The Daily Update at the Com

[peacemaker]

IMO the friendly nations things or whatever shouldn't affect much (a little still, but not that much) whether or not the AI makes a decision such as declaring war. Declaring war on a friendly nation should have some diplomatic penalties if treaties are broken and the main problem should be public unrest.

Another thing that would be cool but likely too complicated for the current CAI would be to have multiple nations together at once. This way, you can arrange world wars between alliances and also make treaties.

[Slaists]

They should borrow some concepts from Knights of Honor, having things like "White Peace" (when you are at war, but nothing has happened for ages) and asking an ally to join you in a war (if they didn't join initial, or you allied later, for example).

Better yet, they could just adopt a thing or two from the diplomatic approach of Europa Universalis

I still believe that if a nation is your ally/protectorate, they should not be able to declare war on you. If an ally/protectorate wants to declare war on you, they should first have to cancel the alliance during one turn and declare war on you the next turn.

I agree. In addition, protectorates should lose all their alliances + cease all the wars at the time of becoming a protectorate (unless they are at war with someone the "master" is at war with). From that point on, the foreign policy of the protectorate should be the same as the protector's. The protector should be able to sign all peace deals on behalf of the protectorate with nations that have declared war on it. In order to get out of the protectorate deal, protectorates would need to 1) cancel the agreement, 2) possibly go to war with the protector but for the #2, there should be an option for just letting the protectorate go.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Today a long update

24 August:

Dear All,

The reaction on the forums to the recent announcement of Napoleon has suggested there is a level of misunderstanding about a few points. I'd like to shed light on a few of these, directly, if I may.

Why are you releasing another TW game without fixing Empire?

We have not given up on supporting Empire. The major AI upgrade patch is still very much being worked on and is coming shortly. It will be with you a good while before Napoleon's release. Napoleons development is ongoing, just as our support of Emprie is ongoing.
We recognise Empire had problems on release and we've dealt with the vast majority of stability and performance issues people are having. We now need to balance and address gameplay issues. The AI particularly. We have listened to everything you have said and are looking to address as much as possible. Empire has not been forgotten and a major gameplay upgrade is coming, and coming soon.

Why did you lie about releasing an MP campaign? Where is it?

The MP Campaign for Empire has always been a beta product. However, despite it simply being a test of the technology we still want it to be fun and enjoyable, something that's worth your time and our effort. So we've been working on it since release, building it to a state where its stable enough to beta test by you all and is indeed a great deal of fun to play. The MP Campaign Beta has not been forgotten, work is ongoing and it will be released before Napoleon allowing us time to absorb your comments and feedback (Which is ultimately the point of a public beta). To stress: Empire's MPC Beta is still under development and will be coming shortly it has not been dropped or forgotten and will be available soon.

Why do you never give dates for anything? I want to know when I can get my hands on these things!

Wer've learned about giving dates to the community. The understandable anger we've faced when we've given specific dates and not met them is not worth the little comfort given by us mentioning a specific date (Which you must still wait for). All development has a level of risk attached to it, that is the chance that it will not make a specific day for delivery. We've stopped communicating exact dates as a result of feedback from you. The Empire patch and the MPC beta will be released a significant while before Napoleon, which is scheduled for a first quarter 2010 release.

Why are you releasing Napoleon seperately when all it's content should have been in Empire?

The simple answer to this is that Napoloeons content shouldn't and couldnt have been in Empire. Napoleon is a game in it's own right. It spans three full campaigns, not missions or theatres, three sperate campaigns each with their own maps, factions, missions, opponents, story and unique features. In short: It is big.

Napoleon focuses on a man and his destiny and how this is tied to the rise of a nation, a man who defined an era. Empire was a very seperate theme, defining the interplay of actions between nations over a turbulent period of history.

These are two very different games.

We couldn't, nor would we, have added Napoleon into Empire. It's a huge piece of work worthy of its own title.

Admit it, you're going to give up on Empire and try to sell us another game aren't you?

Not at all. After the major AI upgrade patch that is coming we're going to announce another major piece of DLC for Empire, adding more content to its universe and expanding the game even further. Empire is a title into which we put a lot of time and effort, and to which you all gave a great deal of patience post release. We won't walk away from that. So there is more coming.

You do not need Napoleon to enjoy Empire or play Empire, they are two seperate games. Naturally we'd like people to go for both, but we recognise that choice is yours. Whether you chose one, none or both we want to make your experience reflect our time and energy and be as enjoyable as possible.

Does the community reaction to CA's announcements make any difference?

Yes, and always yes. The point of a public beta to the Multi Player Campaign is to get your feedback, the reason for this post is because we're reading and listening to what you say. There's a lot of reaction to what we've announced with Napoleon and some of it is based on misunderstanding. That's because we're at an early stage of development, we only announced on Wednesday last week and there are a lot of different facts and theories floating around. If you have questions post them here or bug a website or magazine to ask us and we'll answer. Please understand some of what is written is speculation and unless its a specific quote from us it may simply be informed opinion.

Finally, sometimes the community reaction is uplifting and othertimes it is demotivating. We recognise that there's a lot of desire out there to see us do better, given some peoples Empire's release experience. We hope that given the sheer amount of attention we've paid to Empire since it's release and the extras we're looking to provide that we will prove by our action that we're not just here to sell games. We love TW, thats why we make it, and we want you to enjoy it too, as that is ultimately it's purpose. Criticism is always welcome, if its positive and constructive we're far more likely to take ti on board and listen.

As always any further questions please post them here and look out for further Napoleon coverage as it comes.

Kind regards,
Kieran

[Mailman653]

I wonder what the DLC could be.

[Discoman]

Hopefully a new theater, or faction.

Since Napoleon:TW is stand alone. What will be the expansion for ETW, if any?

[Lemur]

Given how fervently we've all been grousing, that's a remarkably diplomatic Daily Update. Well done, seriously, well done. And it's a relief to hear that the AI is being addressed.

[peacemaker]

The Empire patch and the MPC beta will be released a significant while before Napoleon, which is scheduled for a first quarter 2010 release.

woohooooooo!!

Anyway, yeah, this update is trying to calm my fears of the core game not being good enough for the expansion. This patch and MPC is hopefully going to restore my faith in this game which I am desperately trying to get back. CA, fingers crossed, please don't be a bunch of disappointments like with what you did with *certain* aspects of ETW. I will say I was impressed enough to expect much more from CA.

On the pessimistic side (which I am trying to ignore), CA is just trying to tell people to quit complaining and that they're still working on it. I do like the fact that they've learned that release dates just bring in criticism. If it was me, I wouldn't give a release date until the final product is ready.

[Durallan]

I am impressed with the post, but all they have to have realised is that SEGA should have been told (not that i know if sega even care what a bunch of people say on a forum) that the AI must be working before the game shipped. Like I said CA, Empire is an impressive game and I have had some fun playing it, the first campaign normally is, but if people intend on replaying it, the AI needs to shine, shine quite alot, and it isn't, and thats why people complain. Again we appreciate that you listen to us, I know alot of people would have moved onto other games had there not been any of this kind of feedback in the first place.

but like we said, if the AI hasn't been fixed, and can be on par with most people (being a fair challenge to win on normal, a hard challenge on hard, and almost inhuman on very hard) and has its own chance at beating other AI's to win or at least it is made more entertaining then most people will take their money elsewhere.

I know I have not played Empire as much as I have played Medieval 2 Total War, I don't know, it is very hard to make countries in the game challenging (thats why alliance groups would be a good idea if you can form alliances and can then suggest a larger alliance group) and at the start of the game (if players choose), the AI's could give state gifts to say 3 random other AI's (not indian nations or the pirate one though) just to mix up the relations in the game, and not make it as historical. thats just my idea though.

Anyway nice post, but the results will be the kicker.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

As we Dutch say: "Praatjes vullen geen gaatjes".

[Husar]

Does the community reaction to CA's announcements make any difference?

Yes, and always yes.

So there won't be any naval rebalancing anymore?

[Veho Nex]

Does anyone know if the MPC will use RT battles? If so are the maps going to be smaller, like more focused? Say the UK or Russia or just India.

[Mailman653]

I dreamt with the DLC last night

They were six new units and they appeared to be wearing uniforms similar to Sgt.Pepper's Loney Hearts Club Band

And if that't not crazy enough, all six were sold individually for $2.99.

[Durallan]

So there won't be any naval rebalancing anymore?

ah, you crack me up husar, Incredibly good point! However seeing their reluctance to mention that, I think we will be better off doing this or this

LOL Mailman, did Ringo drum enemies on the head badly, Lennon fire pianos from a piano shaped cannon, mcartney talk them to death and harrison prance around them and sing hari krishna to distract them?

[Owen Glyndwr]

Good post. And it does qualm some of my fears. But on that note, please don't botch this release like the last one. Please, for the love of God, give us a completed game that works on arrival...please?

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Finally some news about the patch:

1 September:

Hi,

I am pleased to confirm that update 1.4 will be out in late September.

First off, some new items that will be going into 1.4:

- 2 new historical battles: Battle of Rossbach and Battle of Fontenoy. Both available in single player and multi player.
- Missile cavalry can now fire and reload whilst on the move.

And previously announced, the update will contain the following fixes and balance changes.

Balance changes:
- Overhaul of naval balancing as talked about in 9th July Update.
- There is now a cap on how many of some units you can take in MP. Examples of such units are Ferguson Rifles, many of the Elite Units of the West, and other unique units such as Royal Ecossais etc.
- Dragoons are available from higher building levels and now have fire by rank to allow them to better fulfil the role of mobile infantry.
- Light Dragoons have gained longer range guns to allow them to skirmish better.
- Reworked cavalry costs to better reflect their value on the battlefield.
- Increase in cost to Windbusche Jaegers and Ferguson Rifles.
- Some improvements to projectile balancing.
- Balance improvements made to Road to Independence Episode 3.

Fixes and improvements:
- Significantly increase the rate of naval invasions. Including those across theatres.
- Increase AI aggression and improve use of armies.
- Increase the creation and retention of strong mixed higher level unit armies by the CAI.
- Fix for texture allocation in sprite cache that was causing a memory crash.
- "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors change so don't apply when joining an ally in war.
- Fix for some towns in regions still giving bonuses to income when damaged for raiding.
- Improvements to siege AI in how it approaches and assaults walls.
- Units with fire by rank now fire correctly when behind walls.
- Bug with fort cannon targeting fixed, making them much more accurate.
- Many fixes to sound bugs improving overall sound across the game.
- Fixed issue with default battle preference not being saved.
- Fix to include protectorate owned regions in explicitly-specified victory condition regions.
- Various crash fixes.
- Fixes to various group formations to improve formations used by player/AI.
- Fix for routing unit cards losing faction colour.
- Fix for auto unlimbering causing the attack order to terminate prematurely resulting in an inability to stop the unit from firing.
- Fix for troops on fort walls not using fort gun range when judging when to fire on enemy troops.
- Fix for fort guns using wrong targeting formula.
- Fixes to fort pathfinding and use of ropes.
- Multiplayer soft lock fixes.
- Fix crash in quotes table.
- Cumulative updates to improve AI invasion behaviour.
- Bug fixes and improvements to AI counter offers.
- Improvements to AI diplomatic valuation of military access and alliances.
- Fix for wind sounds not working in naval battles
- Fixed ship wakes not always working.
- Fixed potential crash disembarking agents from navies.
- Fixed armies not being booted out of regions when losing military access gained by joining an ally in war.
- Improved AI diplomacy valuation of technologies.
- Fixed reinforcements from unreachable positions.
- Balance of power fix for attack of opportunity.
- Fixed bug that was causing issues with embarking an army containing multiple characters.
- Minor tweak to stop some ship sails endlessly play furling sound.
- Fixed path blocked bug (pathing into ZoC).
- Diplomacy counter-offer improvements.
- Fix for fast forward not working as intended on some PCs. Will always speed up if camera is still, if camera moves fast forward will be as fast as possible on each PC.
- Fixed issue where artillery would be told to stop firing but continue.
- Fixed issue with the virtual file system whereby on certain hard drives / raid configurations / partitions which were experiencing a crash with sound enabled.
- Fixed a boundary pathfinding crash.

Thanks

Jack

[Slaists]

- "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors change so don't apply when joining an ally in war.

I hate those "sledgehammer" fixes... These factors should not apply if one joins an ally in a DEFENSIVE war. They SHOULD apply if one joins an ally in an AGGRESSION...

- Fixed issue where artillery would be told to stop firing but continue.

I hope they did this one right. Currently, the artillery DOES stop firing if ordered so, but before they do, they unload the last salvo in random directions, frequently, into the backs of nearby friendlies...

[Tsavong]

- Missile cavalry can now fire and reload whilst on the move.
- Light Dragoons have gained longer range guns to allow them to skirmish better.

eek!

fear the light dragoon!

[econ21]

fear the light dragoon!

Both changes right up there with the naval rebalancing as ahistorical and unrealistic.

[Sheogorath]

Firing on the move isn't that bad, provided there's an accuracy penalty. Reloading is a bit iffy, although I imagine it's doable with experience.

The range increase is silly, though.

All praise to the modders! They managed to implement a range-accuracy relationship, so they can probably fix this too.

[econ21]

Firing on the move isn't that bad, provided there's an accuracy penalty.

If you had a carbine or musket - a weapon with one shot and requiring both hands to fire - would you fire that one shot on the move? I can't see it. (Pistols at the trot, as in a caracole, yes but not long guns.) The main in-game use of firing on the move would presumably be to punish pursuing cavalry (a gunpowder age Parthian shot), which seems even more silly.

Reloading is a bit iffy, although I imagine it's doable with experience.

I'm guessing it will be like horse archers in the RTW/M2TW - light dragoons will reload while moving faster than most other cavalry and so be able to kill them without loss. I can't imagine a man riding a horse at the gallop reloading a muzzle-loading carbine. Allowing for the Parthian shot in RTW/M2TW was a fair depiction of the frustration of knights and other heavy cavalry trying to deal with fleet-footed horse archers but it seems completely unauthentic gameplay in an eighteenth century battle.

Ever since the mid-seventeenth century, cavalry had moved away from the use of firearms in battle, finding shock tactics more effective. By the Napoleonic era, the carbines, muskets and pistols of the cavalrymen were largely decorative and don't figure much in accounts of most battles - often being not even equipped. Why CA should have a tech tree that leads light cavalry down an opposite and frankly absurd path is baffling - oh wait, it's for "balance".

[antisocialmunky]

The only guys that would remotely work for are pistol armed cav and HA. Who on that team has the dragoon fetish?

Also - Did htey fix trade routes yet?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Increase the creation and retention of strong mixed higher level unit armies by the CAI.

I hope that includes the naval forces, the over-recruiting of brigs and sloops is wearing thin.

[Durallan]

thats okay Elmar, in their naval rebalancing, sloops will be more accurate and fire further than your ships of the line! so if they bring 20 brigs they might just be able to do some damage!

[Dead Guy]

The only problem I had with light dragoons was that they took way too long to form up before they fired, sometimes infantry were even able to run out of their field of fire before they were done. This wasn't even one of those wonderful cases when one guy is stuck on a picket fence a few yards from the formation :p

This seems like a pretty bad solution to that problem, now they could be completely overpowered, especially in smaller skirmishes, they could be able to easily mop up small armies of certain compositions.

I do like some of the other fixes though, hope it works out well... Last week I had four howitzers unload explosive shells straight into a unit of line that had just won a melee to their side, again. It's like they aim for your own units when you tell them to cease fire.

[Peasant Phill]

This seems a great patch with some problems. My only big remark is that there is little use of better/rebalanced diplomacy when the 'black knight' behavior doesn't seem to be dealt with. I was really hoping for that one and a 1.5 patch may never come.

[Lord Nelson]

About bloody time too !!!

[Turbosatan]

Whilst I welcome the general wonderfulness of this patch's bug-fix list, the talk of all this "naval rebalancing" is making me somewhat queasy.

You see, I'd quite like all the fixed stuff, without sloops/galleys sinking ships of the line, thank you very much.

I suppose I shall have to wait until the patch is released then hope someone can mod it back to its current state...

PS: Cavalry firing on the move is a bad idea. Have I missed something, or has it just been the M2TW & RTW fans whining that has prompted this decision to turn Light Dragoons into some bizarre equivalent of Genghis Khan's Mongols?

[FactionHeir]

No mention of fixing problems with building bonuses, again.

[Seyavash]

This seems a great patch with some problems. My only big remark is that there is little use of better/rebalanced diplomacy when the 'black knight' behavior doesn't seem to be dealt with. I was really hoping for that one and a 1.5 patch may never come.

I think several of the AI changes are intended to address the general CAI issues and indirectly reduce the black knight behavior. Jack mentions better handling of alliances, smarter uses of armies, more invasions etc. All of this could cumulatively mean that when the AI declares war it acts on it better. Now he also states that there will be a more aggressive AI so it might not go away entirely but I think we could see a reduction in this behavior. It seems they are trying to push toward a smarter aggression. While I am not sure this will fix it sufficiently yet, it is progress.

[Peasant Phill]

I think several of the AI changes are intended to address the general CAI issues and indirectly reduce the black knight behavior. Jack mentions better handling of alliances, smarter uses of armies, more invasions etc. All of this could cumulatively mean that when the AI declares war it acts on it better. Now he also states that there will be a more aggressive AI so it might not go away entirely but I think we could see a reduction in this behavior. It seems they are trying to push toward a smarter aggression. While I am not sure this will fix it sufficiently yet, it is progress.

The problem as it stand now is that if you border a faction it will inevitably DoW on you rather sooner disregarding diplomatic standing, other better 'prey' or simply there own well being. They can change the game as much as they feel like but it'll stay broken until the AI factions start to 'think for themselves' rather than immidiatly gang up on the player.
At least now I can sometimes ignore factions I'm at war with as long as I have a decent garrison. It'll be 3 hour/round if the CAI decides to 'attack smart'.