I've had enough....

[Paul Peru]

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, .

Agree! Giving the AI more time on harder settings should be palatable even to Activision. Failing that, they could add an extra checkbox saying "I'm really patient and have an Athlon64".

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

Hmmm... Perhaps I've misunderestimated the AI in this respect as well. I know I have done so in the diplomacy department (at least according to the diplomacy guide). Do you think the AI is just roleplaying? Barbarian factions should be disorganized, with roving bands and unescorted leaders. Civilized factions know how to field an army. Pausing to think about it, I have had the same experiences. It would be great if CA would respond to some of the potentially unfounded accusations, rather than just sitting there suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous accents.

[TheDuck]

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

Interesting attitude.

First.. What has been said in this thread has been said a lot on these forums for the last 2 months. I've read nothing new here. If there was something new, I wouldn't feel like I'd wasted my time reading this thread, but there ISN'T. THAT is why I'm miffed. Again, and honestly, I'm sorry you feel that RTW is so bad. That said.. its just a game.. show a little perspective.

Unblinking conformance is a totalitarian ideal. Am I to understand that I am to blindly conform? Or am I free to express my opinion just as you are (I'm pretty sure its choice #2 dude). You are not more or less important than me. To attempt to insult me by calling me a 'newbie' or other such labels insults both my intelligence and my age. I suppose it is the state of things in the world today that rudeness passes for logic, but frankly I'm saddened by it.

In all this time I've made one negative comment about how folks are grousing, and I get the royal treatment by you. ONE. Does this seem just?

Insult me if you must, but don't expect to muzzle me with anger or insults. That simply will not happen.

[Maltz]

Hey dudes:

I really don't think there is a need to get angry towards particular types of players's opinions - this is not a place to decide our nation's policy that will restrict your freedom of speech for the rest of your life. I don't think any software developer will even look into all the flame threads of their game forums because it is too time consuming and not worthwhile. There are 100 different kinds of players, all with their individual wishes. Some are directly opposite of each other. Software developers just want to fix bugs that are summarized in nice threads, not to fulfill everybody's wishes like Heaven.

All opinions here they also reflect part of the market that software companies are targeting on. You might think some opinions are rubbish, but we value different things differently. Also I must say some wishes are too hard to fulfill.

I was once a new user of the ORG (look at my registration date). Being a newbie or veteran doesn't mean opinions should be valued differently. There are certainly still a lot of elements that makes RTW fun - so if possible, shall we share it around so everybody can have fun?

[Mikeus Caesar]

Also it's worth noting that beta testers are employed and selected by the publishers not developers.

The amount of bugs that have slipped through the net, you'd think that AV picked a few people off the street and told them to play it. The people they picked where prolly not the most observant people in the world....after all, who would not notice all the bugs? And as for the AI building huge navies, instead of armies, that is just stupid. The only thing navies are good for are for getting to islands. And some of the places that the AI build navies are just stupid. Like the Parthians making huge navies in the caspian sea.

[TheDuck]

Hey dudes:

I really don't think there is a need to get angry towards particular types of players's opinions - this is not a place to decide our nation's policy that will restrict your freedom of speech for the rest of your life. I don't think any software developer will even look into all the flame threads of their game forums because it is too time consuming and not worthwhile. There are 100 different kinds of players, all with their individual wishes. Some are directly opposite of each other. Software developers just want to fix bugs that are summarized in nice threads, not to fulfill everybody's wishes like Heaven.

All opinions here they also reflect part of the market that software companies are targeting on. You might think some opinions are rubbish, but we value different things differently. Also I must say some wishes are too hard to fulfill.

I was once a new user of the ORG (look at my registration date). Being a newbie or veteran doesn't mean opinions should be valued differently. There are certainly still a lot of elements that makes RTW fun - so if possible, shall we share it around so everybody can have fun?

Believe it or not, I actually think a lot of what Toranaga says about the game is true. And if its affecting the fun factor for him, then I feel doubly sorry. But at this point, its rehashing the same stuff. CA knows (I'm sure) our opinion. I've seen the same issues echoed on the bug thread at totalwar.com as are discussed in this particular thread. So if CA is gonna hear it, its in a nice obvious place. If CA isn't, then 'oh well'. I hope that CA listens also, but am realistic about the chances of 90% of the ideas ever seeing the light of day (as in NOT).

I harbor no grudges or ill-will against Toranaga at all. He has a right to his opinion. I support every member's right to express themselves as they see fit. That doesn't mean I'll like all those opinions or support them. But they have the right to say them.

I do think some folks need to get some perspective. That is my point. There comes a point when you've done all that you can do, and then its waiting to see what happens. We are at least a month past that on these forums (at least IMO). That is the source of my comments and I stand by them. If Toranaga disagrees, I'm fine with him making those statements (although I don't agree and will make my disagreement known! :) ).

[Patricius]

Interesting attitude.

First.. What has been said in this thread has been said a lot on these forums for the last 2 months. I've read nothing new here. If there was something new, I wouldn't feel like I'd wasted my time reading this thread, but there ISN'T. THAT is why I'm miffed. Again, and honestly, I'm sorry you feel that RTW is so bad. That said.. its just a game.. show a little perspective.

Unblinking conformance is a totalitarian ideal. Am I to understand that I am to blindly conform? Or am I free to express my opinion just as you are (I'm pretty sure its choice #2 dude). You are not more or less important than me. To attempt to insult me by calling me a 'newbie' or other such labels insults both my intelligence and my age. I suppose it is the state of things in the world today that rudeness passes for logic, but frankly I'm saddened by it.

In all this time I've made one negative comment about how folks are grousing, and I get the royal treatment by you. ONE. Does this seem just?

Insult me if you must, but don't expect to muzzle me with anger or insults. That simply will not happen.

I agree with that. Further to that, 1000 posts more and an attitude does not give someone more insight or perspective. Between a few forums where I post under different names on matters TW related I could possibly triple that. Others could septuple that easily. There are many ways in which this game has fallen short and even a few things battle-wise that STW/MI or MTW/VI did far better. But in the context of the competition and even for itself it is a masterpiece. Doggies etc. can be eliminated in ten minutes of text editing. There are some wonderful mods. Overall, the failings seem so minute in the overall context that only people who lose perspective entirely
could hate this game. And obviously too if the genre was of no interest. .com has too many throwaway threads (why is there no newbie forum?), but of the fan(atic)'s comical yet pathetic arrogance, there are not too many instances. CA should keep a closer watch on the .com.

There is probably no point making comparisons. Some earlier poster did not get his coffee.

edit: My membership is as old as ToranagaSama's. I do not always login here and rarely post. I prefer .com and find that apart from certain failing like the lack of a newbie forum it every bit as good as this forum. It plays its own complementary role. Reading and thinking might have benefitted him a little bit more.

[TheDuck]

I agree with that. Further to that, 1000 posts more and an attitude does not give someone more insight or perspective. Between a few forums where I post under different names on matters TW related I could possibly triple that. Others could septuple that easily. There are many ways in which this game has fallen short and even a few things battle-wise that STW/MI or MTW/VI did far better. But in the context of the competition and even for itself it is a masterpiece. Doggies etc. can be eliminated in ten minutes of text editing. There are some wonderful mods. Overall, the failings seem so minute in the overall context that only people who lose perspective entirely
could hate this game. And obviously too if the genre was of no interest. .com has too many throwaway threads (why is there no newbie forum?), but of the fan(atic)'s comical yet pathetic arrogance, there are not too many instances. CA should keep a closer watch on the .com.

There is probably no point making comparisons. Some earlier poster did not get his coffee.

edit: My membership is as old as ToranagaSama's. I do not always login here and rarely post. I prefer .com and find that apart from certain failing like the lack of a newbie forum it every bit as good as this forum. It plays its own complementary role. Reading and thinking might have benefitted him a little bit more.

I'm chalking it up to a bad day. Not like I haven't had bad days in the past.

[The Storyteller]

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.

...

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

...

5) We are polite and mature

*chuckle*

[DisruptorX]

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, .

I say tell the ADD RTS kiddies that they are in the wrong game and kindly point them in the direction of www.battle.net.

And by the way, RTS kiddies are not all youngsters. I played Civ 2 when I was in 5th grade and loved it. Age is *not* an excuse for lack of taste and/or intellegence.

[TheDuck]

I say tell the ADD RTS kiddies that they are in the wrong game and kindly point them in the direction of www.battle.net.

And by the way, RTS kiddies are not all youngsters. I played Civ 2 when I was in 5th grade and loved it. Age is *not* an excuse for lack of taste and/or intellegence.

LOL

Nice. I like STW, MTW, RTW, Combat Mission, Civ 2/3, Age of Empires 2, CnC Generals, Starcraft, and many other more 'twitch oriented' RTSs. I'm 46 (so definitely not a kiddie, although definitely young at heart).

The TW games and more turn oriented fare are like fine wines, or maybe champaign. Definitely refined. The RTSs are more like beer. Some are fine lagers, others are evil little pilsners. But many appeal to my wide range of tastes.

There is a time for beer, and a time for wine.

Oh.. and I'm a programmer by trade (21+ years). If I knew how to amend the AIs for MTW/STW/RTW, I'd be all over it like a cheap suit. I totally agree with the comment about 'waiting for the turn to be done' on the campaign map.

[DisruptorX]

LOL

Nice. I like STW, MTW, RTW, Combat Mission, Civ 2/3, Age of Empires 2, CnC Generals, Starcraft, and many other more 'twitch oriented' RTSs. I'm 46 (so definitely not a kiddie, although definitely young at heart).

The TW games and more turn oriented fare are like fine wines, or maybe champaign. Definitely refined. The RTSs are more like beer. Some are fine lagers, others are evil little pilsners. But many appeal to my wide range of tastes.

There is a time for beer, and a time for wine.

Oh.. and I'm a programmer by trade (21+ years). If I knew how to amend the AIs for MTW/STW/RTW, I'd be all over it like a cheap suit. I totally agree with the comment about 'waiting for the turn to be done' on the campaign map.

I wasn't implying that there is something wrong with Blizzard's games. I was simply saying that there are plenty of games coming out all the time that are fast paced, but almost none that are more hardcore. I liked Warcraft III alot, in fact, I like it a whole lot better than Rome: Total War, because warcraft III didn't stray from the spirit of its predecessors.

Every feature they added to make RTW more generic pains me, especially "the bar", what's great about the total war series was that it wasn't like anything else. The part about "bad taste" was referring to anyone who thinks that the changes in RTW, aside from graphics, are good.

[TheDuck]

I wasn't implying that there is something wrong with Blizzard's games. I was simply saying that there are plenty of games coming out all the time that are fast paced, but almost none that are more hardcore. I liked Warcraft III alot, in fact, I like it a whole lot better than Rome: Total War, because warcraft III didn't stray from the spirit of its predecessors.

Every feature they added to make RTW more generic pains me, especially "the bar", what's great about the total war series was that it wasn't like anything else. The part about "bad taste" was referring to anyone who thinks that the changes in RTW, aside from graphics, are good.

No worries. I didn't think you were. :) My 'LOL/Nice' where meant to imply I thought your comments were funny!

I tend to agree. My take is that the hardcore gamer is seeing more tough times lately. Most game developers and game publishers have woken up to the fact that there is a really large casual audience out there.. and that 5-10 million x $20 is a lot of money for one game. And who amongst us would choose not to be rich if it seemed clear that going down a certain path would get us there?

I read a comment by Chris Roberts (Gas Powered Games/Dungeon Siege) that stated that all the detractors who didn't think Dungeon Siege was as good as Diablo 2 were only the 'hardcore crowd', and that GPG was making games for mom and pop to sit down and have a good time.. something that doesn't require lots of reading and thinking to play and have a good time at.

I personally like both game types immensely, but I'm also detecting that it will be the rare game indeed that will appeal to my need for 'more work' and 'more substance' in a game.

I think we 'hardcore' types are on the outs with major publishers right now. A few games will come down the pike for us, but only a few.

I DO believe that this will change in the coming years. Film used to be a very simple medium, but it is not anymore. Games will be the same as they find a wider audience. Just wait.

We've come out of gaming's 'experimental period', and entered its 'early period' (I think the early period started 5-6 years ago.. 1995 at the very earliest).... The mature period will hopefully follow in the next 10-15 years (or earlier hopefully..). These may not be comforting words to the hardcore gamers in the crowd (me included!!!!), but I think they reflect reality. And note this does not follow the movie timeline. If you start in the 20s with talkies, it took until the 60s or 70s until movies truly hit a mature stage. I'm hoping that a media savvy american public will become more jaded with the simpler forms of interactive entertainment quicker. Which will lead to more diversity in games a much happier hardcore community!

[Herodotus]

"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, ."

Here here! Like Chess the real measure of the game is in its AI.
CA I HOPE YOU HAVE LEARNT A LESSON, STOP APPEALING TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR!

An explanation of the failure of RTW to recapture the success of the eariler games is that they may have aimed to high. Often I find that games that try to be advanced and detailed end up feeling too simple. A complex game needs to extremely complex to satisfy me. We were promised an even better TW experience and yet RTW feels simpler than MTW in many ways.

Also they should have listened to me and implemented some features from 'Centurion Defender of Rome' (an old classic pc game). Features like Gladiatorial combat and Chariot races would have broken up the monotony of gameplay.
Gladiator fights potentially improved happiness (depending on how entertaining you were) while at the Chariots you could gamble on yourself to win.

[SpencerH]

I sincerely doubt that we will ever have AI that will appeal to the 'hardcore' strat gamer. It hasnt happened with the CIV series in terms of the 'strategy portion' of the game (their area of expertise IMO), and it hasnt happened with the TW series in terms of the 'tactical portion' of the game (likewise their area of expertise).

The answer is to forego AI altogether.

[Fridge]

"The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org."

Anyone else find this statement a bit, well, scary...

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

I'm relatively new, too. Sorry to get in the way. Personally, I thought both the original posters comments were fair, and I thought TheDuck's were also emminently fair and eloquently expressed. Maybe I've missed something about only being allowed opinions once you've made a certain number of posts, maybe there's something that wasn't, erm, "comprehended" to me...

[Daevyll]

Conform to what exactly? As long as a post abides by the rules laid out when signing up (and I dont see anything in the Ducks post that doesnt) I dont see the problem.
The opinions of those new to these forums are as valid as those who have been here since STW; what they may lack in experience, they add in not having their vision clouded by (romanticized) memories of 'how it used to be'.

As for the disappointment of RTW: Ever since waiting for Master of Orion 3 to be released for what seemed like decades and then playing the 'finished' product, it has been damn near impossible to disappoint me.

That said, RTW really would benefit greatly from a major AI overhaul....

[Praylak]

The answer is to forego AI altogether.

It’s all a matter of resource allocating. At some point in development a decision is made as to what parts get what of a limited and budgeted resource. There have been games that have exhibited a form of AI that could make any hardcore smile joyfully. I can name two titles off the top of my head, and both developed cult-like followings, but were never big box-office successes. Giving the AI the biggest cut of the pie does not make sales. Those of us that would drool over an AI that could bitch slap us without the obvious stat-jack cheats or “resources for AI +400%” are a relatively small crowd. My impression of today’s gamers is a person that wants a very short learning curve, little thought for lots of fun, and graphics that make him/her go “ooooh, aaaahhhh”. Or if you would prefer we are seeing the “Wal-mart-ization” of games.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, Civilization was not one of my picks.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Maybe I've missed something about only being allowed opinions once you've made a certain number of posts, maybe there's something that wasn't, erm, "comprehended" to me...

I think you just met an interesting Org... character...

Nothing to be really worried about, it's rather usual, eventually we all get used to it. I got to say it's kind of surprising the first time

Be sure other patrons will read... or "comprehend" your posts with a bit more... patience

Louis,

[Mikeus Caesar]

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

1) Do not use the term newbie, as it is a stupid and over-used erm.

2) At one point you were also a 'newbie pissin all over the place', so shut your yap and stay on the subject of this topic.

Giving the AI the biggest cut of the pie does not make sales. Those of us that would drool over an AI that could bitch slap us without the obvious stat-jack cheats or “resources for AI +400%” are a relatively small crowd. My impression of today’s gamers is a person that wants a very short learning curve, little thought for lots of fun, and graphics that make him/her go “ooooh, aaaahhhh”. Or if you would prefer we are seeing the “Wal-mart-ization” of games.

Yuck, walmart. Personally, i think that game makers of today should be doing what their predecessors did, and make a game how they like because they think it's cool, instead of making something that's 99% looks and graphics and 1% gaming strategy.

[Butcher]

I agree, i have been gaming since the c64 (does that make me a newbie to gaming cos i only registered here this month? ) and I have to say, try playing a few old megadrive games for example.. some of them are terrible, but are few are still fun to play because they have that strange thing called 'gameplay'. What one person finds fun and interesting differs froma nother, some like quick easy battles that last 30 seconds, others want to spend 4 hrs waiting for the next 4 units of peasants to appear. Each to their own, it doesn't make their opinion less valuable, just different.

[Mikeus Caesar]

agree, i have been gaming since the c64

I've been playing games since i was 6, so i've spent the last 8 years in perpetual bliss.

but are few are still fun to play because they have that strange thing called 'gameplay'

I have to agree with you. I was playing theme park world for ps1 recently, and i realised how damn good it was and still is. Heck, i've had it since i was 9, and i only just found out how to do loop-de-loops on roller-coasters. Now if all games could last that long, then i would be happy.

[Fridge]

C64? Noob! I had a Vic=20...

(Mum and dad bought the Vic 20 about a week before the C64 came out. Cheers mum and dad :o. )

[Mikeus Caesar]

sorry to sound like a little kid, but what's a Vic 20?

[SpencerH]

It’s all a matter of resource allocating. At some point in development a decision is made as to what parts get what of a limited and budgeted resource. There have been games that have exhibited a form of AI that could make any hardcore smile joyfully. I can name two titles off the top of my head, and both developed cult-like followings, but were never big box-office successes. Giving the AI the biggest cut of the pie does not make sales. Those of us that would drool over an AI that could bitch slap us without the obvious stat-jack cheats or “resources for AI +400%” are a relatively small crowd. My impression of today’s gamers is a person that wants a very short learning curve, little thought for lots of fun, and graphics that make him/her go “ooooh, aaaahhhh”. Or if you would prefer we are seeing the “Wal-mart-ization” of games.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, Civilization was not one of my picks.

What were the games?

From the perspective of AI design what seems to be the case is that there is a conflict between building a more capable AI vs 'game freedom' (couldnt think of a better term to use). For example, chess has a finite number of potential choices so an AI can be designed which beats the best human player (using an appropriate computer of course). On the other hand, in games with infinite choices (freedom) the AI becomes more and more limited as the number of choices increases. Developers either dumb the game down (limit choice) or accept a more limited AI. We're not in a position to have both even if, as you say, the average player wouldnt want it even if he could have it.

[TheDuck]

C64? Noob! I had a Vic=20...

(Mum and dad bought the Vic 20 about a week before the C64 came out. Cheers mum and dad :o. )

Heh heh.. I may have most of you beat...

My first computer was a single board 6502... you had to use a hex-keypad to enter machine programs (yikes!) That was 1974 (I was 16). (takes old-fogey hat off)

[TheDuck]

I think you just met an interesting Org... character...

Nothing to be really worried about, it's rather usual, eventually we all get used to it. I got to say it's kind of surprising the first time

Be sure other patrons will read... or "comprehend" your posts with a bit more... patience

Louis,

I'll add to this. I've been posting/reading on this forum for two years now (reading since 2002 actually.. I was a silent troller for a while). 99.9% of the participants on this forum are fine, upstanding citizens, both patient and mature. Which is why I reacted the way I did and why I keep returning to the ORG. This is a great place to be.

[TheDuck]

"The Org doesn't conform to you. You conform to the Org."

Anyone else find this statement a bit, well, scary...

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

I'm relatively new, too. Sorry to get in the way. Personally, I thought both the original posters comments were fair, and I thought TheDuck's were also emminently fair and eloquently expressed. Maybe I've missed something about only being allowed opinions once you've made a certain number of posts, maybe there's something that wasn't, erm, "comprehended" to me...

Thanks.

[nokem]

sorry to sound like a little kid, but what's a Vic 20?

*goes all misty-eyed*

The GTi turbo desktop computer of its day. A rival to the Sinclair ZX80 & 81. Boasted a phenomenal 5k of RAM (vs 1k for the Sinclair :) and a 1MHz processor

Was part of the 1st generation of computers to be genuinely usable at home. You didn't even have to load the OS from a tape deck! Slap in a 16k RAM expansion and you had more programming space than you thought you would ever need. Many games released on ROM cards. Zero load times! Years ahead of its time.

Get an emulator and games here - http://www.vic20.net/ - and be amazed at the addictive quality of a piece of hardware with less processing power than your TV remote control. Now that's programming.

Time for my medicine.

*dribbles into mug of Ovaltine*

[bhutavarna]

i like this game, but it gets boring very quickly. the main disappointment for me is the battle engine. everything that happens in battle happens too fast. tactical depth is lacking. i missed the days of MTW, where ambushing enemy from the woods actually matters, and if you're smart you can actually beat the enemy with weaker force. and most importantly you have time to oversee the battles. by comparison, playing RTW battles is like having premature ejaculation. you have almost no time to enjoy it at all.

and don't tell me that i can mod the game to slow it down, because i tried and i don't like it because it unbalances the game. besides i didn't buy the game so that i can mod it.

[Praylak]

From the perspective of AI design what seems to be the case is that there is a conflict between building a more capable AI vs 'game freedom' (couldnt think of a better term to use). For example, chess has a finite number of potential choices so an AI can be designed which beats the best human player (using an appropriate computer of course). On the other hand, in games with infinite choices (freedom) the AI becomes more and more limited as the number of choices increases. Developers either dumb the game down (limit choice) or accept a more limited AI. We're not in a position to have both even if, as you say, the average player wouldnt want it even if he could have it.

Yes I would say that profile fits almost all strategy games out there. In the past we have seen games attempt to make compromises but this usually results in both ends failing. MOO3 would be a good example of that.

IIRC it took quite the computer to actually defeat the best chess player. Big Blue was it called? My point is, does it really take that much computing to make a functioning AI? Given the "Freedom" of choices allowed in a game like RTW, I can't believe one would require a house sized computer to provide a formidable AI opponent. Then again, I' am sadly ignorrant when it comes to computer science. Have there not been games of past that provided a level of AI that can smartly handle a multitude of choices in such a way that seems intelligent? Obviously as you suggested, not so.

My two game picks were - Xcom:UFO Defence and StarWars Rebellion. Both kinda old.