I've had enough....

[Slyspy]

I have finally decided that RTW is, in fact, a crap game. Nice gfx engine but utterly lacking in gameplay, mainly due to an appalling AI and shoddy loose ends. Two examples today provided the last straw: The first was when my heir and his ten unit army attacked a single Velite unit. I autoresolved rather than fight such a pointless encounter. The enemy, understandably, ran away on the strat map. My heir got the "doubtful courage" trait as if he had run off! Shoddy, very shoddy. The second situation was just about the worse AI problem ever. I own two towns on Sicily, the Greeks own one. The Scipii, with which both my Carthagians and the Greeks are at war, have a large army (about 12 units, including two family members) on the island. It is the biggest army around. It landed outdie the Greek city of Syracuse and has stayed there for about ten years (ie twenty turns) and done nothing. To make matters worse, for the past few turns Syracuse has had no garrisson, No defenders at all, but still the AI makes no move for it! Pathetic.

I am uninstalling RTW until such time a patch or, more likely, a mod makes it worth playing. It is just a shame that it is too late to return it and get my money back.

[the_rydster]

I have just experienced some appaling AI problems with a friendly reinforcements army of mine.

I was attacked by two massive armies of Julii elite infantry. I set up my army of mostly decent infantry plus archers, between two woods and placed my sole roman cavelry unit plus two units of urban cohorts in the woods a little ahead so I could outflank when they attacked my main force.

Along comes my army of reinforcements. I think 'nice one' since those two Julii armies are dam large. The AI general then proceded to march two units of Auxili at full speed past my army and into the face of the enemy urban cohorts. Result is they rout in about 2 seconds. Meanwhile the rest of his infantry march past mine in a haphazzard fashion into the enemy front and pin down the enemy. I am not sure what to do know, I can see they are struggling so I have to move my troops and change plan, meanwhile my friendly AI infantry are starting to look like they are going to rout and the friendly AI general is hidding in the rear with two units of Pretorian cavelry doing nothing!

When the 2nd enemy army arrived, all was lost in that battle. The friendly AI seemed to be acting like I was not there and took no account of my position at all. I tried this again and the friendly AI always does the same thing. Basically I can not fight a defensive battle and have to time my charge at about the same time as my friendly AI general orders his. Now that would not be so bad if my friendly AI general attacked in force and maybe used his cavelry to outflank or something, but his infantry manuvers seem chaotic and it is only late on after my infantry have been virtually decimated that he orders his cavelry to attack. Also he (my AI general) got himself killed my charging a non routed unit of auxili who were in the enemy rear.

It took me three attempts to win that battle.

This is a great game no doubt but this AI think really bugs me. It would be better if you could perhaps order the friendly AI general to opt for some clear strategy like 'defend/hold' or 'charge', 'outflank with cavelry' or something.

[chemchok]

I'm just hoping the A.S. (artificial stupidity) in the battle and campaign map gets some loving from CA in the patch. Everything else can be modded to suit my playing style.

[Empedocles]

Rome total realism 4.1, better AI, not the same as a human, but really better.
Try VH/VH as Chartage and you will know.

Try to imagine that army got a non attack but remain hostile" kind of mission by the senate. Imagine the senate decided to force a pact with the greeks and yourself and they send an army to intimidate you.

Diego, from Argentina

PS: RTW is a great game!

[chemchok]

I heard that the AI build routines were broken by RTR. Besides, making the Senate give me difficult missions has nothing to do with how proficiently the AI is managing it's army on the map or on the field.

[Doug-Thompson]

I think the improvements to the strategy map had a cost, making things much more difficult for the AI.

I suppose it's easier to program an AI when it only has a choice of going to one province or another, or staying put. Having a much more "open" map with a bewildering number of options makes things more difficult.

Also, I don't believe that the "doubtful courage" trait given above was an error. I had something similar happen when I left a small force alone in favor of attacking a larger army. I got a "doubtful courage" vice despite winning a crushing victory against a larger army. I was annoyed at first, then realized that it did look like I was running away from the little force. Likewise, taking 10 units to attack one then having it get away isn't exactly an awe-imposing demonstration of valor or prowess.

The biggest problem by far mentioned by everybody is the "kamikaze reinforcements." It's ruined more games than anything, apparently.

[chemchok]

I think the improvements to the strategy map had a cost, making things much more difficult for the AI.

I suppose it's easier to program an AI when it only has a choice of going to one province or another, or staying put. Having a much more "open" map with a bewildering number of options makes things more difficult.

Bingo.

[Red Harvest]

The increased complexity of the 3D map should easily be compensated for by increasing the think time on the AI turns. Presently it is extremely short. If it took 10 times longer it wouldn't be obtrusive. Plus, the goal each time is still to control settlements ( = provinces) so the fundamental aspect is not that much more complex.

One aspect of the short AI think time seems to be the issuing of a single set of orders per army/agent each turn. Example: army attacks, fails to follow up. Army lands, fails to attack or besiege. Army lands, fails to merge. It is single ply AI.

The point is that I think CA has considerable room to improve the strategic AI without an unreasonable investment or without exceeding what the min. game spec. PC can comfortably handle.

[Xyron]

There's a reason you tend to get doubtful courage when you autobattle, and it's obvious if you think of it as a little joke: though the trait resides on the family member who leads the troops, it's really a jab at the player, who lacks the courage to face the already shoddy AI in battle.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I hate the kamikaze AI problem. It's either one of your armies, made up of cavalry, charging into rows of enemy phalanxes, or it's the enemy AI standing at the walls of your town, getting mown down by the towers.

[Spino]

I think the improvements to the strategy map had a cost, making things much more difficult for the AI.

I suppose it's easier to program an AI when it only has a choice of going to one province or another, or staying put. Having a much more "open" map with a bewildering number of options makes things more difficult.

Uh, I recall Medieval's strategic AI making incredibly dumb decisions, for the most part it was much worse than RTW's. When playing MTW I lost count of how many times the AI declared war on a vastly superior enemy and refused to make peace even when its very existence was threatened. I also lost count of how many times it sent its faction leader and several stacks to take a far flung province of dubious value while leaving more valuable provinces (often those bording more dangerous opponents) poorly garrisoned if not completely undefended. The only thing Medieval's strategic AI had going for it was it unpredictability and its massed stack approach when attacking. With regard to the former I am referring to alliances which really didn't mean squat. If you turned your back on an ally in MTW it would eventually take advantage and swipe a poorly defended province.

Rome's strategic AI is definitely better than Medieval's. RTW's biggest and most immediate strategic AI problems are (as everyone has already pointed out) its penchance for not consolidating its armies and besieging settlements with an inadequate force, its obsession with building vast, uneccessary navies and its failure to consistently place family members in charge of large armies.

The increased complexity of the 3D map should easily be compensated for by increasing the think time on the AI turns. Presently it is extremely short. If it took 10 times longer it wouldn't be obtrusive. Plus, the goal each time is still to control settlements ( = provinces) so the fundamental aspect is not that much more complex.

One aspect of the short AI think time seems to be the issuing of a single set of orders per army/agent each turn. Example: army attacks, fails to follow up. Army lands, fails to attack or besiege. Army lands, fails to merge. It is single ply AI.

The point is that I think CA has considerable room to improve the strategic AI without an unreasonable investment or without exceeding what the min. game spec. PC can comfortably handle.

Hah, I was going to comment on this! Yes, well you would think that the AI should take longer to get through a turn but it's a lesser known fact that long wait times for AI turns are not looked favorably upon by publishers, even with companies that publish wargames, a genre with a decidedly niche market. Generally speaking long wait times and/or unusually high CPU requirements for the AI translates into impatient and/or frustrated gamers. Personally I would more than happy to wait a loooong time for the AI to make its moves if it translated into a more challenging game for yours truly. When I play a game on Hard I expect it to be hard, AI requirements be damned! Give the ADD RTS kiddies a faster AI on Normal difficulty, .

[Slyspy]

A view points in reply to various posts:

First the "doubtful courage" thing was preseeded, of course. So even when I moved the rest of my forces away and attacked with just the general's unit he still got the trait. If this is a "joke" as suggested above I believe it to be a very poor one when you consider the number of small rebel and faction stacks littering the map. I cannot be bothered to go through the tedious formality of slaughtering them all.

As for the strat AI. If you design a new, more open strat map then you tweak your AI routines to suit. It is easy to see, and logical, that CA just built on their old AI system. Just not enough to make it any good. Yes the AI was often stupid in MTW. Attacking with insufficient forces then legging it etc. Yes it would declare war when pathetically weak and would not accept peace terms. It wasn't great. However its performance on the battlefield was better (unless you used the hide-in-the-corner-with-loads-of-archers-behind-spears tactic) and you were actually worried when their troops in any numbers. Not in RTW, because it just does not happen.

In fact many of the problems identified in the previous games are still present in RTW. They have not been fixed, even when they had been patched in the older games. In fact the weakness of the AI is exacerbated by the greater variety of units. In STW it could handle the limited number of unit types quite sufficiently. In MTW it stumbled, being unable to deal with the new challenges provided. The same in RTW, but now it applies to the strat map too. Why? Because it had not ben taught (programmed) how to. It still cannot cope. It still fights the same in the battles. It still cannot handle diplomacy in any way shape or form.

I would go further than most and say that RTW is not a new game at all. It is STW in disguise. It is an old game with a new interface and new rules to which the AI as not been adapted. It may look like a brand new BMW but it is still the old Model T engine, so to speak. Little wonder that the new features do not work.

[Maltz]

Strategic AI certainly has its limit. The more options there are, the higher the chance that there is something wrong -- bugged, or simply without the capicity to think this much.

I would like to think "AI opponent" as a special identity, separate from a human opponent. For a human opponent, we might think of "fairness", "logical reasoning", "mutual respect", "friendship", "ladders", etc. That can only happen to the theoretical ultimate AI which you can't distinguish AI from real human beings.

For an AI opponent, I recognize all their cheating abilities and stupidity, and try to figure out to maximize my advantage and defeat it in the ugliest way I can. If you don't like this opponent, then you can choose another one. I mean, yes, leave the game because it is not good for you. I have played several games that I had to swore in front of the monitor and hitting the table with my fist. I understand that kind of feeling.

[Jeanne d'arc]

RTW is a great game, sure u stated some problems wich are sadly true but to quit and call it a crap game AND opening yet another "hate" thread in the forum for this once again shows your lack of respect to the makers of this game.
Know that theres modifications out that fix many problems and theres a patch underway like u stated.

[Slyspy]

Its not a hate thread. Its a disappointment thread. I offer CA no personal offence. I thoroughly enjoyed STW and MTW, and thank them for the experience. RTW is simply, IMO, a flawed game full of style but lacking in substance. It is full of good ideas which are badly implemented, problems that were identified in the earlier games (how many "beta" tests do you need?) and hamstrung by an AI which is at best no better than the pevious incarnations and at worst crippled by the new features. I cannot tell where that "extra year of development" went.

As for patches and mods, well! Previous TW games have had support in patches limited to technical fixes and bug fixes. I expect this game to be nothing different. I hope I am proved wrong, but with the usual time and monetary constraints on developers I doubt it. There may be a gameplay rebuild in the inevitable expansion pack, as there was in previous TW games but to what extent? With mods it all depends on the skill of the modders and what can actually be modded. I have tried various versions of RTR for example, but such mods are currently unable to change what really matters. They just paper over the cracks with varying success. I hope one of them succeeds but I wonder whether it is possible for a mere mod to improve the actual AI? Probably not.

PS
I don't see very many hate threads here. Perhaps you are thinking of .com?

[Loopy]

I think Slyspy is being a bit harsh, but I've noticed I have pretty much quit playing the game as well. A combination of a poor AI, several relatively minor gameplay issues and the unrealalistic/silly units have hurt the replayability of the game. I think my disappointment is more a result of overly high expectations rather than the game being a bust out. I'm sure with a patch and a couple of more refined mods I be back playing Rome.

[mfberg]

When playing against the Gauls they brought in 3 to 5 unit armies, in another game at the same point against the Egyptians and Pontus they are fielding 20 unit strike forces of mixed units.

mfberg

[Butcher]

I think one of the problems is starting as thr Romans, who (too experienced TW'ers anyway) are relatively easy to win with through their troop combination and monetary resources. If you had played the first game as say carthage, it might have introduced the game in a different way.

[ToranagaSama]

Its not a hate thread. Its a disappointment thread. I offer CA no personal offence. I thoroughly enjoyed STW and MTW, and thank them for the experience. RTW is simply, IMO, a flawed game full of style but lacking in substance. It is full of good ideas which are badly implemented, problems that were identified in the earlier games (how many "beta" tests do you need?) and hamstrung by an AI which is at best no better than the pevious incarnations and at worst crippled by the new features. I cannot tell where that "extra year of development" went.

As for patches and mods, well! Previous TW games have had support in patches limited to technical fixes and bug fixes. I expect this game to be nothing different. I hope I am proved wrong, but with the usual time and monetary constraints on developers I doubt it. There may be a gameplay rebuild in the inevitable expansion pack, as there was in previous TW games but to what extent? With mods it all depends on the skill of the modders and what can actually be modded. I have tried various versions of RTR for example, but such mods are currently unable to change what really matters. They just paper over the cracks with varying success. I hope one of them succeeds but I wonder whether it is possible for a mere mod to improve the actual AI? Probably not.

I second the above, in its entirety.

PS
I don't see very many hate threads here. Perhaps you are thinking of .com?

What's a "hate thread"?

[Maltz]

To be honest I first found RTW very tedious - tons of rebels and tons of army movement. ARGH! I can't imagine I would finish a long campaign.

Then probably I get numbed by the boredom, and started to find some interesting insights. Here are things that I did to make things more fun:

(1) Try different units - at least something new

My first long campaign was Brutii. At the end I felt so bored because all I use is hastati/principe and equite... But my 2nd Roman long campaign as the Julii is more fun, because I used a lot of enslavement to beef my pop. to Marius reform. This way I can try a large number of different units mixed up with my now-obselete veterans. It doesn't feel the same anymore. I love archer auxilia.

(2) Try different factions

Most factions have a distinct taste in it. I have played through about 70-80% of all of the factions (including rebels) and they all offer pretty distinct experiences.

(3) Try different unit sizes

I switched from normal to large, then to huge. It is like having a different battle engine in huge. (can't flank that easily anymore)

(4) Try... new tactics and... exploits

Just try to defeat the AI with some novel idea. I might get bored if the game is made too easily with the exploits - time to find more exploits.

[TheDuck]

I second the above, in its entirety.



What's a "hate thread"?

If I qualify this game by 'entertainment dollars spent', its been a great deal for me so far.

Most folks in the entertainment biz rate it as 'dollars per hour'. A movie (in the US) costs 8-10 dollars for 2 or so hours. So call it 4.50 per hour. At that rate if I can get 10 hours of play out of a 45 dollar game, its a reasonable deal. I've spent more like 100 hours or more on RTW (so far), and will probably spend a good deal more time before I'm done with it.

That makes RTW a fantastic deal to me, even with a less than stellar AI. Could it be better? Certainly! Not a single game I've played couldn't have been better. NOT ONE. The issue is, was it fun for the time spent? If not.. you misspent your $$. For me, I'm happy as a clam.

And yes, this is a hate thread. If you have something negative about this game to say, why not send it directly to CA? These boards are about (at least from my perspective) trading info on how to play the game better, get info about mods, clarify stats, etc. Not complaining about how bad the game is. I just clutters the boards with stuff that does the rest of the happy community no good.

I for one am beginning to get a tad miffed at all the whining. Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good).

[chemchok]

To whine about the game or to whine about the whiners - that is the question.

[TheDuck]

To whine about the game or to whine about the whiners - that is the question.

Ha! Touche!

I'm all about constructive action. I've expressed my sorrow on these boards many times for folks that feel like their money was misspent. And I've done my fair share of whining.. but always directed at those responsible.. never in an open forum like this.

I also seem to remember a 'bug thread' at totalwar.com that is a perfect place for comments about improvements to RTW.

Constructive action makes the world better. Knowing which battles to fight and which ones not to fight leaves energy for the important battles.

Learning both these things took me a while (I'm in my mid-40s).

Just my two cents/pennies/pfennigs/francs/etc.

[Praylak]

Rome total realism 4.1, better AI, not the same as a human, but really better.
Try VH/VH as Chartage and you will know.

I was thinking the same thing when I read chemchok's post while nodding in agreement. It is better and I still can't believe I lost a battle on medium with it.

Venting, bitch'n, hate, call it what you will. At least here members do such posting with style and with a sense of maturity. For instance, I can't say I didn't enjoy reading this thread, from beginning to end. It was a good 10 minutes. Now if you wanna see some real insanity, allow me to present a link to the .com. Some threads there are just abominations of insta-flamers. Not good reading.

[Slyspy]

Those who frequent this board (especially the Tavern) may know that I am not prone to unthinking rage. They will also know that I am not an angry teenager prone to throwing my toys out of the pram. This thread represents my opinion which may, of course, not be yours. Although quite clearly there is a good number who share that opinion to some extent.

I have already made it quite clear that I have, in the past, thoroughly enjoyed CA's work and that it is what I see as wasted potential that makes me criticise RTW. There are few games I have uninstalled so early. I wanted to enjoy it, I really did, but I cannot. I don't especially care about the cash I spent on it (that was just to demostrate my irritation) I just feel bitterly disappointed that a developer with such a pedigree could produce an unfinished product like RTW. All this is opinon of course.

Give me an email address and I will send a message to CA explaining my issues with the game. I doubt very much that it will do any good. Anyone who works in a corporate environment can tell you want happens to customer complaints that do not hint at impending lawsuits! I could post on the offical forums but they are, frankly, a chaotic mess and any sensible criticism is likely to by drowned out by "RTW rox" or "RTW sux". So I post here, were it may be read by intelligent forumites and may the developers as well.

[lars573]

I've tired to stay away from these bitch threads, as most of what you guys are always going on about I've either never experienced or don't bother me at all. Now I feel I need to say something.
Mainly that I can see a lot and I mean a lot of paralells between the grips against RTW and the grips against CNC generals. They being silly units, lack of polish, WTF were they thinking, stupid AI, I wasted my money on this piece of shit. Both of these games took a venerable game series to full 3D. Both had some serious and minor flaws. Both eliseted an ass-load of un-rest controversy from the hardcore fan base.
But where CNC fans choose to blame EA, TW fans have chosen to blame CA. There are good reasons for this, if Activision had bought out and dismembered CA halfway threw RTW development then you would probably blame Activision too.
You should also consider that for a short time in 2000 STW, MTW, and RTW were all being worked on by CA at the same time. The president of CA having said in an G4techTV interview that they began working on MTW and RTW "as soon as shogun was out the door". The obvious reaction to this is how could these bugs have slipped threw with 4 years to catch them. The most likely answer is that it is an odd happenstance of sub-routine interactions in the games code. In other words 2 exact same bugs from the 2 previous games showing up in RTW are the result of creating a new engine from scratch. Your next cavat well why didn't the beta testers catch it. Because the beta tester may have thought it was supposed to be that way (based on their beta testing experience with STW and MTW), or they had never played a TW before. Also it's worth noting that beta testers are employed and selected by the publishers not developers.

[DisruptorX]

I have already made it quite clear that I have, in the past, thoroughly enjoyed CA's work and that it is what I see as wasted potential that makes me criticise RTW. There are few games I have uninstalled so early. I wanted to enjoy it, I really did, but I cannot. I don't especially care about the cash I spent on it (that was just to demostrate my irritation) I just feel bitterly disappointed that a developer with such a pedigree could produce an unfinished product like RTW. All this is opinon of course.
.

Those are my thoughts exactly

[chemchok]

Well, I'm sorry I called the AI artificially stupid, I had no intentions of hurting the AI's feelings, or any of the AI's friends. I will do my best to make it up to "it" by gifting it some large monetary sums and several provinces in my current game.



My apology to the AI aside, I haven't played RTR yet, but if Gaius has been so successful at tweaking the AI, then I'd imagine that the CA team will be able to produce some changes in the upcoming patch.

Also, let it be known I'm a fan of RTW, I'm a fan of other games that are so horribly buggy and unsupported by publishers that they make RTW's initial release look like some [insert your own vision of a pristine wilderness panorama]. That's right The Temple of Elemental Evil - I'm thinking about you right now. Just because I'm critical of some aspects of the game does not mean I'm trashing CA or RTW, nor should I have to display my dissaproval through some hidden, back-channel communication lines.

This forum is about RTW, if a thread can exist where members can discuss what their favorite beverage is while playing the game, then its members should be allowed to discuss the shortcomings of the game - especially when a large modding community exists here.

Anyway, cheers everyone.

[aoera2]

Rome is a great game but like so many great things it is flawed. Many issues need to be addressed, the AI especially, and the diplomacy, the way factions have small armies and HUGE navies, the list could go on for ages... But i think many of these will be fixed/changed in the upcoming patches and before we damn Rome to the depths of the inferno we must think that it took CA a lot of effort to make a great game, so lets give them some time and space to fix some of the problems accoiated with it, instead of endlessly critising them.

[ToranagaSama]

I for one am beginning to get a tad miffed at all the whining. Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good).

First of all, WHO ARE YOU??? I don't care how "miffed" you get. Who are you to tell me to "take it somewhere" else???

Who are you freaking ignorant newbies?? I can't take this S anymore.

Let me explain a few things for YOU and all the others:

1) This is the Org.

Is is not the .com site, and it is NOT like any other game forum. This sort of thing s/h been comprehended to you in the Entrance Hall, but apparently not.

2) This is the First and TRUE TW fan site.

This does not mean that it is a *Fanboy* site. It is NOT!

3) The way we do things around here is, we discect the game down to its elements. We discuss and critique to our hearts content. We offer constructive critism and feedback to the Developers. The Developers read this forum. The Developers communicate with this forum.

We [I]agitate[/l] for change. Change does occur.

THIS is where we communicate with CA.

4) We communicate with and help each other.

5) We are polite and mature, but sometimes things get outta hand. Like now!

Excuse me, but WHAT have YOU contributed to this forum to make such ignorant comments, as to tell anyone to " Move on already, or take it somewhere else (like to CA, where it might do some constructive good)".

6) The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org.

---

Ignorant! Newbies they're pissin all over the place.

"Attention Must be Paid!"
Willy Loman
Death of a Salesmen by Arthur Miller