I finally figured out why!!!

[dedmoroz]

I finally figured out why so many people (including myself) never finish a whole campaign and start a new one after few game years only.

There are few major reasons for that:

1. Nothing to wait for, except repetitive battles. Why? No reappearing factions, no civil wars, no Crusades, no Jihads, no invasions (like Mongol in MTW).
2. Easy, arcade style battles. 2 lines against each other, clash, and one army run away. Hey, don’t bother flanking with that cavalry unit – it won't be there in time anyway…
3. Easy battles? No problem you say. Try playing on VH. It is not like AI will be smarter or something. You will just fight some legion cohorts dressed like peasants.
4. Oh yes, and if you play on VH, never auto resolve if you don’t want those 2 units of Velities to cut your balls (never mind if you have 5 star general and 10 units of Hastati). I mean auto resolve is ridiculous; as a result you fight many repetitive battles and get boring fast.
5. Campaign game seems to be scripted – Armenia always destroyed, Egypt always a power horse, Rome factions will rule eventually... I am bored even as I write this GAH!!!!!
6. No different starting times, no great achievements mode. Just conquer, conquer, conquer, sell map information get some trade rights then conquer again. How entertaining! And don’t tell me about senate missions, they are lame and rewards are boring (they will give you 1000 dinari but now you at war with the whole world…).
7. Diplomacy – scripted, bugged and broken. AI will attack with no reason, refuse to make ceasefire when all they have is 1 sieged town left, sell its virginity for stupid map information and so on.

All factors above unfortunately completely ruin the gaming experience and make this game too much BORING…
It almost feels that CA had too many ambitions about this game, but dropped the ball in the middle.
I think that RTW has a great potential, but for now it is unfinished and unpolished product, that was rushed to the shelves.

For now, RTW will earn its place on a dusty shelve of mine, in a desperate wait for better times to come. I waited so many years for this game, I guess I can wait some more.
"Are you sure you want to completely remove RTW and all its files from your system?"

YES!!!!

[dismal]

Ouch. And you didn't even mention the CTD's.

Actually, given the repetitive battles getting them over quickly is a plus.

[Jeanne d'arc]

Please do not include me with those "many" people.

Patience is not a virtue granted to many here it seems .

[Slyspy]

I concur dedmoroz.

As for patience, I play Europa Univeralis II and Combat Mission. Is that patience enough for you?

[Orvis Tertia]

Good post. All of the criticisms listed above are valid and should be taken constructively. I think that the AI should indeed get harder on increased difficulty levels, instead of just being more weighted against you. And the game could certainly be improved by some sort of more dynamic system that would operate over the long haul of a campaign.

If you think about it, many strategy games mask over the boredom factor with a large technology tree that gives lots of constant feedback. In other words, you don't realize how repetitive your game has become because you are continually gaining a new level of technology and always struggling for that next advancement to keep you ahead of your competition.

I am glad that this game is not structured like that, because it is ultimately a shallow and unpleasing system. But the developers would do well to create something to put in its place. I am sure that we could come up with some exciting ideas on this subject.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Good post. All of the criticisms listed above are valid and should be taken constructively.

Now that I totally agree with.

[lysarin]

Good points... all of them seem to point toward one thing, the major fault with the game: the "ai" is stupid as hell! Also, there is no variation (which might be a result of the poor ai).

I also suffer from this but yet I keep playing... over and over again... you musn't forget the many good aspects of the game (and I've seen a few variations in campaigns - the seleucids growing to the size and power of egypt, the romans nearly defeated by greeks and gauls (saved only thanks to me!)).

[DisruptorX]

hehehe, you put your thumb on it pretty well, dedmoraz. Got to love the command and conquer style big ass "bar" and unit verifications. "ACCHKNOWLEGED" "AFIRRRMATIVE"

I will likely reinstall it at some point, but it was off my PC on week 2 after it came out. I have never been more dissapointed in my life. Oh well, back to MTW and Civilization 3.

[Scipio]

haha you hit the nail on this one, I agree with you entirely. Hopefully patches and expansions will bring new interesting aspects to the table, but for now my game will rot on my shelf as yours is.

[AssasinsShadow]

You may think I'm inpatient for agreeing here, but... hey I'm getting Crusader Kings for Christmas.

[jjnip]

1. Nothing to wait for, except repetitive battles.

I say yes the battles are repetitive, what? 2-20 units, 2 armies, or so. I say you have to try different factions. I definitely feel a difference after playing between Julli and Macedon and Carthage and Germania.

Julli being Roman starts off strong, has practically just 1 enemy at first the Gauls. Macedon makes good money, finish off Greek City states in vicinity and take on Brutti, makes for exciting campaign. Also Phalanx is not Hastati.
Carthage depending on how you play can have a battle on 4 fronts at once, Spain, Italy, Eastern Africa, and Western Africa and their infantry at first in vanilla sucks.

So battles are the same for a given faction so play a short campaign or try a different faction.

Mods
There are at least (4) mods that effect the overall game flow of the game. In no particular order:
1) Vorbis’s Compilation Mod
2) Lt. SPQR mod
3) Vlads soon to be released Vlads Total War
4) Gaius Rome Total Realism mod.

There are other smaller mods to affect game play.
1) Total Combat 1 and 2 I think there is a version for vanilla RTW
2) CVP, Cherry Vanilla Pack by the Trivarium
3) Plus mods that increases provinces, increases the number of cities and others.

There are what would be termed total conversions, some of which are getting alot of work done:
1) The Forth Age: Total War
2) China Mod
3) Medieval: Total War
4) Europa Barbarorum
5) Barbista Dacia Italy mod (?) at twcenter.

So a lot of mods that can change the way the game plays.

As far as reappearing factions--- I don’t have a issue with that. I like stamping them out. I understand some thought that was cool, but I think that’s a personal thing.

No civil wars?—There are civil wars, the Romans. Dacia?, Germania? Civil wars? That’s a game design decision, I don’t fault them for the way it is. Jihads, no invasions? Correct, there are no aliens either. Meaning some stuff is the way it is, not that it wouldn’t be better if there was not a scifi twist. I am sure somebody somewhere is stomping his feet saying, “How come no aliens, dammit.” I am not going to shoot it down aliens or anybodies idea.

2. Easy, arcade style battles. 2 lines against each other, clash, and one army run away. Hey, don’t bother flanking with that cavalry unit – it won't be there in time anyway…

The game is rock, paper, scissor, maybe you should play another game, or play this one less or find something else to complain about, or be realistic.

3. Easy battles? No problem you say. Try playing on VH. It is not like AI will be smarter or something. You will just fight some legion cohorts dressed like peasants.

This however is true, and is annoying. I agree 100%.

4. Oh yes, and if you play on VH, never auto resolve if you don’t want those 2 units of Velities to cut your balls (never mind if you have 5 star general and 10 units of Hastati). I mean auto resolve is ridiculous; as a result you fight many repetitive battles and get boring fast.

I agree 100%.

5. Campaign game seems to be scripted – Armenia always destroyed, Egypt always a power horse, Rome factions will rule eventually... I am bored even as I write this GAH!!!!!

I have seen and read of many differences. You cant say always, its more like 75% at most. Different things do occur.

6. No different starting times, no great achievements mode. Just conquer, conquer, conquer, sell map information get some trade rights then conquer again. How entertaining! And don’t tell me about senate missions, they are lame and rewards are boring (they will give you 1000 dinari but now you at war with the whole world…).

Senate missions are kind of lame I agree. You have to be careful though in a way because what is UT 2004, or Far Cry, shoot, shoot, duck. Anything can be reduced to its basic functions to be little it if you want. All you do is just peck peck peck on your keyboard. You of course would like to think that you are gracing us with your profound knowledge not just mimicking a chicken.

7. Diplomacy – scripted, bugged and broken. AI will attack with no reason, refuse to make ceasefire when all they have is 1 sieged town left, sell its virginity for stupid map information and so on.

This I agree with 100%.

All factors above unfortunately completely ruin the gaming experience and make this game too much BORING…

You have just not learned, or care not to make the game interesting and challenging.

It almost feels that CA had too many ambitions about this game, but dropped the ball in the middle.

I get the same feeling.

I think that RTW has a great potential, but for now it is unfinished and unpolished product, that was rushed to the shelves.

Red Harvest has a great post here, recently at https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...1&page=1&pp=30
and a little part says:

I'm looking forward to seeing what has been accomplished with the patch.

His post is beautifully constructive. Your post is just another uninformed individual getting bored thinking hey I guess I will go to a forum/website dedicated to the game and let everyone know I am bored with it.

Then you get all these people going, Ya, Ya, Ya your right it sucks, bla, bla, its to funny.

For now, RTW will earn its place on a dusty shelve of mine, in a desperate wait for better times to come. I waited so many years for this game, I guess I can wait some more.

I guess you can, good grief, keep us informed.


You could of listed 10 things to make the game better but that might be harder than complaining I suppose.

Every time I see a post like this I feel like saying, “Have you seen any mods, talked about any mods, posted on any forums about mods, played many different factions, done at least 1 long campaign, and 2 short campaigns?” There is a difference between Roman factions and Barbarian factions and Phalanx heavy factions playing styles. Oh you have done all this!!!!!---- you say. Well you got your moneys worth then.

Either buy another game, whatever, but you don’t have to post, I know why this game sucks now Post.

Its rude for one thing to the new people who just bought the game. It’s rude and inconsiderate to the people making mods.

It’s rude and inconsiderate to the people still playing.

I am well aware of the problems and issues, I don’t waste my time posting, I work to help modders make the game better.

If you see a problem work with a website that has modders, to see if you can modd the issue out. Be considerate, that’s all.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I agree that CA needs to put some work into this game, but if you think about it it would be extremely hard to make the AI for this game really smart, so you should give them some credit. Try bridge battles in campaign if you want something new, I just had to fight off a Scipii army on each side of a bridge as Seluecids, damn hard because I did not have any archers left and they had archers and onagers on both sides. I also had fewer units than the Scipii and they were less powerful. Needless to say it was tough and added a lot of spice to the tail end of my campaign. It is the tail end because I am about to raid Rome and have finally set foot on Italia! Burn Croton, burn....

I hope that CA fixes the bugs but the game is still better than almost everything else I have..... I have a lot of good games by the way. Doom 3 to name one, great first time through, little replay value.

[nokhor]

kenshin,

you were fighting a campaign battle and the AI had onagers? i've never seen it have them.

[Proletariat]

Between jjnip and demoroz's posts you probably do have the most fair review of this game I've seen in a thread, albeit in an unique format.

Although I believe demoroz' points are mostly valid, I don't know if I would've noticed half of this stuff without so many people belaboring these points (it's what drove me from the .com forums).

Does anyone who is familiar with programming and/or modding have an opinion on just how realistic it would be to have a much improved AI? I'm new to this series and love the game's concept, so I'm genuinely curious exactly what level of AI sophistication is realistic. I know certain things like friendly fire probably weren't the result of programming limitations but I'm not taking about oversights and simple mistakes... Is it actually possible to have a dynamic and stimulating level of AI on the battlefield with current technology?

I plan on looking into mods soon to jumpstart my interest in this game, but I'm leery of the ones out right now. Realism seems to have more cons than pros for me and I still am not sure about EB.

[The Storyteller]

I finally figured out why so many people (including myself) never finish a whole campaign and start a new one after few game years only.
...
5. Campaign game seems to be scripted – Armenia always destroyed, Egypt always a power horse, Rome factions will rule eventually... I am bored even as I write this GAH!!!!!
6. No different starting times, no great achievements mode. Just conquer, conquer, conquer, sell map information get some trade rights then conquer again. How entertaining! And don’t tell me about senate missions, they are lame and rewards are boring (they will give you 1000 dinari but now you at war with the whole world…).
7. Diplomacy – scripted, bugged and broken. AI will attack with no reason, refuse to make ceasefire when all they have is 1 sieged town left, sell its virginity for stupid map information and so on.

Maybe the reason why it gets boring is because you quit after a couple of years?

I don't see the problem with the domination of certain factions. Some of them just aren't good enough, just like what happened in real life. They're there to provide depth and richness to the game world. That's also why they're not playable in the original game - based on their rate of progress, military technology and location, they're doomed to failure.

I really don't see why the Senate missions are a problem. First of all, they are quite historically accurate, and rather sensible. They advance the power of Rome, that's what they're supposed to do. They advance your standing in Rome, which is exactly what should happen. I don't see them as lame, because their goals are logical. If Rome's goals always coincided with yours, and managed to stop you from, um, going to war with the whole world, you might as well not have them. Rome was besieged on all sides by enemies in her early days. This adds to the realism. So if you want to be selfish, build up your own power and pursue your own goals at the cost of alienating the senate. If not, do as the Senate says, but you will also have to mop up after their missions.

If you play longer, you will find that when you are attacked by a faction, the Senate often gives you missions to blockade that faction's ports or capture one of their cities. That certainly doesn't lead to you going to war with the world.

As for diplomacy, men are seldom logical. Would you want to give away map information that will allow a potential enemy to find his way around your settlements? Can you ever imagine the Spartans surrendering, even when they're down to their last man? Especially if they're surrounded by your armies. What's a ceasefire going to do when all they have is one piddling little town? Just delays the inevitable. I have seen the Greeks hold out for a ceasefire on the condition that I return their settlements. Seems sensible to me.

If diplomacy "made sense", and everyone did exactly as you expect, I have no doubt that someone will be complaining that it's too predictable.

[KiOwA]

Unless you are playing as a roman faction, there is no larger goal than 'take 50 settlements and crush Rome. In the meantime fight lots of repetitive battles.' Even the Senate missions are kinda unimaginative, after a while. My opinion is that players need to have some bigger goals, or at the very least have working AI alliances. For example, if my empire expands to something like 30 states, several AI factions will drop their old hatreds, ally and gang up on me. Abit like Risk, where being the biggest faction was akin to painting a big bull's-eye on thy butt.

[lt1956]

Well I dont think any new people realize how bugged some of the features are in the game. Its really not wise or fair to jump to conclusions without first checking out the mod sections. TWcenter is a good place for mods.

I know CVP fixed the triggers for the game, The hardy and heat bug have been fixed by modders. as well as balance issues and different gameplay.

Really I usually dont even post in a thread about this and just laugh to myself that no one did a search or bothered to download and try a mod. Most of the time you will find a mod makes the game BETTER!

The patch will be out and those of us who a wise make or use mods until the patch. Now if the patch is CRAP. thats different. lol But until the patch comes out we have all heard enough of this "Crap" to last 10 Rome total wars to come!

Lt

[Attalus]

Each to their own I suppose...

I agree with alot of issues raised in this thread,the AI, Diplomacy and some of the more obvious bugs.

I'm still enjoying the game, though.

I have a fairly extensive game collection, and I constantly drag 'em all out from time to time...too much of any one thing can get repetitive.

Well...maybe not everything...

Rome TW is a good game...and perhaps, after the much lauded patch, a great one.

-Attalus-
Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice...prepare to die

[Servius]

I guess I agree that improving the AI would make the biggest improvement in the game. To do that, as a programmer, you'd probably have to...

1) Design an optimal standard army for each faction and time/tech period, taking into account the units you can make and their strengths and weeknesses. For instance, Roman armies would have more infantry than, say, the horse kingdoms.

Create a set of preferences for those units in the given conditions (factions and time/tech periods) such that the AI produced those units in the right proportion. So like 8 Hastati for every 4 Velites and 2 Equites, etc. You'd also have to create a preference for the AI to assign a good general to these armies

Once you did that, at least the AI would be producing the right balance of troops. Next you have to teach the AI to group those units into army stacks and to replace/retrain units that take casualties.

Then you'd have good, balanced armies, led by decent generals, moving together in army stacks. The last step is to provide the AI with a system of choosing targets, but that shouldn't be too hard. Armies want to blockade ports, destroy your armies, kill your faction members, take your cities, and defend their own. The AI should be able to distinguish which targets are more valuable than others. For instance, measuring the value and difficulty of taking a rich city of yours vs the value and difficulty of defending a poor cities of theirs. In naval combat, the AI's first priority is to destroy my fleets, then to blockade my richest port, followed by the next richest, and so on...

All of that is at the Strategic level. I really have no idea how to tell an AI how to use each type of unit in combintation with the others. The tactics of Combined Arms took humans a good while to figure out, but I believe the Greek Phalanx was the last time any human army consisted almost entirely of just one unit type.

Warcraft III's AI did a pretty good job of making balanced armies that supported each other. Tanks were in the front, casters in the back, Heros were in the front or back depending on their type, and they withdrew when it looked like they might die.

The Tactical AI should be able to determine preferable terrain to fight on, how to keep archers behind infantry, it already keeps cavalry on the flanks, and even our own cavalry are already predisposed to ignore the shortest route to an nme unit in preference to circling round and hitting them from the rear...

Much of this seems possible. I think it just depends on who CA is making this game for. It obviously seems like it was NOT made for TW veterans, seeing that it stripped out lots of good things (rank bonuses, sturdy spearmen, morale scale icons, maps with prominent geographic possitions, etc.). The game has been dumbed down, streamlined in certain things (those others have been made cumbersome for some reason). I believe if/when CA decides that their most important market is TW veterans, many things in the game will change. Until then, we're just whiners and we can mod the game if we want. Once they see veterans as the target audience, the game will have bugs and balance issues and they'll be patched.

[SwordsMaster]

Challenge? Play Seleucids and let the brutii expand in your direction as I did

At some point around 200bc the clash was inevitable....
SO I landed my best army near Tylis (sp?) in Thrace. I had to fight 7 battles in 1 turn with my 1480 men against multiple brutii stacks. I didnt move my army, I didnt have time to refill the depleted units.

All the roman rmies I faced were more than 1000men strong and 5 times they brought another stack as big as reinforcements.

The worst moment was fighting 3 1400 men armies in the same battle. All my ranged unit run out of ammo, my Bastarnae mercs were reduced to 20 and my militia cavalry to 18 men out of 160. And I lost all my elephants.

But I survived with some 1100 men in my army and a gneral that went from 3 to 9 stars in 1 turn. (That was funny, he got all the military traits except good attacker).

That was a hell of a turn.

[dismal]

Challenge? Play Seleucids and let the brutii expand in your direction as I did

At some point around 200bc the clash was inevitable....
SO I landed my best army near Tylis (sp?) in Thrace. I had to fight 7 battles in 1 turn with my 1480 men against multiple brutii stacks. I didnt move my army, I didnt have time to refill the depleted units.

All the roman rmies I faced were more than 1000men strong and 5 times they brought another stack as big as reinforcements.

The worst moment was fighting 3 1400 men armies in the same battle. All my ranged unit run out of ammo, my Bastarnae mercs were reduced to 20 and my militia cavalry to 18 men out of 160. And I lost all my elephants.

But I survived with some 1100 men in my army and a gneral that went from 3 to 9 stars in 1 turn. (That was funny, he got all the military traits except good attacker).

That was a hell of a turn.

If the game played like that consistently, no one would be complaining.

I play the game and enjoy it, but I think all of the criticisms are fair.

The campaign map seems far less engaging than M:TW. I remember really having to think about map decisions like whether to build economy or troops and whether to risk war to take a key border or economic province. In R:TW most of the game is spent making troops, advancing troops, and taking territory. No decisons required.

The battles I like better, but I wish they were fewer and more meaningful.

[dedmoroz]

Thank you for all replies
In my post I didn’t mean to be rude or unconstructive.
Just want you to know that I am a big fun of TW series for many years now. And I have a big respect to the org community.
I do aware about different RTW mods which can enhance the gameplay (last mod I used was RTR 4.1).
I think I do give enough support to both CA, by paying for 2 games (one for my 13 years old bro), and the community by using mods, reporting bugs and making, hopefully, constructive and interesting posts.
I don’t know how to mod by myself, guess I have no talent for that, but I do aware about what can be changed through modding and how easy it could be done, if at all.

Unfortunately, my thoughts and feelings about RTW in its current state can't be changed by a post or a single word.
But it can be changed by a good solid patch. Till then, I will continue to lurk here and there on this forum, because it is the best thing I can do about RTW for now

[ToranagaSama]

I finally figured out why so many people (including myself) never finish a whole campaign and start a new one after few game years only.

There are few major reasons for that:

1. Nothing to wait for, except repetitive battles. Why? No reappearing factions, no civil wars, no Crusades, no Jihads, no invasions (like Mongol in MTW).
2. Easy, arcade style battles. 2 lines against each other, clash, and one army run away. Hey, don’t bother flanking with that cavalry unit – it won't be there in time anyway…
3. Easy battles? No problem you say. Try playing on VH. It is not like AI will be smarter or something. You will just fight some legion cohorts dressed like peasants.
4. Oh yes, and if you play on VH, never auto resolve if you don’t want those 2 units of Velities to cut your balls (never mind if you have 5 star general and 10 units of Hastati). I mean auto resolve is ridiculous; as a result you fight many repetitive battles and get boring fast.
5. Campaign game seems to be scripted – Armenia always destroyed, Egypt always a power horse, Rome factions will rule eventually... I am bored even as I write this GAH!!!!!
6. No different starting times, no great achievements mode. Just conquer, conquer, conquer, sell map information get some trade rights then conquer again. How entertaining! And don’t tell me about senate missions, they are lame and rewards are boring (they will give you 1000 dinari but now you at war with the whole world…).
7. Diplomacy – scripted, bugged and broken. AI will attack with no reason, refuse to make ceasefire when all they have is 1 sieged town left, sell its virginity for stupid map information and so on.

All factors above unfortunately completely ruin the gaming experience and make this game too much BORING…
It almost feels that CA had too many ambitions about this game, but dropped the ball in the middle.
I think that RTW has a great potential, but for now it is unfinished and unpolished product, that was rushed to the shelves.

For now, RTW will earn its place on a dusty shelve of mine, in a desperate wait for better times to come. I waited so many years for this game, I guess I can wait some more.
"Are you sure you want to completely remove RTW and all its files from your system?"

YES!!!!

While I might not agree word for word, like in 1., I've never really "waited" for anything in any of the TW games; and, say 5., I'd not given much thought to the *campaign* scripting. Then, I think that playing the Juii, one might wonder why don't the Gauls go beat up on somebody else for a change?

With the slight reservations above, I agree with you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

1. Correct! Too many battles-period!

2. Easy, arcade style battles. 2 lines against each other, clash, and one army run away. Hey, don’t bother flanking with that cavalry unit – it won't be there in time anyway…

Nothing much more to say. You said it. I will simply add that I, ToranagaSama, find this *battle style*(, if you can call it a style) to be an Insult. It is an affront to the, time, effort, and dedication, from Day 1 of Shogun's release, given to disecting and developing a knowledge and skill set, which RTW completely disenfranchises. I cannot emphasize my feelings on this issue enough. It's a joke!

I just don't get it.

Think about the Design and Implementatoin effort that CA put into creating Shogun, and to, seemingly, just throw it out the window....

and

---

3. Easy Battles. Vanilla battles are just a numbers game. Tactical Manuevering has become null and void, which leaves the only reliable tactic to be that of outnumbering the AI on the battlefield. If you don't outnumber the AI then you're in deep shit, because there isn't any other tactic available. That is, if one refrains from using the uber cheesy units like Elephants, etc.

As an aside, I, too, agree, that Difficulty levels need to evolve beyond giving the AI stat and build cheats, etc. It's time for the actual "intelligence" of both the Campaign and Battle AI to improve as you move up the Difficulty scale.

---

4. Autoresolve. In STW and MTW, there was *some* marginal use for this feature; but in RTW it is WHOLLY useless. One could outnumber the AI's stack ten to 1, and wind up lossing some of your bodyguard units, archers, slingers, velites, calvalry, etc., possibly even your General. This is ridiculous!

Autoresolve needs to more closely mimick the manner in which an experienced and intelligent player approaches a battle. Particularly, the manner in which one approaches a battle against Rebel stacks, and when the Player greatly outnumbers the AI stack.

Autoresolve should take into account, the quality of units, the type of units, and the margin of difference in the number of units, Stack vs. Stack. For example, with a 5 to 1 advantage in troops, with half my stack consisting of very valuable high quality units, a human player is NOT going to engage with these units, but will use the lowest quality to take on the outnumbered AI.

Autoresolve should, also, take into account the manner in which a Player will make use of missle units. For instance, if the Player stack has missle units, but the AI stack does not. A human player is just going to hang back and fire away until the AI stack is destroyed, routes, or the Player runs out of missles.

More succintly, when I, the player, outnumber and out-quality an AI stack, I should not lose, my General or Family Member, nor any of their bodyguard, nor any of my Archers/Missle Units, nor any of my very elite/experienced units. As a human player, I simply am not going to *risk* engaging any of these units in hand-to-hand/melee combat. My General/Family Member/Bodyguard/Elites are going to hang back, and my missle units will fire from range.

[JFYI, I will also do all sorts of things to induce/trigger the fear/route factor. Such as, sending my calvary WAY out in the Flank, just to phsyche out the AI; even moving them far to the AI rear (never actually risking my Cav). Moving units into uber flanking positions; whatever, I can creatively think up to phsyche the AI. I really don't want to fight, I don't want to risk my troops, I just want the AI to flee.]

If I *have* to melee then I'll use the shittiest troops I have in my Stack, more pointedly, I'll use the most *replaceable* units.

As well as, my Calvalry will only engage to run down Routers. In fact, a good player will ONLY engage his calvary in a relatively desparate situation in which he is outnumbered or evenly numbered and the battle can be tipped by utilizing Calvalry directly. Otherwise, Calvalry s/b strictly Router *chasers*!!!

Autoresolve does not take into account ANY of the above. With each new version of TW, from Shogun thru Rome, Autoresolve has devolved, from Marginal to Useless; while the *need* for it has gone from marginal to great!

Oh! I almost forgot, in RTW autoresolve lets the AI get away to fight another day!!! I NEVER, NEVER, allow this!!! NEVER! When TS engages an army, that army will be destroyed never to fight again, or TS is destroyed, there is no compromise.

---

5. Scripting. Out of all seven issues above, this would be the lowes in priority. Given that, it would be nice if when starting a new campaign, for example, repeatedly playing the Juii, if the Gauls weren't my number one enemey. Maybe say, I could make peace or ally with the Gauls, and feel relatively secure they'll honor the peace and/or alliance. Now, this campaign, I could, initially, focus upon another faction.

As the game is, the Gauls are going to attack the Juii, no matter what. Playing the Juii, the player *must* focus immediately upon the Gauls. It might be nice to situate some variety when starting subsequent campaigns.

---

6. Not sure about the "starting times"; but, wholly agree:

Just conquer, conquer, conquer, sell map information get some trade rights then conquer again. How entertaining!

IMO, the above includes and incorporates the insignificant and inconsequential battles syndrome. Add to this the Sieges. Sieges are fun and entertaining, but, please, siege after siege after siege after siege after siege, ENOUGH! I don't want to go into a city 100% of the time, I don't want to go into a city 75% of the time, I don't want to go into a city 50% of the time. 25% would probably be just about right, and gues what? I ONLY want to be compelled to go into and take it, when the doing is *significant* and *consequential*.

Let me state for re-emphasis: Autoresolve is useless!

Perhaps a simple fix for autoresolve would be to give the Player the capability to *discount* certain units or unit types, etc. from autoresolve's calculations. To be useful, Autoresolve needs to do 80-85% as well as a good player in battle. In the beginning stages of a Campaign, say the first 25-33%, autoresolve should not be allowed to kill off a player's General or Family Members (and leave my archers alone as well! ;) )

I could expand upon this, but I'll stop.

Senate Missions. This s/b optionable. I want to turn this OFF! and/or make it more relevant. Though, I can't see this happening w/o a great deal of creative and time-consuming coding.

Hey Senators, leave me alone! I'm the Juii, my purpose is to kick some Gaul butt, before they kick mine. No! I'm not going to attack Carlis and the Carthaginians. Who do you people expect me to trade with? Don't you see all their ships?! (not that they'll use them in any intelligent way.)

5 turns later, NO! I'm not going to attack the Greeks. I don't even have a Port on, nor any ships in, the Adriatic! Can't you dumb Senators see that?? Guess what? I don't have ANY ships at all. So, how am I going to attack the Greeks? Even if I did, are you people insane? You want me at war with the Carthiginians and the Greeks? What of my fight with the Gauls? Oh, and don't forget those Dacian barbarians to my right?

Forget it. Ignore the Senate, they must be drinking too much wine. Keep your money and titles.

---

7. Diplomacy. Maybe I'm wrong, but...ahhh...simply lopping off Civ's Diplomacy Model and dropping it into a TW game isn't having the best outcome. TW isn't Civ! We need a Diplomatic Model suited and designed for the vagaries, particularities, and uniqueness relative to Total War.

IMHO, Diplomacy as it is, is tediuos, boring, and the results are unsubstantive for the effort required. I mean, Offer, Counter-Offer, Offer, Counter-Offer, Offer, Counter-Offer.... How long does it take to make a deal for you guys? Takes too long for me, and the majority of the time its a no deal. Granted, I (may) play a little more hardcore than the noob, and consequently don't have uber funds to make uber offers (which I think is a cheesy play; and, generally, believe bribing to be cheesy).

[Uesugi Kenshin]

To whoever has not seen the AI use Onagers and other siege weapons I bet I know why: You have never fought the Romans for very long. In my campaign I just finished I was forced to finish the game by sacking Rome because I was having 2-3 rebelions/riots a turn due to capital distance. Half of the Roman armies I faced had at least a unit of scorpions. Many had onager units that I had to suicide rush with Cataphracts or Companions.


BTW I do not think it would be very reasonable to expect extremely smart AI for a while because the other games you mentioned have much more simplistic AI that has to deal with fewer variables. In warcraft three each unit is just one guy with one type of attack with 0 chance for friendly fire and no charge ability or negatives from flanking. In Warcraft 3 you basically clash two big buffed up groups of units against each other and use a few special abilities and find out who had the better army. Fewer tactical decisions are involved. If you have two armies sandwich an army that is more powerful than the other two you will still lose and so on.



By the way I enjoyed Warcraft 3....

[Yun Dog]

Players,

there are some excellent comments here, not wanting to reiterate too much, I will relate some of my personal experiences with the game.

1st I would say I have loved playing this game the new graphics engine made me cry tears of joy when I first saw it. The city seiges maps and backdrops are beutiful.

I have not played the game to death and as such am still finishing my first campaign

with all thats been said about the AI theres little more to add but I have had some great battles and Ive even lost one or two - maybe Im not the great general as some of you and have commited cardinal sins whilst caught up in the dust, flies and screams of the battle. In fact on more than one occassion Ive been caught by reinforcements in the flank while Ive been watching some cavalry mow down peasants or a flaming balls send men flying into the air or a square of burnt bodies in perfect turtle formation, or horses jumping into walls of spears and rearing or my general falling into the river and drowning, and ELEPHANTS - let me just say that again ELEPHANTS... ahhh so many great moments *daydreams about RTW moments from last nights battle*.

I have found there are alot of battles and yep I agree now Ive taken rome and am simply expanding till I have the required number of provinces is a little dull.

most of the other critisms could be leveled at most RTS games in fact the diplomacy, ships and AI (strat and battle) ones were never solved for MTW so theres nothing surprising. When you think of the computations that would be required to make a good AI opponent, its going to be near impossible I think, most games that have achieved smarter AI have done it with games that are in essence simpler and not so tactics dependent. I agree STW is still the best in my opinion - I dont know tactically it was brilliant but there was a set number of just a few unit types and I think that was what made it exceptional because the units were limited - you knew what attack and counters would be made and it was all about the tactics.

Complaining about the AI is like complaining about the weather - unless you know how to make it better then Ive heard it all before sorry.

As far as replayability - Im looking forward to playing the other factions they should be a feast for the eyes - agreed that strategically MTW with its crusades and glorious achievements was better than the senate - meh

really looking forward to the mods - this will save RTW in my opinion - the Modability is greatest for RTW of all the tws ive read - this means expect some great mods - I cant wait. I may have finished my first campaign.

to sum up I think this is the start of a great thing - something to build on - it will only get better from here - and for me the visual feasts of the epic battles still make the game well worth playing - to some extent - it is what you make it - now if youll excuse me my army has marched halfway across the world to seige the great ancient city of Carthage

infantry form up for advance

archers IGNITE - IGNITE

[ToranagaSama]

Its rude for one thing to the new people who just bought the game. It’s rude and inconsiderate to the people making mods.

It’s rude and inconsiderate to the people still playing.

I am well aware of the problems and issues, I don’t waste my time posting, I work to help modders make the game better.

If you see a problem work with a website that has modders, to see if you can modd the issue out. Be considerate, that’s all.

Want to know what's truly rude?

Newbies, who act in a definitive manor about a game they JUST bought!!

Dude, not only have you failed to comprehend quite a bit, for example, like what the poster meant by "repetitive battles"; as well as his meaning and point about "Civil Wars". You don't even comprehend what he's talking about, yet you've got a lot to say.

Guess what? He's NOT talking about the battles being the "same", he's talking about the *frequency* of battles, most of which are insignificant and inconsquential. Get it?

BTW, who the H would want to fight a 4 front battle? Actually, you mean a 4 front *war*, don't you? Again, NOT what he's talking about.

Regarding civil wars and all the comments in that paragraph, try to comprehend, what he's talking about is that there are SEVERAL game elments which existed in the two previous games that have sereptiously evaporated. Those elements added a dimension to the TW series that is no longer. Further, it is not simply a single element, but the combined effect of all the elements that is SERIOUSLY missing.

The solutive suggestions that you so inelegantly suggested the poster s/h provided is to put them BACK! into the game.

Frankly, if *you* were trying to be helpful, then *you* would have pointed out that, Corruption, Pollution, Devastation, etc., and the consquences thereof, serve, in RTW, in place of those missing elements. But you didn't do that did you?

Quote:
2. Easy, arcade style battles. 2 lines against each other, clash, and one army run away. Hey, don’t bother flanking with that cavalry unit – it won't be there in time anyway…


The game is rock, paper, scissor, maybe you should play another game, or play this one less or find something else to complain about, or be realistic.

WHAT? are you talking about? Do you even know? Obviously, not!
You have NO comprehension whatsoever what the poster is talking about, yet you've got a mouthful.

It's not about rock/paper/scissor, its about the fact that the Terrain, Fatigue effects, in addition to other effects and factors are either non-existent or have been nullified to the detriment of tactical gameplay.

Both STW and MTW were about MORE than simply rock/paper/scissor, you knew that didn't you? NOT! Pure Newbieness!!!!

Here's my helpful suggestion: Have a seat, sit back, and LURK (and learn) awhile....

This however is true, and is annoying. I agree 100%.

Is it ONLY OK for the poster to post when *you* Agree???

Quote:
6. No different starting times, no great achievements mode. Just conquer, conquer, conquer, sell map information get some trade rights then conquer again. How entertaining! And don’t tell me about senate missions, they are lame and rewards are boring (they will give you 1000 dinari but now you at war with the whole world…).


Senate missions are kind of lame I agree. You have to be careful though in a way because what is UT 2004, or Far Cry, shoot, shoot, duck. Anything can be reduced to its basic functions to be little it if you want. All you do is just peck peck peck on your keyboard. You of course would like to think that you are gracing us with your profound knowledge not just mimicking a chicken.

Again, WHAT? are you talking about? Do you know? What does FC and UT have to do with the Total War series???? Do you have ANY SPECIFIC IDEA WHAT the poster is talking about? You comments are off-the-wall having nothing to do with what the poster is talking about. Clueless.

Also, that "chicken" comment was insulting. You need to check yourself and realize where you are.

This I agree with 100%.

More hypocracy?

Quote:
All factors above unfortunately completely ruin the gaming experience and make this game too much BORING…


You have just not learned, or care not to make the game interesting and challenging.

Now you've really done it.

You, sir, don't know what you're talking about in any way, shape or form. All of your comments are bogus, without substance, without substantiation, and without knowledge, in other words ignorant.

I dunno know, maybe it just *my* world. When I pay hard cash, I believe I'm paying for a game that IS "interesting and challenging".

On second thought, maybe I've got it backwards, perhaps I'm just paying for the opportunity to make an un-interesting and un-challenging game, "challenging and interesting".

Damn it! Why didn't some tell me before. All these years I've been buying game with the wrong premise.

I get the same feeling.

Hypocrit.

His post is beautifully constructive. Your post is just another uninformed individual getting bored thinking hey I guess I will go to a forum/website dedicated to the game and let everyone know I am bored with it.

Then you get all these people going, Ya, Ya, Ya your right it sucks, bla, bla, its to funny.

First of all, WHY, are you dragging Red Harvest into this?

Second, talk about calling the Kettle black.

It's incredible. The original poster made comments belieing his, OBVIOUS, knowledge and experience with the game.

Then *you* jump off, with reply comments so concretely clueless that you should be embarrassed.

Then you get all these people going, Ya, Ya, Ya your right it sucks, bla, bla, its to funny.

You're the one who's funny dude, it's really bad when you don't even know it. How does that feel?

Every time I see a post like this I feel like saying, “Have you seen any mods, talked about any mods, posted on any forums about mods, played many different factions, done at least 1 long campaign, and 2 short campaigns?” There is a difference between Roman factions and Barbarian factions and Phalanx heavy factions playing styles. Oh you have done all this!!!!!---- you say. Well you got your moneys worth then.

EVERY TIME *I* read a NEWBIE post like yours I want to ask:

Have you played STW? MTW? The MedMod? Have you played the game for 24 hours straight? Have you talked about, discussed, disected, experimented with the TW series for the last few YEARS? Do you play in a Cheesy fashion? Do you play with HARDCORE rules? Have you ever won a battle one unit vs three? 3 units vs 6? Have you EVER beaten back the AI at the highest difficulty, 5 Stacks, 6, 7, 8, with just a SINGLE Stack? Have you done it playing the MedMod? Have you ever sat atop Shiano? Faced the Hojo Horde? Seen an army of Monks in flowing white robes? Have you....

Rock/Paper/Scisssor----you make me laugh!

Who are you? Who? Who? I'll tell you: A Newbie with a mouthful.

---

Dude, I gotta tell you, forget all the above, it's the following comments that have REALLY ticked me off:

Either buy another game, whatever, but you don’t have to post, I know why this game sucks now Post.

Its rude for one thing to the new people who just bought the game. It’s rude and inconsiderate to the people making mods.

It’s rude and inconsiderate to the people still playing.

I am well aware of the problems and issues, I don’t waste my time posting, I work to help modders make the game better.

If you see a problem work with a website that has modders, to see if you can modd the issue out. Be considerate, that’s all.

Once again, WTF are you talking about?

How is it rude to newbies? How so to modders? How to those, including myself, still playing? Isn't your post a waste?

It's you who are rude. It's you who are inconsiderate. It's you who are ignorant.

It's rude and its ignorant to talk when you don't know of that which you speak. It's even worse to be a hypocrit.

[Paul Peru]

why so many people (including myself) never finish a whole campaign

Sign me up!

2. Easy, arcade style battles. 2 lines against each other, clash, and one army run away. Hey, don’t bother flanking with that cavalry unit – it won't be there in time anyway…

Amen to that. As TS states in more detail, you don't get much reward for your tactical skillz.

4. Oh yes, and if you play on VH, never auto resolve if you don’t want those 2 units of Velities to cut your balls (never mind if you have 5 star general and 10 units of Hastati). I mean auto resolve is ridiculous

Amen. Why do I loose half my krreshian arsers when I autoresolve against a vastly inferior enemy?

5. Campaign game seems to be scripted – Armenia always destroyed, Egypt always a power horse, Rome factions will rule eventually... I am bored even as I write this GAH!!!!!

Maybe it's more of a balancing issue? A combination of starting position, unit roster etc.? I've played Armenia, and I'm not surprised that the AI doesn't fare well there. The units are good, but the economy is not, and the population growth is near nil. No scripting needed to snuff it early.

7. Diplomacy – scripted, bugged and broken. AI will attack with no reason, refuse to make ceasefire when all they have is 1 sieged town left, sell its virginity for stupid map information and so on.

There's a lot to dislike with the diplomacy. I've yet to patiently, painstakingly groom relations with other factions (in accordance with the diplomacy guide) to see if that yields results, but as discussed a lot there are so many other factors detracting from the pleasure of playing a proloned campaign... I have serious issues with the seemingly hard-coded animosity towards the player-controlled faction. Even if I'm not the biggest threat at the time or anything, they seem to mob up on me a lot. Maybe it's just the pot making me call the kettle collect.

It almost feels that CA had too many ambitions about this game, but dropped the ball in the middle.

Amen! They took some time to finish it, but there's a lot of semi-donkeyed stuff in there. This is apparent both from glaring bugs/issues, and from the content of many files in the game directory. Not a perfect crime... Though the strategic AI faces challenges of a greater magnitude given the nature of the map, I' can't get over how they've made this game so much worse in many ways.

For now, RTW will earn its place on a dusty shelve of mine, in a desperate wait for better times to come. I waited so many years for this game, I guess I can wait some more.

Argh! I still can't stop playing...

PS TS: I don't play all hardcore, and I've never seen monks flapping. Other than that it's mostly "yes, yes, yes". Please don't hurt me!

[MacBeth]

ToranagaSama - you have summed it up expertly.

My main worry is, that with so many new 'gamers' enjoying RTW, CA may never bother with it's core fans wishes.

As to mods, I certainly respect the community, but I hate and have no understanding for downloading stuff into my machine - if anything goes wrong I have to buy a new one.

I am an antisocial bast*rd who bought the game to get away from people and immerse myself in fantasy Rome. Now I have to keep coming to forums to look for a patch 'cause the game don't give me what its predecessors virtually promised me.

[ToranagaSama]

PS TS: I don't play all hardcore, and I've never seen monks flapping. Other than that it's mostly "yes, yes, yes". Please don't hurt me!

Gotta play Shogun!!

[Lonewarrior]

Well that's not quite true for me. I like to start new campaings each time, but I will always finish the other ones.