Results 1 to 30 of 123

Thread: Has anything really changed from CA?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Has anything really changed from CA?

    Essentially they have gotten to a point where they have over-engineered these aspects and this has left the AI team producing an under developed AI as they have simply not been able to keep up.
    I don't want to overstate this because producing an AI that can handle all this would be an incredible acheivement
    And therein lies the problem, I think. It's much easier (read as, less time consuming) to create & implement various aspects to the game (new units, trade routes, naval warfare, etc) than to create an AI that can handle all of it. IMHO, this is a$$-backwards if you wish to create a game that will challenge and hold the interest of 'serious' gamers.

    However, given the timeframe and economic restraints that CA must be under, it's perfectly understandable (although I don't agree with it). Rather than gripe about it, I've exercised my rights and simply refuse to buy their games anymore unless they develop one that I can enjoy. That other folks here can spend hours cursing at their 'puter screen (and CA) and continue to play this game simply amazes me (and I tip my hat to your patience).

    When I sit down for a round of gaming at my 'puter, I want to relax and enjoy myself to the point where I lose track of time, not the other way around
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 07-24-2009 at 15:34.
    High Plains Drifter

  2. #2
    Loitering Senior Member AussieGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    4,162

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Exactly ReluctantSamurai.

    I find it rather amusing, that as a glass half full person who can appreciate CA's situation from a "in industry" position, some of the most vehement critics are playing this game ALL the time and seem to be in some masochistic surreal experience.

    I on the other hand just completed a GB, h/m Prestige campaign which was thoroughly enjoyable and ate time incredibly fast.

    Your analysis is right on the money. They have limited resources, including time and must produce "something". They simply can't sit in a room, perfecting AI for their games and "wait" until they have that "bullet proof" before release.

    In the mean time graphic technology is jumping ahead in leaps and bounds and is being pushed primarily by the gaming industry which they are competing in.

    They can't afford to fall behind too far...

    ...hence the situation they find themselves in.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Uh, the campaign AI is better. There is no doubt. It may not meet your expectations, but this is the first TW game I can remember when the AI consistently merges smaller units built all over its empire into larger armies and maneuvers those armies about to give you _good_ battles (from a campaign point of view, I'm still not a fan of the battle AI).

    I do remember the good old days of MTW when the only good stack vs stack battles you usually had were either when the Mongols invaded or when you sieged enemy cities at the start of a campaign.

    This is the best campaign AI yet and diplomacy _has_ improved. Granted, there are annoying idiosyncracies.

    But really, the self-entitlement of many of the posters in this thread is not normal. Talking about taking legal action? Taking your ball and going home (ie "not buying another CA product ever" - yeah right, you said that about M2TW, RTW and MTW I'm 99% certain)? Assuming you did follow through (yeah right), let me just suggest that I'm thrilled I won't have to read another unreasonable, petulant rant about whatever TW game CA does next.
    Last edited by resonantblue; 07-24-2009 at 17:16.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    I alluded to this in another post, but I don't think the AI stupid DoWs are actually that bad. If you have Good or Very Good relations with an AI nation it's very unlikely that they will DoW you unless they really badly want one of the provinces you occupy. On VH I've never been at war with everyone.

    Here's how I imagine most of the people complaining a lot about this "problem" are going about their games:

    Turn 1-10 blitz enemy nations, breaking alliances and getting negative relations with everyone else as being untrustworthy.

    Turn 10 - 20 consolidate and revolt to Republic to boost productivity, forgetting that this is like -140 relations for a long time with everyone who isn't also a Republic - which is 95% of the world.

    Turn 20+ - relations with most majors is "hostile" without even being at war. Consequently AI nations DoW constantly. Player starts taking enemy territory resulting in even worse relations (territorial expansion hit) which means peace is very difficult to come by.

    Turn X - Player Quits to Windows, logs onto the Parliment and complains about how the AI is totally irrational for declaring war on a nation they are hostile against.

    For merely becoming a Republic in the late 18th century France found itself at war with all of Europe. Despite repeated beatdowns and general understanding that France was the single strongest power most of Europe was either at war with France or plotting to start a war with France for the better part of 2 decades.

    Is it really so unrealistic what you're seeing?

    Like I've said, I've had many VH games where I am barely ever at war with anyone but the barbary states. Maintain good relations with the AI states and they rarely DoW me.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by resonantblue View Post
    Uh, the campaign AI is better. There is no doubt. It may not meet your expectations, but this is the first TW game I can remember when the AI consistently merges smaller units built all over its empire into larger armies and maneuvers those armies about to give you _good_ battles (from a campaign point of view, I'm still not a fan of the battle AI).
    Are we playing the same game? The AI in my game prefers to send small stacks en masse to raid ad nauseum rather than merges its units where it might actually present a challenge. This is well reported behaviour. I have barely encountered a full stack doing anything other than standing around outside a city.

    This is the best campaign AI yet and diplomacy _has_ improved. Granted, there are annoying idiosyncracies.
    The problem is that these are the SAME "idiosyncrasies" we have faced time and time again since RTW. The AI declaring war on anything that moves and refusing to make peace. Diplomacy being (still) completely worthless other than "trade rights/map information" despite promises of improvement.

    Assuming you did follow through (yeah right), let me just suggest that I'm thrilled I won't have to read another unreasonable, petulant rant about whatever TW game CA does next.
    Equally if there will always be people who refuse to acknowledge that a game is flawed, flawed games will keep being released.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Has anything really changed from CA?

    I do remember the good old days of MTW when the only good stack vs stack battles you usually had were either when the Mongols invaded or when you sieged enemy cities at the start of a campaign.
    Have you ever played STW and the modded Samurai Warlords? From mid-campaign onwards you will have nothing but stack vs. stack battles some of which may take several hours to resolve And the best part is..........the AI can, and will kick your butt if you don't play well

    But really, the self-entitlement of many of the posters in this thread is not normal. Talking about taking legal action? Taking your ball and going home (ie "not buying another CA product ever" - yeah right, you said that about M2TW, RTW and MTW I'm 99% certain)? Assuming you did follow through (yeah right), let me just suggest that I'm thrilled I won't have to read another unreasonable, petulant rant about whatever TW game CA does next.
    I said nothing about legal action. In fact I understand the position CA is in......it is a business, afterall, and they must make a profit for their efforts. And I said nothing of the sort for other TW games up to RTW (which I still play). I said that after M2TW (which I ended up giving away) and indeed, after seeing the problems and frustrations other good players are having with ETW, I have not purchased the game.

    I do not think my comments are a 'petulant rant'. I am a reasonably experienced TW player with an opinion. I do not push my views on others with continuous rants, I've just exercised my rights as a consumer to not buy a product I feel I won't enjoy.............key word here......"enjoy."

    As I said...I play PC games to relax and forget about my worries and problems for a few hours.......not endure more of the same
    High Plains Drifter

  7. #7

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Of course the game has flaws. I've never claimed otherwise (in fact claimed th eopposite in the post you quoted).

    But there are way too many posters in this thread who are being way too dramatic about what their rights are and how CA has destroyed their innocence and touched them in naughty places.

    There was definitely talk of legal action by someone (can't be bothered to keep track of who there were so many take my ball and go home posts in this thread) and of course the _only_ thing holding him back was that he couldn't afford a lawyer (lol. right. get real. you're upset that you invested $60 and feel like it was wasted so you're going to spend thousands of dollars taking a company to court on something that the judge will dismiss with an out loud laugh. yeah, we believe you. we really do!)

    I remember back when M2TW came out there was some poster, I think his name was Puzz3D, who spent all his time on these forums complaining about how bad CA was and would tell anyone who would listen (including those who didn't care) about how he didn't buy M2TW and wouldn't until CA restored his trust and confidence.

    Some of you (not naming any names) need to get a grip. If you want to complain about aspects of the game that are deficient, by all means do so - that's one of the things forums are for. But let's not get carried away about how we should sue CA for false advertising, how they've ruined your summer and otherwise are the cause of AIDS, tsunamis and everything evil in this world. Especially don't do that when saying it was the same in MTW, RTW, M2TW and now ETW. You just look foolish being "fooled" by CA 4 times in a row (more if you count expansions). As the illustrious former president of the world, George W. Bush once said:

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

  8. #8

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by resonantblue View Post
    Uh, the campaign AI is better. There is no doubt. It may not meet your expectations, but this is the first TW game I can remember when the AI consistently merges smaller units built all over its empire into larger armies and maneuvers those armies about to give you _good_ battles (from a campaign point of view, I'm still not a fan of the battle AI).

    I do remember the good old days of MTW when the only good stack vs stack battles you usually had were either when the Mongols invaded or when you sieged enemy cities at the start of a campaign.

    This is the best campaign AI yet and diplomacy _has_ improved. Granted, there are annoying idiosyncracies.
    Wow! Did we get the same game?

    I personally think the CAI and diplomatic engine in ETW are beyond question the worst of any TW game, and I've been playing them since Shogun.

    As others have stated, ETW's CAI simply cannot handle this complex new map. It's really struggling with it.

    It can't manage the economy so it's often bankrupt or on the point of bankruptcy. (By early mid-game in almost all of my campaigns my nation is terrifying and spectacular while the AI nations are meagre and destititute.)

    Diplomacy is completely broken. The AI nations don't use it amongst themselves: they don't declare peace, they don't make new alliances or protectorates, and they don't max out their trade routes. Instead they declare wars on their friends, on their sole trading partners, and regardless of how many other wars they're currently fighting. And they will stay at war until one nation is eliminated or the game ends. I don't think 90+ and 80+ year wars were common in the 18th century. They also declare wars that they can't even fight, let alone win!

    The result of the AI continually shooting itself in the leg due to its inability to handle or use the economic and diplomatic engines is that the AI nations are turned into easily conquered weaklings. Eventually, I'm the only one doing anything on the campaign map while the AI nations are struggling just to survive.

    The overall campaign AI is dismal. It's completely confused by what it should put into garrison and what it should put into field armies. Thus, it often puts too many troops into garrison or none at all. And it fails to build proper field armies that can actually threaten the player. As a result on the battlefield the player almost always has more and better troops, and a player with more and better troops on the battlefield simply cannot lose!

    Further, the AI is completely inept on the strategic offensive. It often resorts to raids which is a completely pointless feature: doesn't hurt a region's economy, does minimal damage to the town, and provides no benefit to the raider. A human player won't waste his time on it. Instead the human player builds up a large army and either attacks the region capital or uses the nice exploit of sitting in an outlying town to let the town's garrison come to him. The result is that player gets bigger and stronger with an accumulation of provinces and wealth. Meanwhile the CAI is sending pathetic little stacks (often consisting solely of artillery units) to raid outlying towns and where they are quickly stomped out by an annoyed human player. Oh, the AI doesn't know how to retreat so it fights every battle no matter what the odds resulting in tiresome "whack-a-mole" battles. Basically, no AI nation can win this game! So the player is in a non-competitive environment- it's just a matter of WHEN the player will either win or quit out of boredom.

    The pathfinding is atrocious. AI armies and navies routinely get stuck on the campaign map. (I quit my last campaign when I realized that I could easily crush Russia because most of its army was stuck in West Prussia alongside that bridge. The AI also struggles with landbridges.

    Then you got the problems of the AI treating each individual province as a seperate fiefdom. It won't move armies from one friendly province to assist another friendly province. I don't know how may times I've witnessed a tiny AI raiding army burn down a province while in an adjacent province a full stack army does NOTHING to assist one of its OWN beleaguered provinces. Nor will the AI move an army from a neighboring province to relieve a siege.

    Then you got all the new features that CA introduced with ETW that its AI simply cannot handle. My "favorite" is the hostile fleets entering a port: AI army ejects hostile fleet from port, AI moves its army out of the port, and hostile fleet immediately moves back into the port. And this process repeats the next turn and the next and the next.... I've seen the above scenario in almost every campaign I've played. Oh, sometimes the AI won't even bother ejecting a hostile fleet from one of its ports so that a single ship will stay in a port for decades stopping trade and prohibiting shipbuilding.

    Then you have naval transport. ETW wasn't released with an AI capable of using naval transport. It was only AFTER the game was released that CA started programming AI naval transport, but then discovered it was tougher than they anticipated. So we have a game where AI use of naval transportation is rare to non-existent. Thus, playing the British or the Marathas is a complete joke (even more so than the other factions). Further, AI controlled Britian is completely neutered due to it being stuck in its homelands. The AI also doesn't know how to use the "theater" feature so that the Carribean is the personal playground of the human player and India the Maratha's little sandbox.

    I don't think the above issues are "annoying idiosyncracies," but serious CAI issues that almost completely ruin the game. I want to fight big, important battles against powerful opponents, not stomp-out pathetic little stacks from bankrupt nations in repetitive, cakewalk battles. Unfortunately, the later situation has been my experience with ETW. I started campaigns as France and Sweden under the 1.3 patch and have shelved both of them because the CAI is so abysmal that completely ruined any immersion.

    I do dream of how much better ETW would be with a much more simplified map. ETW with its breathtaking battles and improved BAI (I think its better than RTW's and M2TW's) might have been a classic with a "Risk-Style" map- no more whack-a-mole battles, no more pointless raids, no more pathfinding issues, no more problems with the CAI having to choose between units in garrison or in field armies, but lot's of big battles (which the AI could sometimes win just on sheer strength of numbers) that emphasize ETW's biggest strength- it's battle engine!! However, that's just wishful thinking and I have to hope that future patches will alleviate some of the above issues, but that's probably just wishful thinking too. And that's saddest thing about ETW.

  9. #9
    The nameless legionary Member paramedicguyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    AMERICA, and I don't care if you hold it against me.
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    I played the demo today, I had bought the game on amazon today too...b4 i got the demo...crap. I can;t believe that EB (running on a 2004 game engine, and basically designed by a non profit group) is superior to ETW. WHat the hell is CA doing. the EB team has made CA look so bad, CA should either really get their shit straight or just call it quits. They are getting paid for designing this game and they still manage to drop the ball. I hate M2TW its just a remaping and reskinning really of RTW, they didnt even write a new script they only modified RTW (they were so lazy they just disabled the Marian reforms), CA also made it far too difficult to mad M2TW initially, I bet it had something to do with how many of the mods for RTW turned out to be superior to the vanilla game. I am sick of all these game reviews giving CA great reviews. These games starting with RTW (which I only like for EB) seem to be catered to idiot short attention spanned gamers who really don't have a terrible interest in deep emmersive strategy, and are more interested in action (I mean no offense to anyone). I honestly am more interested in the straregy map and diplomacy, battles are last on my list. When it comes down to it ETW in my opinion is the retarded silver spooned cousin to europa universalis III.



    Peace

  10. #10
    The nameless legionary Member paramedicguyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    AMERICA, and I don't care if you hold it against me.
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    I have to post again, I am so pissed. I played just the demo, and I can tell this game is terrible. I loved the naval battle but the land battle sucked, it seems that a great deal of micro management is necessary, tho I have been playin RTW for so long I am not used to this type of warfare. I really am dissapointed with CA, They only reason they are the best at what they do, is because they are the only ones that do wat they do. They have the market cornered really, so they don't care how crappy their games are. Did anyone notice the great amount of emhpasis was placed on special units, whether it be the special forces edition, or that stupid elit addon. but no diplomacy addons no strategy map addons, no gameplay addons. No just units. I can go an entire campaign autoresoloving crap and not even see units (although I have to admit the ships look great). ANother thing the skins on the units look bad. EB skins are superior to ETW skins and I play both on max.

    Some studio just needs to comeout wth their own rival. So finally CA will be forced to make a good game.



    NO peace
    Last edited by Nelson; 07-29-2009 at 04:16. Reason: language

  11. #11
    Inquisitor Member Quickening's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    635

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    As disappointed as I am with Empire I have to say that the land battle in the demo is a terrible example of the land battles in the full game. I to thought it was atrocious and it put me off the game but it isn't reflective of the average battle.
    Harbour you unclean thoughts

    Add me to X-Fire: quickening666

  12. #12

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by mkeogh View Post
    Wow! Did we get the same game?

    I personally think the CAI and diplomatic engine in ETW are beyond question the worst of any TW game, and I've been playing them since Shogun.

    As others have stated, ETW's CAI simply cannot handle this complex new map. It's really struggling with it.

    It can't manage the economy so it's often bankrupt or on the point of bankruptcy. (By early mid-game in almost all of my campaigns my nation is terrifying and spectacular while the AI nations are meagre and destititute.)

    Diplomacy is completely broken. The AI nations don't use it amongst themselves: they don't declare peace, they don't make new alliances or protectorates, and they don't max out their trade routes. Instead they declare wars on their friends, on their sole trading partners, and regardless of how many other wars they're currently fighting. And they will stay at war until one nation is eliminated or the game ends. I don't think 90+ and 80+ year wars were common in the 18th century. They also declare wars that they can't even fight, let alone win!

    The result of the AI continually shooting itself in the leg due to its inability to handle or use the economic and diplomatic engines is that the AI nations are turned into easily conquered weaklings. Eventually, I'm the only one doing anything on the campaign map while the AI nations are struggling just to survive.

    The overall campaign AI is dismal. It's completely confused by what it should put into garrison and what it should put into field armies. Thus, it often puts too many troops into garrison or none at all. And it fails to build proper field armies that can actually threaten the player. As a result on the battlefield the player almost always has more and better troops, and a player with more and better troops on the battlefield simply cannot lose!

    Further, the AI is completely inept on the strategic offensive. It often resorts to raids which is a completely pointless feature: doesn't hurt a region's economy, does minimal damage to the town, and provides no benefit to the raider. A human player won't waste his time on it. Instead the human player builds up a large army and either attacks the region capital or uses the nice exploit of sitting in an outlying town to let the town's garrison come to him. The result is that player gets bigger and stronger with an accumulation of provinces and wealth. Meanwhile the CAI is sending pathetic little stacks (often consisting solely of artillery units) to raid outlying towns and where they are quickly stomped out by an annoyed human player. Oh, the AI doesn't know how to retreat so it fights every battle no matter what the odds resulting in tiresome "whack-a-mole" battles. Basically, no AI nation can win this game! So the player is in a non-competitive environment- it's just a matter of WHEN the player will either win or quit out of boredom.

    The pathfinding is atrocious. AI armies and navies routinely get stuck on the campaign map. (I quit my last campaign when I realized that I could easily crush Russia because most of its army was stuck in West Prussia alongside that bridge. The AI also struggles with landbridges.

    Then you got the problems of the AI treating each individual province as a seperate fiefdom. It won't move armies from one friendly province to assist another friendly province. I don't know how may times I've witnessed a tiny AI raiding army burn down a province while in an adjacent province a full stack army does NOTHING to assist one of its OWN beleaguered provinces. Nor will the AI move an army from a neighboring province to relieve a siege.

    Then you got all the new features that CA introduced with ETW that its AI simply cannot handle. My "favorite" is the hostile fleets entering a port: AI army ejects hostile fleet from port, AI moves its army out of the port, and hostile fleet immediately moves back into the port. And this process repeats the next turn and the next and the next.... I've seen the above scenario in almost every campaign I've played. Oh, sometimes the AI won't even bother ejecting a hostile fleet from one of its ports so that a single ship will stay in a port for decades stopping trade and prohibiting shipbuilding.

    Then you have naval transport. ETW wasn't released with an AI capable of using naval transport. It was only AFTER the game was released that CA started programming AI naval transport, but then discovered it was tougher than they anticipated. So we have a game where AI use of naval transportation is rare to non-existent. Thus, playing the British or the Marathas is a complete joke (even more so than the other factions). Further, AI controlled Britian is completely neutered due to it being stuck in its homelands. The AI also doesn't know how to use the "theater" feature so that the Carribean is the personal playground of the human player and India the Maratha's little sandbox.

    I don't think the above issues are "annoying idiosyncracies," but serious CAI issues that almost completely ruin the game. I want to fight big, important battles against powerful opponents, not stomp-out pathetic little stacks from bankrupt nations in repetitive, cakewalk battles. Unfortunately, the later situation has been my experience with ETW. I started campaigns as France and Sweden under the 1.3 patch and have shelved both of them because the CAI is so abysmal that completely ruined any immersion.

    I do dream of how much better ETW would be with a much more simplified map. ETW with its breathtaking battles and improved BAI (I think its better than RTW's and M2TW's) might have been a classic with a "Risk-Style" map- no more whack-a-mole battles, no more pointless raids, no more pathfinding issues, no more problems with the CAI having to choose between units in garrison or in field armies, but lot's of big battles (which the AI could sometimes win just on sheer strength of numbers) that emphasize ETW's biggest strength- it's battle engine!! However, that's just wishful thinking and I have to hope that future patches will alleviate some of the above issues, but that's probably just wishful thinking too. And that's saddest thing about ETW.
    Most of the problem syou mentioned do happen. But these things have been inherent in every TW game in the series. This is _not_ new stuff. The campaign AI is better then it has been, which may not be saying all that much, but it's definitely better. In every TW game until now I've struggled to actually have stack on stack battles. In ETW I get them _all_ the time. On Very Hard the AI is not short on money, whether it's getting it via cheats or legitimately - I don't really care. Granted, the battle AI still stinks compared to a human, but I'm fighting full, balanced stacks all the time. I'm playing on VH and there's no shortage of enemy armies to blow away.

    Comparing AI reaction to how a human would AI is just plain silly. No one has yet built an AI that is as intelligent as a human, or even close to it. To fix those situations you describe, the only way to really do that is to hard code reactions to certain situations. Which is exactly why the AI constantly declares war on the player if territory is adjacent and the AI has it as an objective. We need less of such AI code, not more.

    I, for one, am grateful that I now have a campaign AI that can setup some good land battles on a consistent basis. The battle ai is another issue entirely (and oh how I wish it were better).

  13. #13

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by resonantblue View Post
    Most of the problem syou mentioned do happen. But these things have been inherent in every TW game in the series. This is _not_ new stuff. The campaign AI is better then it has been, which may not be saying all that much, but it's definitely better. In every TW game until now I've struggled to actually have stack on stack battles. In ETW I get them _all_ the time. On Very Hard the AI is not short on money, whether it's getting it via cheats or legitimately - I don't really care. Granted, the battle AI still stinks compared to a human, but I'm fighting full, balanced stacks all the time. I'm playing on VH and there's no shortage of enemy armies to blow away.

    Comparing AI reaction to how a human would AI is just plain silly. No one has yet built an AI that is as intelligent as a human, or even close to it. To fix those situations you describe, the only way to really do that is to hard code reactions to certain situations. Which is exactly why the AI constantly declares war on the player if territory is adjacent and the AI has it as an objective. We need less of such AI code, not more.

    I, for one, am grateful that I now have a campaign AI that can setup some good land battles on a consistent basis. The battle ai is another issue entirely (and oh how I wish it were better).
    Again, we obviously got different versions of the game because I haven't encountered these epic land battles that you describe, and I also play on VH/VH. Instead I feel like General Zod screaming out in exasperation: "I win! I always win!" as I blow through the pathetic little stacks that nearly bankrupt countries send against me. Oh, I do get the occasional "big battle" when I besiege a large garrisoned town, but because I almost ALWAYS iniatiate such "big battles" then I make sure to bring more and better troops so I can't lose. I'm almost never outnumbered or outgunned which is really the ONLY way the TW BAI can win a battle and so I win ALL the time. (Further, if the AI nations are only getting by economically on the higher difficulty levels due to bonuses then give'em bigger ones because they're all broke in my games!) I have NEVER felt threatened with being defeated in this game. Not once. With apologies to General Patton and Vince Lombardi, but winning all the time isn't exactly fun.

    You're right many of the above issues were found in previous TW titles. But that's not entirely true either: the CAI in previous TW titles knew how to use the diplomatic engine, how to use naval transport, and that different regions within the same nation were still part of that nation. Additionally, ETW has exacerbated many of these issues and created new ones due to all the added features to the campaign map that the AI doesn't understand. The CAI had a difficult enough time with the far less complex maps of RTW and M2TW. So why then did CA add on even MORE features to the campaign map that its CAI cannot handle? I guess to sell more copies to people who will steamroll through a campaign once or twice, kick the game into the dustbin, and move onto the next big thing. However, they really did a disservice to those strategy gamers who actually play games for the CHALLENGE!

    Further, no where in my post did I allege that I wanted CA to design an AI as intelligent as a human. I'm fully aware that no AI can beat a human player on an even playing ground (and I've never had an issue with an AI getting bonuses on higher difficulty levels. I love how Civ4 has numerous levels of difficulty with the AI getting more and more powerful bonuses on each level so that the player can find a level at which he's comfortable and not feel overwhelmed.) My example of how a human plays this game vs. the AI was just to show the problems CA created by adding more features to the map. The raiding feature is a perfect example: a human player will quickly realize that it's pointless, but the AI won't. So why is it in the game? It hurts the game because it makes the CAI even more ineffective on the offensive than it was in RTW and M2TW, and it was abysmal on the offensive in those games. (STW and MTW had a LOT of faults, but at least their maps forced the AI to concentrate its forces so that it would sometimes win offensive battles just on sheer strength of numbers. Remember the Almohads? The Hojo Horde? In fact, MTW was the last game that CA designed which had a CAI that could handle most of its map's features, and I do wonder how ETW would be if CA had just kept on refining and updating those "Risk-Style" maps instead of moving to these "free-style" maps which have just played havoc with their CAI.) Thus, I believe the mechanics should have been simplified to at least give the AI a chance to compete with the human player and maybe even more of a chance with the right allocation of bonuses. When it became clear during playtesting that the CAI was having a tough time with the raiding feature then it should have junked. Same with that idiotic "hostile fleet entering a port feature." What did that add to the game other than confusing the heck out of the AI? And how did that benefit the game? So you're darn right- CA needed to add far less code than more, but adding more code is EXACTLY what they DID DO!!!!

    Additionally, as a fan of the strategy games EU3 and Civ4, I know that getting an AI to act in semi-rational way in a PC game diplomatic engine is not an impossiblity. (EU3 has a feature similar to ETW in which the AI is programmed to want certain provinces, but in that game the AI only declares war when it thinks it can win it! How come CA's AI programmers cannot do that?) Further, those games also demonstrated that it is possible for the AI to be effective offensively on the stratmap if you tailor the map to the AI's strengths. In fact, the stratAI's in those games can actually win their games. (If you removed the player from ETW and let the AI nations battle it out for 200 turns would any of them even come close to fulfilling their victory conditions? No.) Quite simply the AIs of those two games, both of which have been on the market for years, put the CAI of ETW to shame. They are not even in the same league. (And, yes, I know the argument that ETW is different due to it having tactical battles, but with each new TW release CA appears to ape more and more of Civ4's and EU3's strategy maps and thus I think comparisons are perfectly fair.)

    Hey, it's great that you're having fun with ETW and find it's campaign improved. However, I truly believe that ETW's campaign AI is the worst one I've experienced in ANY TW game. It's a darn shame because I love this period of history, love the battle engine, but HATE the campaign AI. I truly wish I didn't, but unfortunately I do. It's so inept that it ruins the game- steamrolling a hapless and hopeless AI opponent has never been fun for me. (And I pull my punches in ETW by not blitzing and not using trade nodes. I've always been a big believer in allowing AI nations in the TW series time to build up before I go knocking them down, but in ETW, due to the constant wars and the AI's inability to handle the economic engine, the AI nations actually get weaker as the game goes on. It's just awful.)

  14. #14
    Member Member Didz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Bedfordshire UK
    Posts
    2,368

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    The basic problem is that the Campaign AI doesn't understand the principles by which the game works.

    If you do a simple test you can easily prove this for yourself. About a month ago I decided that the campaign game was simply too easy if you expliot the loopholes in the game mechanic's, and I imposed a few basic house rules to limit my own options and give the Campaign AI more of a chance.

    One of these rules was that I would never ever occupy more than one Trade Portal in the same Trade Theatre.

    Typically, human players begin their campaigns by what is usually referred to as 'The Trade Race', which basically involves defeating the pirates guarding the trade theatres and posting trade ships on every Trade Portal to secure a monopoly in the trade of Ivory, Spices or Sugar. I played my first few campaigns this way and it nets the player a huge income that then allows them to dominate the game.

    I figured that if I limited my acquisitions to one Trade Port per theatre maximum, I could still place 14 x East Indiamen on that spot and earn a decent income, but that there would always be other trade ports open for use by the AI, and so they would also be able to make a decent trade income and the resulting challenge would be greater. I even thought naively that it would result in an ongoing naval challenge as various factions fought over domination of the various trade theatres.

    In fact, when I analysed the Campaign AI's response to this opportunity it was quite obvious that the Campaign AI had no idea how to expliot the trade theatres.

    In many cases trade posts were simply left unoccupied despite the fact that for some reason factions do send fleets into the trade theatre zones and have them hang about pointlessly.

    In most other cases even when the trade ports were claimed by the AI, little or no income is generated from them suggesting that most of the ships positioned on them are warships rather than traders.

    In one particular incident I actually attack one of these fleets to discover that it consisted on one trade ship and four warships. In fact, the stack was producing a Net Loss for the faction that sent it, as the ships maintenance costs exceeded the potential income.

    On another occassion I discovered that Great Britain had dispatched a fleet of seven ships to a Madagascar Trade Post which was not only not producing any income (e.g. it was all warships), but also had an almost full army stack aboard. The cost of that fleet and the army must have been huge and it just sat on the Trade Post for most of the game.

    When the Campaign AI is that 'ignorant' of how the game actually works, let alone what strategies to employ to win then there is very little that we players can do to help, and as CA will not release the Mod Tools necessary to change the AI and Diplomacy behaviour it seems unlikely that things will improve any time soon.
    Last edited by Didz; 07-28-2009 at 12:26.
    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

  15. #15

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by mkeogh View Post
    Again, we obviously got different versions of the game because I haven't encountered these epic land battles that you describe, and I also play on VH/VH. Instead I feel like General Zod screaming out in exasperation: "I win! I always win!" as I blow through the pathetic little stacks that nearly bankrupt countries send against me. Oh, I do get the occasional "big battle" when I besiege a large garrisoned town, but because I almost ALWAYS iniatiate such "big battles" then I make sure to bring more and better troops so I can't lose. I'm almost never outnumbered or outgunned which is really the ONLY way the TW BAI can win a battle and so I win ALL the time. (Further, if the AI nations are only getting by economically on the higher difficulty levels due to bonuses then give'em bigger ones because they're all broke in my games!) I have NEVER felt threatened with being defeated in this game. Not once. With apologies to General Patton and Vince Lombardi, but winning all the time isn't exactly fun.
    Give TROM a try. I'm engaged in an epic struggle against the Mughal Empire which owns all of India. Every turn a new stack shows up (of course I haven't raided their trade, which would certainly help, but I'm enjoying the epic land struggle) and I've only got one understrength army there to fight the hordes, running from province to province to try and stem the tide. The AI is building balanced armies with artillery, cavalry and infantry and I'm actually forced to withdraw from a good number of battles (VH/H) because my army is not at full strength. I'm losing provinces every other turn and gaining them back once my army replenishes.

    I can't spare anything else because in Europe as Austria I'm engaged in conflict on three fronts - against the Russians who send a stack (not always full, but at least 14-15 units strong) to my borders to seize Galcia every second or third turn, France who continues to try to seize my protectorate Westphalia (whom I have had to protect with an army because, unfortunately, the AI fails to build settlement defences so it loses to a French full stack everytime) with a seemingly endless number of stacks and against the Ottomans who are desperately trying to expand into the Balkans after I seized most of it from them.

    You're right many of the above issues were found in previous TW titles. But that's not entirely true either: the CAI in previous TW titles knew how to use the diplomatic engine, how to use naval transport, and that different regions within the same nation were still part of that nation.
    I disagree. I can't tell you how many posts I recall from previous TW games where people are complaining about the lack of AI amphibious assaults. Oh yes, they happened once in a while, just like in ETW. Of course in MTW it was a non-issue mostly because for example England and Flanders were connected by a land bridge - but do you not remember people compalining about the CAI mostly ignoring the fact that a land bridge is there? The diplomacy was horrible in MTW, RTW and M2TW. THe only difference was that it was easier to make peace. And in 1.2 ETW it was relatively easy ot make peace. They changed that for some reason and we might disagree about the reason, but the fact remains that this is not something that was never fixed. Obviously they felt the design needed to be different. The random DOWs were just as bad in previous games of the TW series as they are now.

    Additionally, ETW has exacerbated many of these issues and created new ones due to all the added features to the campaign map that the AI doesn't understand. The CAI had a difficult enough time with the far less complex maps of RTW and M2TW. So why then did CA add on even MORE features to the campaign map that its CAI cannot handle? I guess to sell more copies to people who will steamroll through a campaign once or twice, kick the game into the dustbin, and move onto the next big thing. However, they really did a disservice to those strategy gamers who actually play games for the CHALLENGE!
    When you embark on a 2-3 year software project, you can not perform a proof of concept on everything. That's just not how software works. I'm sorry you think it should be different, but as someone who manages software projects let me just tell you that thinking is totally detatched from reality.

    Further, no where in my post did I allege that I wanted CA to design an AI as intelligent as a human.
    You are certainly implying it whether you know it or not. Whenever you make a case that the AI does X when it should do Y (such as why does the AI declare war or not make peace or whatever) you are implicitly comparing it's "irrational" behaviour to what a human would do.

    Additionally, as a fan of the strategy games EU3 and Civ4, I know that getting an AI to act in semi-rational way in a PC game diplomatic engine is not an impossiblity. (EU3 has a feature similar to ETW in which the AI is programmed to want certain provinces, but in that game the AI only declares war when it thinks it can win it! How come CA's AI programmers cannot do that?) Further, those games also demonstrated that it is possible for the AI to be effective offensively on the stratmap if you tailor the map to the AI's strengths. In fact, the stratAI's in those games can actually win their games. (If you removed the player from ETW and let the AI nations battle it out for 200 turns would any of them even come close to fulfilling their victory conditions? No.) Quite simply the AIs of those two games, both of which have been on the market for years, put the CAI of ETW to shame. They are not even in the same league. (And, yes, I know the argument that ETW is different due to it having tactical battles, but with each new TW release CA appears to ape more and more of Civ4's and EU3's strategy maps and thus I think comparisons are perfectly fair.)
    As a fan of the EU and HOI series, let me just say that the AI there sucks horribly too. Ever seen an amphibious invasion in EU2? Yeah right. You think "mini" raiding armies are a problem in TW? Did you even play EU2? it's funny because mos tof the things you complain about in the TW series have also plagued the EU series. One great thing about the EU series though is the diplomatic model is way ahead of the TW series. Protectorates/vassals all automatically are a part of your alliance and no one can dow them without dowing you, etc. But the AI there is also problematic. Like when your bad boy rating goes up everybody DOWs you even dinky little Savoy that has a tiny army will join in.


    Hey, it's great that you're having fun with ETW and find it's campaign improved. However, I truly believe that ETW's campaign AI is the worst one I've experienced in ANY TW game. It's a darn shame because I love this period of history, love the battle engine, but HATE the campaign AI. I truly wish I didn't, but unfortunately I do. It's so inept that it ruins the game- steamrolling a hapless and hopeless AI opponent has never been fun for me. (And I pull my punches in ETW by not blitzing and not using trade nodes. I've always been a big believer in allowing AI nations in the TW series time to build up before I go knocking them down, but in ETW, due to the constant wars and the AI's inability to handle the economic engine, the AI nations actually get weaker as the game goes on. It's just awful.)
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I can not quesiton the integrity of your feelings. But the arguments and comparisons you're making don't really add up.

    If you're angry because you think CA is omnipotent and when they start a 2-3 year software project they knew the CAI would break on certain new campaign map features they added, well yes, I can see why that would frustrate you. But that's rooted in ignorance - that's not how it works and if they halted all progress on the rest of the game until the AI was good enough we'd still be playing Medieval Total War and CA would be bankrupt.

  16. #16
    The Count of Bohemia Senior Member Cecil XIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Neo-Richmond
    Posts
    2,434
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    So many of these problems could be aleviated by having a full-blown, all-inclusive online hotseat mode. Who cares how many years it would take to finish? It would be the ultimate succession game!

  17. #17
    the G-Diffuser Senior Member pevergreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,585
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cecil XIX View Post
    So many of these problems could be aleviated by having a full-blown, all-inclusive online hotseat mode. Who cares how many years it would take to finish? It would be the ultimate succession game!
    1v1 campaign is coming.

    Its coming. Its coming. Its coming.

    *holds teddy bear tight and rocks backwards and forwards*
    Quote Originally Posted by TosaInu
    The org will be org until everyone calls it a day.

    Quote Originally Posted by KukriKhan View Post
    but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemur
    Anyone who wishes to refer to me as peverlemur is free to do so.

  18. #18
    Member Member Didz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Bedfordshire UK
    Posts
    2,368

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cecil XIX View Post
    So many of these problems could be aleviated by having a full-blown, all-inclusive online hotseat mode. Who cares how many years it would take to finish? It would be the ultimate succession game!
    I'm a bit more sceptical about MP campaign mode. I played an MP campaign of MTW2 and one of the problems is that human players just naturally use all the expliots available so it becomes a sort of battle over 'who knows the best cheats' rather than actual gameplay.
    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

  19. #19
    Member Member Schiltrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Somewhere back in time
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    I love virtually everything about Empire, in fact the only thing I can thing of that I REALLY hate is the fact that besieged AI NEVER surrender even if I can't see the red in the balance of power (BOP, he he) bar. Perhaps they just can't comprehend their utter lack of chance.

    |~
    |~...)_).....|~
    )_)...)__)...)_)
    )__)..)___)..)__)
    )___).)____).)___)
    ,____|_____|_____|____,
    \\........the guild . ........//

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  20. #20
    Member Member Didz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Bedfordshire UK
    Posts
    2,368

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Schiltrom View Post
    I love virtually everything about Empire, in fact the only thing I can thing of that I REALLY hate is the fact that besieged AI NEVER surrender even if I can't see the red in the balance of power (BOP, he he) bar. Perhaps they just can't comprehend their utter lack of chance.
    I've actually had a besieged AI surrender once.

    I think I even had the AI ask for peace once (however, I may have been dreaming)
    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

  21. #21

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    I'm sorry. It's a character flaw I have. I rather enjoy heated online discussions.

    I will back away from this thread now :).

  22. #22
    Member Member Yun Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    622

    Default Re: Has anything really changed from CA?

    As some closing remarks to this thread I will add a personal measure of where I think this game is at.

    Look at my sig. 6.5hrs/ 2 weeks

    pre 1.3 this was 80hrs/2 weeks

    I dont think Im the only one who has stopped playing this game

    Last night I tried to pick up my game again - 2 turns - 2 more nations on the 'at war list'

    meh tell em to take a number and get in line

    I didnt click a third turn

    nothing wrong with this game? then why arnt I playing it

    And with Anno 1404 (dawn of discovery), HOI3 on the horizon

    TOO SLOW!! CA
    Quote Originally Posted by pevergreen View Post
    its pevergeren.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO