Battle AI Challenge

[ArtillerySmoke]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

Exactly. It's about progress, and ETW definitely makes it.

What strategy game out there right now is as good as this? Dawn of War 2 is broken beyond belief (MP is unplayable...period) and there are kiddies drooling all over it left and right.

Empire is fine. It's in as good of a state, if not better, as any other title out there. For a launch? This is pretty amazing.

[Dogfish]

Yes, there are lots of games with more problems at release.

But it's not that ETW has tons of bugs, it doesn't. I haven't had one single crash or showstopping error. It's just there are several glaringly obvious bugs/omissions/"features", that, while minor, substantially affect gameplay. Like the passive AI and lack of naval invasions. Sometimes the small but glaringly obvious things like that are worse than crashes.

Crashes can occur due to obscure combinations of hardware that are impossible to fully account for when compatibility testing. I can understand any game having those kinds of problems at release. Same with memory leaks. Those things are tough to track down sometimes.

But with the passive AI and naval invasions, it feels like no playtester played through several campaigns, trying different things. Or they just made sure it "worked" and didn't care if it worked well.

Did no playtester play a campaign as GB and realize they could have no defenses at all, not a single unit, yet never be under threat? Or, relatedly, that the AI doesn't ever do naval transport? I can't understand how that would get through testing, or alternatively how it is considered acceptable AI.

Couple that with some features that looked to of taken several steps backwards, such as no blood or mud, pre-battle general speeches, drummers and other atmosphere in battles, the reinforcements system, fields of battle not being based on the campaign map... and a picture develops whereby the engine might of been a major improvement technically (graphics, campaign map, steamlined management), in other areas it's an unexpected and disappointing retreat from well-received features present in earlier iterations in the series (Like how can they leave out blood and mud? And general speeches were, to me, a signature element of the personality of the series).

My only hope is that CA recognizes alot of these omissions, and wanted to have them at launch, but will be pushing them out shortly in via patches. But if some of these things were intentional steps backwards, then I don't know what to say, other than I'm looking forward to mods, and that I am not a guaranteed customer in the future as I have been in the past.

[Galain_Ironhide]

It seems despite the wishes of CA's fans to not release the game until it was finished fell on deaf ears.

I don't know how many orgahs and other people from other forums pleaded for this.

Perhaps it is business strategy, maybe they don't use game testers, they wait on the paying public to pick up the bugs and report them, then have some guy go through and fix it. Much cheaper that way.