Fewer but larger battles?

[Spino]

Someone stop me if I'm not remembering this correctly, but it seems to me that waaaaay back in development, CA hinted/promised that RTW would have far fewer battles than MTW, but the battles would be much larger and far more significant and meaningful. I confess to not having played this game for the last week or more, simply because I am very tired of fighting battle after battle. There just is no end to the rebels, small stack harrassment, etc. This is NOT the way I remember MTW, where things could be quiet for turn after turn until the axe fell (literally) with 3 or 4 stacks hitting one province. And I ain't talking Mongals or Papacy here. What went wrong?

PS: Yeah, I play campaigns on VH, but it doesn't seem much different than my first campaign which was Julii Medium. Still, every turn the rebels are sitting there, going

Your memory serves you well. I distinctly remember CA stating in either an article or a post in one of the official/unofficial forums that we should expect fewer, more significant battles than we fought in Medieval.

Personally I don't mind the rebels but the incessant stream of understrength AI armies is driving me insane.

[Postino]

the replay value of this game compared to STW and MTW is shameful. i still bust STW out about once a year. the realism mod is nice but it is still the same bad AI, and still the same drudgery in the mid game(what used to only get bad ion the end game in ole MTW).

the Battle AI has not imrpoved one (significant) whit in all these games, i rember camping hills in Japan very well. destrtoying the fools whoi just reformed beneath me, i also seem to rember the STW AI having a better "charge this point" algorythm. the STW strat AI was better, a fair bit better, as it would horde up if it could but otherwise stay in the castles.

[ToranagaSama]

There was one significant advancement in the Battle AI between STW and MTW. In STW, the AI would only flank to either the left or right. In MTW, the AI would flank simultaneously to both flanks. This was a significant change.

I was truly looking forward to see what similar new tactic RTW's AI would bring.

The Disappointment, Oh, the disappointment. RTW's AI is worst than both the previous. Get's better, though, with things slowed to MTW speed.

---

I don't have a real memory regarding what CA said, but then I didn't really follow RTW's development too closely. I have not doubt that your memory is correct, but what if they did? They promised Campaign Multiplay TWICE!

---

TS wishes for a Veteran Only forum....

[Maltz]

AI extends their line very thin and long, so if they don't have enough units, they can't really turn to flank in time. If AI has 20 units then probably they have more chance to do that given the human player has slower and fewer units.

[Empedocles]

I believe I have another point of view in this subject.

In my case although I hate rebels, they don't appear that much in my games. I red the other day it was like a plague and everywhere rebel armies were appearing. definitely not in my case.

About the AI, it's true it has many things to be fixed but it's not that bad compared to MTW or STW!
In MTW I played Egyptians and were fightings french in northern spain when the Byz decided to attack my other frontier (really poor guarded) and after taking Antioch they stopped there! They could have easily make their way into Egypt before I could launch an attack.
In RTW I see same things but it's not like in MTW I was playing against Alexander!
In fact AI (with RTR 4.1.) gave me lots of headaches!!!
Also I agree that AI should merge their armies more often because it's sometimes easy to destroy them in separate.

Diego, from Argentina

[Slyspy]

I have already posted my opinions (poor) of the AI and the lack of development in RTW.

[dismal]

I was just recalling that in MTW a lot of times you'd beat a huge Army and the defeated faction would simply collapse, leaving a bunch of provinces up for grabs.