Has anything really changed from CA?

[mkeogh]

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.

So essentially you've admitted that you're playing a MODDED version of the game. Why? Could it be possible that you felt the vanilla CAI was subpar? If your arguments about an "improved CAI" are based on your playing a mod then your entire argument here is disingenuous. I'm NOT talking about a MODDED game!

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.

Amphibious assaults in ETW are rare to non-existent which was NOT the case in previous TW games. Further, when I'm talking about the AI not using diplomacy I'm NOT talking about the player being able to squeeze a deal out of the AI, but that the AI nations are not using it amongst themselves which is a FAR bigger problem and something I made very clear in my first post. This was NOT the case in previous TW titles. The AI nations in ETW is not making peace amongst themselves, not maxing out their trade routes with each other, and not making new alliances. It's killing their economies and killing the game! (Well, at least, the vanilla version, maybe not the modded version that you're playing.) The AIs of ALL previous TW games were able to do the above. Further, the AI knew how to retreat in all previous TW games (in STW and MTW the AI even knew how to make tactical retreats), but not in ETW. I actually had to fight a battle in which 12 men attacked my 1000+. Of course, I auto-resolved and suffered over a hundred casualties! Also, you keep ignoring my statements about ETW's AI treating each province as a seperate country which was NOT the case previously and is HUGE problem with the game.


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.

So my expectations of the AI being able to function within a game are detached from reality? To expect the AI to be able to handle new features introduced in a game is not part of the deal when I purchase that game? Sorry, but I think that is absurd. That sounds like you're grasping at straws to find some excuse for a proven fact: ETW's AI doesn't know how to handle MANY of the game's features. That's not an industry standard, but just shoddy work and excusing it sounds like rabid fanboyism.

Plus, CA has been making these games since 2000- they are not some start-up company. They're the BIG BOY on the block with massive resources in comparison to other PC game makers. There is no excuse for the state ETW was released in especially in comparsion to other strategy games on market. Further, ETW has been in development longer than 2-3 years. It's been development since 2005.

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.

Nonsense. You're just ignoring what I wrote to attack a strawman argument. My point was simple: CA should not have added in a new feature that made the game MORE difficult for the AI which is what the addition of raiding did. I'm ALL for simplification to help the AI (as you chose to ignore by not cutting and pasting my remarks on it. I guess they didn't fit into your version of my argument.)


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.

Again you're creating a strawman argument. I didn't say word about EU2. I specifically mentioned EU3, which has a pretty darn good AI by PC gaming standards (all of which are exploitable, but some are clearly better than others), and certainly vastly superior to ETW's CAI. If you want to compare the AI of a game released almost a decade ago to ETW's then go ahead, but you're being disingenuous again. And it's a sad fact that EU2's AI is still better than ETW's.

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.

So my arguments and comparisons, which you either ignored or purposely distorted, don't add up, huh? Well, if you're arguing against a bunch of stuff that I didn't actually say and then of course its not going to add up in your estimation! How convenient! Further, the few of my statements you have directly addressed apparently have the fatal flaw of being at odds with your opinion so undoubtedly those don't add up either. Wow! Big surprise!

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.

Thanks for the condescension.

I never said anything about CA halting ALL progress. (You just looooove "the strawman", don't you!) For the record, I love ETW's battle engine which I've mentioned before so don't pretend I didn't say it. The battles are gorgeous and undoubtedly CA's best work of any game of the series. Who is to say that ETW would not have sold the same or even more units with this battle engine and a refined and updated version of the earlier "Risk-Style" maps? Afterall, it's been the battles that have been the showpieces of the TW series and the new candy definitely moves units. Combine this battle engine with a decent CAI that can work within its map and CA would have a classic on its hands. That's what I mourn about this game- so close, but so far away.

Omnipotence wasn't needed for CA to be aware that its CAI would struggle with ETW's map. RTW and M2TW both fully illustrated the problems the CAI were having with these free-style type maps. So it wouldn't have taken much to figure out that adding more features to the campaign map would make things even tougher on the AI. Yet CA pushed forward. Also, CA knew about these CAI issues prior to release because a blind man can see them in the dark. I just wish CA had used some common sense during testing: if they saw that the AI couldn't handle a new feature then get rid of it or find a workaround. Maybe some people would have been ticked off if one of their favorite "features" (exploits) was taken away, but ETW would have been a better game for it. I'd far prefer a simpler but more challenging game than having a game full of features that I can use but the AI cannot. Basically, CA reached beyond their AI designing capabilities for this game. One may applaud the ideas and effort, but it simply didn't work and ETW suffered for it. And, unfortunately, I don't think CA will be able to ever get their CAI to function well within ETW's map- it's too complicated and CA has no record of vastly improving their AIs through patching or an expansion. I'd love to be proven wrong! Sadly, however, I think ETW will be the PC game version of "A Bridge Too Far."

Anyway your disingenuousness, strawman arguments, and condescending insults has convinced me that our little debate is at an end. You obviously cannot debate without resorting to such tactics so what's the point of continuing? If you want to keep stating how wrong my impressions of the sorry state of ETW's CAI are and rail about my "ignorance" of the software development world then go right ahead. However, I've never enjoyed someone p%ssing on my back and telling me it's raining, and that's what your defense of ETW's CAI feels like (especially since you're not even playing the game with it!)

[resonantblue]

So essentially you've admitted that you're playing a MODDED version of the game. Why? Could it be possible that you felt the vanilla CAI was subpar? If your arguments about an "improved CAI" are based on your playing a mod then your entire argument here is disingenuous. I'm NOT talking about a MODDED game!

I already alluded to this in another post in this forum, but the two big changes TROM makes that I like are - less lethal long range musketry and much more accurate artillery. It does improve some other facets of the game (cash infusions to AI nations, etc), but I played vanilla and was doing just fine.

Amphibious assaults in ETW are rare to non-existent which was NOT the case in previous TW games.

Shrug. I can dig out a bunch of threads from people who disagree with you. Not that it would help - you've got an axe to grind and no amount of fact or logic is going to get in the way!

Further, when I'm talking about the AI not using diplomacy I'm NOT talking about the player being able to squeeze a deal out of the AI, but that the AI nations are not using it amongst themselves which is a FAR bigger problem and something I made very clear in my first post.

The AI does make peace. Just not very often. For the same reason in 1.3 it doesn't make peace with the human very often. They chose to make the diplomacy highly dependent on relations between the two countries and when war and territorial expansion can result in something like -200 relations, it's going to be hard to make peace. Things were different in 1.2, making it clear that this was a _choice_ by CA. They may find later it was a bad decision (I hope so), but what you're complaining about is not relevant.

This was NOT the case in previous TW titles. The AI nations in ETW is not making peace amongst themselves, not maxing out their trade routes with each other, and not making new alliances. It's killing their economies and killing the game!

See this is what I mean about you comparing the AI to human behaviour. A human player will do this because frankly the human player, end game, is going to take over the entire world anyways. In real history, nations did not make trade agreements with every nation they were at peace with. In fact, quite the opposite - mercantilism was still a favoured trading philosophy in the 18th century - and the idea that trading, while it may benefit you, but would benefit your trade partner relatively more is something that was long recognized by whoever the dominant trading nation of the time was. So they often did NOT trade with a nation that may have wanted to trade with them.

But none of that matters, because a human player always maximizes trade agreements and you, regardless of your protests otherwise, expect the CAI to act like a human.

A human player would, of course, request a trade agreement with everyone its not at war with. To the point that if that's how you really feel, we ought to just remove the "Request Trade Agreement" option from the diplomacy menu since you feel all AI players should act like humans and trade agreements should be implicit with peace.

(Well, at least, the vanilla version, maybe not the modded version that you're playing.) The AIs of ALL previous TW games were able to do the above. Further, the AI knew how to retreat in all previous TW games (in STW and MTW the AI even knew how to make tactical retreats), but not in ETW. I actually had to fight a battle in which 12 men attacked my 1000+. Of course, I auto-resolved and suffered over a hundred casualties! Also, you keep ignoring my statements about ETW's AI treating each province as a seperate country which was NOT the case previously and is HUGE problem with the game.

If you think they can't make the AI perform a tactical retreat you're kidding yourself. They _chose_ not to allow it, for whatever reason. Perhaps to shut up your other half, all the other people who endlessly complained about chasing little raiding armies all over the place and how annoying that was? Now there's a thought.

Thanks for the condescension.

No problem. It only took one response from you to realize that you're really angry and not likely to be persuaded by rational discourse. Embarassing you won't change your mind either, but it might make you think twice before listing all the reasons CA is evil, bad and should be punished for their insolence.

I never said anything about CA halting ALL progress. (You just looooove "the strawman", don't you!) For the record, I love ETW's battle engine which I've mentioned before so don't pretend I didn't say it. The battles are gorgeous and undoubtedly CA's best work of any game of the series. Who is to say that ETW would not have sold the same or even more units with this battle engine and a refined and updated version of the earlier "Risk-Style" maps? Afterall, it's been the battles that have been the showpieces of the TW series and the new candy definitely moves units. Combine this battle engine with a decent CAI that can work within its map and CA would have a classic on its hands. That's what I mourn about this game- so close, but so far away.

If you don't want them to add any features the CAI can't handle and your position is also that the CAI is totally broken and can barely stand on its own two feet what other conclusion should I draw? Obviously it's exaggerated to make a point, but the point stands.

Omnipotence wasn't needed for CA to be aware that its CAI would struggle with ETW's map. RTW and M2TW both fully illustrated the problems the CAI were having with these free-style type maps.

Okay so the obvious solution was for them to what... ? Roll back the campaign map back to the Risk style map because you don't think they should be allowed to release features that the CAI may not perfectly handle? Or just keep the campaign map there without any progress - progress that I will say personally I really like - until they can perfect the campaign AIs ability to manage it (eg never)?

I hate to break it to you, but to plenty of consumers, myself included, the CAI handles reasonably well. Well enough to play and enjoy the game. Is it perfect? No. Does it react how a human would react? No. Are either expectations reasonable? No. Am I willing to shell out $60 for the game, CAI and all? Absolutely. Has CA done its job in providing me what I consider value for my money? Yes. The number of hours I"ve spent on ETW would cost me about $5000 in movie tickets, for the equivalent entertainment level. I'm certainly appreciative of the value in ETW and other video games.

So it wouldn't have taken much to figure out that adding more features to the campaign map would make things even tougher on the AI. Yet CA pushed forward. Also, CA knew about these CAI issues prior to release because a blind man can see them in the dark. I just wish CA had used some common sense during testing: if they saw that the AI couldn't handle a new feature then get rid of it or find a workaround. Maybe some people would have been ticked off if one of their favorite "features" (exploits) was taken away, but ETW would have been a better game for it. I'd far prefer a simpler but more challenging game than having a game full of features that I can use but the AI cannot. Basically, CA reached beyond their AI designing capabilities for this game. One may applaud the ideas and effort, but it simply didn't work and ETW suffered for it. And, unfortunately, I don't think CA will be able to ever get their CAI to function well within ETW's map- it's too complicated and CA has no record of vastly improving their AIs through patching or an expansion. I'd love to be proven wrong! Sadly, however, I think ETW will be the PC game version of "A Bridge Too Far."

Yes, they're evil and they thought about this very scenario and decided to screw the consumer. Yes.

Anyway your disingenuousness, strawman arguments, and condescending insults has convinced me that our little debate is at an end. You obviously cannot debate without resorting to such tactics so what's the point of continuing? If you want to keep stating how wrong my impressions of the sorry state of ETW's CAI are and rail about my "ignorance" of the software development world then go right ahead. However, I've never enjoyed someone p%ssing on my back and telling me it's raining, and that's what your defense of ETW's CAI feels like (especially since you're not even playing the game with it!)

That's a shame. The sheer voulme of your irrational rantings has almost given me enough source material to complete my new book. I just need a few more posts from you to finish it off and we can probably even swing a movie deal.

Bottom line? Yes there are problems with the game. Was there nefarious intent of some sort at CA to extort you out of your hard earned $60? No. Is it playable? Certainly. Is it worth $60 or whatever you paid for it? That depends on you doesn't it? I certainly found plenty of value in my ETW purchase. Your mileage may vary.

[Martok]

Gentlemen, please dial it back a little. It's been an interesting conversation thus far, but it's gotten a bit....heated, shall we say? I understand all too well that a lot of folks have strong feelings on this subject -- including Yours Truly -- but we have to be able to discuss things calmly and civilly.