AI

[TinCow]

Part two of the RPS interview is now up, and it includes a heavier focus on the AI than I've seen elsewhere. It's still pretty sketchy, but worth a read for those of us who tend to obsess about the TW AI (which is probably everyone on the Org).

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...e-total-war-2/

The main nugget of information that stood out for me in that was that the cities layouts were designed with the BAI in mind. That pleases me, but at the same time I find it hard to believe that wasn't true in Shogun 2 as well... and we all know how well the TWS2 BAI handled sieges...

[rickinator9]

The main nugget of information that stood out for me in that was that the cities layouts were designed with the BAI in mind.

I hope they will actually have cities. I didn't really like the fact that you just had a fortress in Shogun 2

[quadalpha]

Dubious about cities. There's no room to manoeuvre, not much scope for missile units, not much scope for flanking, and generally descends into a brawl. Not sure the addition of multiple capture points will help much in that regard.

[Vuk]

I don't understand why they don't just make it your objective to first breech/get into the enemy walls and to destroy the enemy army. Just get rid of the stupid time limit and make it where the only way the defender can win is to rout or annihilate the opposing force. It would be so much simpler and more realistic.

[quadalpha]

I don't understand why they don't just make it your objective to first breech/get into the enemy walls and to destroy the enemy army. Just get rid of the stupid time limit and make it where the only way the defender can win is to rout or annihilate the opposing force. It would be so much simpler and more realistic.

Yes, the way the siege battle resolutions have been set up now is unrealistic and uninteresting. A better way might be to give the defenders an objective to break out (and so reset the siege timer on the campaign map) even if they are unable to destroy the besieging army, and have the option of surrendering (the army retreats to friendly territory but is held immobile for x turns, kind of like battle survivors in MTW). The besieging army might have secondary objectives for raiding supplies (thus shortening the siege timer), perhaps with only a fraction of the their army, and the defenders can decide whether to try to prevent that or not. All this should encourage more battles around settlements rather than in them, and make sieges more interesting that a binary choice between sitting around and all-out attack.

[Seyavash]

I don't understand why they don't just make it your objective to first breech/get into the enemy walls and to destroy the enemy army. Just get rid of the stupid time limit and make it where the only way the defender can win is to rout or annihilate the opposing force. It would be so much simpler and more realistic.

the timer is not entirely unrealistic. battles tended to end with the loss of daylight. Especially in seiges where there could be many engagements before a city fell or the beseiger gave up. enhanced surrender and sally options would be better.

[quadalpha]

Battles always ended with daylight, right? I can't think of any major engagements at night. Maybe something in the Sicilian expedition?

[Vuk]

the timer is not entirely unrealistic. battles tended to end with the loss of daylight. Especially in seiges where there could be many engagements before a city fell or the beseiger gave up. enhanced surrender and sally options would be better.

So what? The timer is only an hour!

[quadalpha]

So what? The timer is only an hour!

The soldiers got tired after an hour. Or maybe they were only hired for an hour and the unions would demand overtime pay for more time?

[Moros]

So what? The timer is only an hour!

If you want a full day of battle, do you also want 6 months of besieging afore the assault?