays, in terms of code, presentation, etc. Civ4 had that rubbish as you say, and M2 has it too.

I ain't no programmer (though I've been at it many times throughout the years), but I wonder: is it possible for TW's next installment to take an existing superior engine of which we know it works (almost) perfectly - Source comes first to mind now - and adapt it somehow to be a good perfect optimal TW engine?

Quote:

---

All this talk of not enough cpu power for AI is really smoke and mirrors...this simply isnt the truth at all

---

Dunno. Seems to me it should be possible to program good A.I., but I really don't know.


I do know the standard of many games today has become to quickly finish the job, have good PR to work people up to a certain point they want to get your product, and then to take their money, hah hah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

TW's poor strategy map could be improved by Civ's, and Civ's team could in return learn from TW's battles.
They should simply team up to make the ultimate (PC) strategy game.

---

I've been a Civilization fan ever since version 1 in the early 90s, and I really wouldn't want to see the TW style tactical battle map in Civilization... it simply doesn't fit the spirit of the game, which is supposed to be more of a high-level nation leadership simulation than a plain war game, although of course war factors into it a great deal, as it has in real history. Civ is more of a builder's game, and your army's generals are really below you in rank...

It wouldn't be practical to pour resources into developing two decent games in one... for TW, the strategic map is more or less there to eventually get to what that game is supposed to do well, and that is the tactical battles, while it would be completely unwieldy to do that well within the through the ages scope of Civilization... you'd get two crippled games instead of one great one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

Erm the AI does have distinct personalities (priorities really). Crack open the descr_strat file and you'll see stuff like "expansionist mao" or "trader henry" under each AI faction.

---

But none of them can resist tempting ports of long time ally...
must....blockade....:no:

This is more annoying to me than silly acting when chasing routers.

No the 'personalities' are merely build orders, not true differences in AI. So an expansionist might build more roads, or a trader more ports. Mao might build large armies of peasants, while Henry will be missile-heavy. Henry is possibly the reason why we see so many stacks with like 10 catapults, 5 pavise crossbows and 1 token unit of spearmen.

Haha, could you imagine if M2TW had personalities and they gave the Mongols a Monty like personality? Wow, he would sweep over the world in no time! That would be great. Make the Spanish and the English aggressive while the French would obviously be quite whiny and defensive but terrible in actual battle. I guess they would have the worst moral of any faction in the game. :duel:

In that case, I'd be trying to kill Spain all the time. Isabella is such a b***h in Civ.

If you bring traits into TW, then valor bonus on units from aggressive trait would just be too sweet to pass up.

Hmmmm, what we really need is to see Katherine on the battlefield giving speeches to the troops! Hahaha, can you imagine the promises she would make to insure victory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

TAs to the Benny Hill them song, I know the title, but if I just asked where I could download Yakety Sax I don't think many people would understand the reference. Everyone who's ever seen an episode knows exactly what I'm talking about at the end credits.

---

Try here: http://melaman2.com/tvshows/B1.html