Until the patch is released, I am playing MTW!

[Zharakov]

I feel MTW had better unit equality. But RTW has better graphics and more indepth gameing.

I don't like RTW because I feel like the Urban Cohort is a master unit. It really is so unstopable that a trained chimp with no tactical ability could win with it.

I have evean seen them beat ELEPHANTS!?!


But other then that RTW is a good game that will get better with time...

[Red Harvest]

Red Harvest,

I respectfully wish to say that critical acclaim and GOTY awards are far more important than what a tiny proportion of hardcore critcs have to say.

If these people really believe RTW is third in a field of three, then they should go back to playing the other 2 and not rain on the parade of very enthusiastic players of RTW. If a majority of people thought the game sucked, I don't think it would be averaging 9/10 review scores, would it?

I didn't say the majority said it sucked. I don't feel that it sucks. However, its gameplay is presently weaker than MTW and perhaps even STW. It has improvements in much of the graphics, and it has many new facets that are a leap forward, but it stepped backward in key areas (and in those areas pre-patch it sucks.)

The problem with reviews? They are usually about a 1 week period of game play. If the game is interesting for a week, the reviewer is happy. If the graphics are great and do things that have not been seen before, it is going to get a good review. Doesn't matter if interest fades quickly. MTW/STW had staying power. Reviews don't matter to me once I've played a game myself... "If all your friends jumped off of a bridge would you jump off the bridge too?"

Another thing about reviews...what to they have for comparison? A bunch of RTS clones.

Reminds me of motherboard/graphics card reviews, where everyone falls all over themselves giving a good review to the latest high end beast. After all the enticing reviews, you buy the board or card and start finding out about its quirks. The reviewers rarely have the gear long enough to do anything meaningful. Just a bunch of benchmarks.

There are workarounds for most of the issues people complain about.

No, there are not. Now hopefully most of the worst will be patched, but it all stands on the quality of the AI. If the AI can't give the vets a decent game, there is not all that much that can be done to fix it. Mods can fix balance, they can give historical accuracy or variety. Mods don't rebuild the AI, only tweak it, or play to its strengths at best.

[caspian]

What's missing in RWT for me.

1. The battlefied's AI: how you really have to sometimes come up with different tactics other than charge and flank. And RTW units are (for me) somewhat dull, no uber cool units like Varangian Guards, Hashishins, Johms Vikings (I miss this bastards!)... I dont know, I just dont get exited when I train Chosen Swordsmen, Druids, even War Elephants.

2. The tension the campaign map/board generates. Like when you stack your border provinces with troops and the enemy does the same thing and you cant attack yet for fear of leaving another province open for yet another faction. Its like you're always on the verge of a battle. I miss that BIG TIME! But the RTW map is more true to the real thing but there's still something missing.

[AquaLurker]

Hi people,

In terms of tactical game plays and challenge, I don't get as much satisfaction as I had when playing MTW and STW. I am not really sure if it is because of inferior AI tactics because the AI of these games approach the battlefield in the same manner and attack in the same manner.

I think the problem lies in the fact that the AI doesn't have enough quality troops and generals to give us a tough time in the field not to mention that player controlled characters get their stars too easily and quickly. As THE SHOGUN had metioned, this part of the game will be addressed. Same goes for the stratagies of the AI in the campaign map.

What I feel is that RTW has more superior gameplay features than the previous TW series but can definately be refined and improved. We just had to hope that CA will refined the AI strategies in the game and fixed all the critical bugs.

Let us just cross our fingers and toes and hope for the best!

[Colovion]

Colovion, I'm curious what are you talking about. Because I've never played MTW before, so I'm just curious what is so arcade-themed in RTW that makes this game unauthentic.

To name a few of the most obvious:

Green arrows

Meatgrinder killing

Screeching Women, Head hurlers...

I'll stop there

[nokhor]

i think a big part of the reason for the disagreement among patrons is what they compare RTW to.

if you've never played the older totalwar games and compare RTW to other current strategy games, chances are you'll think its one of the best strategy games you've ever played, because there's nothing comparable. and if you were to go back later and try some of the earlier totalwar games, it's probably be difficult to get into, because you'd be transition from 3-d to sprites and less options on the strategic map side of the game. so it might seem like a lot of whining by the vets when we complain.

but if you started on the earlier games and have progressed to RTW, there is a serious deterioation in gameplay, atmosphere or whatever you want to call it and it is very noticeable. of all the totalwar geezers on the board, i think there is only one who argues that RTW is the best if the series. most are of the opinion that it could be the best, if it's fixed, and some believe CA has jumped the shark on this one and its beyond repair. so i think it matters what you compare RTW to when you evaluate it.

[lars573]

i think a big part of the reason for the disagreement among patrons is what they compare RTW to.

if you've never played the older totalwar games and compare RTW to other current strategy games, chances are you'll think its one of the best strategy games you've ever played, because there's nothing comparable. and if you were to go back later and try some of the earlier totalwar games, it's probably be difficult to get into, because you'd be transition from 3-d to sprites and less options on the strategic map side of the game. so it might seem like a lot of whining by the vets when we complain.

but if you started on the earlier games and have progressed to RTW, there is a serious deterioation in gameplay, atmosphere or whatever you want to call it and it is very noticeable. of all the totalwar geezers on the board, i think there is only one who argues that RTW is the best if the series. most are of the opinion that it could be the best, if it's fixed, and some believe CA has jumped the shark on this one and its beyond repair. so i think it matters what you compare RTW to when you evaluate it.

I'm one of those geezers who think RTW is the best of the 3. I played shogun for the first time when a friend loned it too me back in 2001. I loved it, when I heard about MTW some months later I really wanted it. I got it a month after it came out, I though it was better than STW in every way imaginable. I think the same about RTW when compared to MTW. The simple reason being the simplified game play has increased my enjoyment of RTW. Why well in MTW auto-calcing made for less casualties than fighting the battle myself. Now in RTW I can fight battles and not lose 2/3 of my armies like I did in MTW.

[Butcher]

True, but there is also a tendenancy to overlook some of MTW's faults, including it's less than sparkling AI (which, incidentally, only really got any good AFTER two patches and an expansion pack!).
But I agree about some elements of game design (especially the atmosphere, you don't really feel like the Romans) being superior in MTW.

[mambaman]

yup sorry guys but i'm with the vets that have been playing since the start of STW and feel that RTW is the best of the 3 by some stretch-not perfect by any means but certainly much more immersive.

Strangely it took me a while...for 1st month or so i really couldnt get into RTW and then something clicked-i now absolutely love it-when you look at the graphics, the campaign part and the total game experience there really is (for me) no comparison

It may be that the large number of bugs is a show stopper for many but they really can (in the main) be worked around...

And when i'm stuck-i come on here and canvass you good people for your opinions

[Old Celt]

The development team and resources that would be necessary to satisfy the most demanding 10% of complainants is well and truly beyond the means of game designers. Intuitive AI, doesn't just react, it plans, and thinks in its own offensive terms. Those of you who aren't happy with the battle AI will just continue to be disappointed for some time because a $50 product doesn't support the many millions of dollars it would take to give you what you really want.

As I predicted, the devs are responding to bugs, which reasonably should be fixed. AI behavior is not a bug: the product functions as designed. Human players can easily defeat the AI. Not a big surprise. I expect it will stay that way until breakthroughs in algorithms change the technology of AI forever. I think people need to understand that it's just a game, and what do you really expect to get for $50?

[Red Harvest]

The development team and resources that would be necessary to satisfy the most demanding 10% of complainants is well and truly beyond the means of game designers. Intuitive AI, doesn't just react, it plans, and thinks in its own offensive terms. Those of you who aren't happy with the battle AI will just continue to be disappointed for some time because a $50 product doesn't support the many millions of dollars it would take to give you what you really want.

That is just nonsense. God, I get sooooo sick of hearing that LAME excuse!!! It is a simple minded defense for NOT trying to write decent AI and making AI a very LOW PRIORITY. There are older games with better AI...think about that for a second. (I don't think Sid Meier had a defense budget to write Gettysburg or Antietam.) Why? Because they put their effort into AI not, graphics and baubles. Sure it costs money to do development..."many millions"... BS . NOT TRUE. It has more to do with allocation of resources and schedule.

The real truth is that most game development is out there to snatch the dollars of folks looking for some snazzy short lived product that entertains for a short time, then fades. Everyone targets the easy money. So get the product out fast with lots of bells and whistles, with weak AI that will interest folks briefly, then quickly get dull.

To write decent AI you need to either freeze the game rules fairly early or do serious AI development in patches. It does take time and it is easier for most to ship as soon as the game LOOKS good.

It is true that the vast majority of the public only is interested in the looks of the game. There is a niche of folks who want game play. AND it is possible to have both. Certainly when you have a series that is in its 5th release you cannot use the excuse about not having enough money or time to write decent AI. If anything your AI should get better every time, not worse. That was true of previous TW releases...

Congrats, Old Celt, you've bought into the line that has been the death of decent strategy gaming. Closed thinking ("it can't be done!") is the sign of an industry in its death throes.

[Old Celt]

Red Harvest,

I'm not saying these things to aggravate you, I'm saying them because, I'm a developer and I know a little about how software is built and marketed. I'll bring up the chess analogy again and ask how much it costs to develop an AI to beat a human chess master with 32 pieces and 64 possible fixed positions? It took 20 years and yes, MILLIONS of dollars to do it. And even now, whether that AI can consistently defeat human masters is open to debate. It bugs me to hear people who know very little about programming tell programmers how easy it should be to do what they want. I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, wouldn't you find it annoying for people to tell you how easy it should be to do it better? I know you probably don't believe me, but good AI is a very tough nut.

Almost any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it. The whole point of this is to give the majority of your buyers a happy experience with the product. They've achieved that goal. Hopefully, they've made some money, too. You can develop the best software imaginable, but if you don't have sales, you're sunk. So product design has to be to a lower level of player than that top 10% to keep costs down and maximize profit. Yes, great AI is available, but not much in the private sector. The best and brightest work for governments doing military simulation AI.

I disagree that the industry is in its death throes. There is so much RTS crap out there, it isn't even funny. People are buying it up like hotcakes, i.e. It's profitable!!! So the venue will continue, have no fear. Someone will come along and bring better AI to games in general, but that technology is not readily available now. Doable? Yes. Affordable? Not for games at this point. No one can show me a game with AI that really emulates any sort of military genius on the battlefield. They can't show me a strategy game that can even begin to beat a West Point pleb. But something is better than nothing, and RTW is fun for most people in its totality, even if not in many aspects of its battlefield AI.

[Turbo]

That is just nonsense. God, I get sooooo sick of hearing that LAME excuse!!! It is a simple minded defense for NOT trying to write decent AI and making AI a very LOW PRIORITY. There are older games with better AI...think about that for a second. (I don't think Sid Meier had a defense budget to write Gettysburg or Antietam.) Why? Because they put their effort into AI not, graphics and baubles. Sure it costs money to do development..."many millions"... BS . NOT TRUE. It has more to do with allocation of resources and schedule.

The real truth is that most game development is out there to snatch the dollars of folks looking for some snazzy short lived product that entertains for a short time, then fades. Everyone targets the easy money. So get the product out fast with lots of bells and whistles, with weak AI that will interest folks briefly, then quickly get dull.

To write decent AI you need to either freeze the game rules fairly early or do serious AI development in patches. It does take time and it is easier for most to ship as soon as the game LOOKS good.

It is true that the vast majority of the public only is interested in the looks of the game. There is a niche of folks who want game play. AND it is possible to have both. Certainly when you have a series that is in its 5th release you cannot use the excuse about not having enough money or time to write decent AI. If anything your AI should get better every time, not worse. That was true of previous TW releases...

Congrats, Old Celt, you've bought into the line that has been the death of decent strategy gaming. Closed thinking ("it can't be done!") is the sign of an industry in its death throes.

You are dead on mark with that comment. Remember SSI, SSG, and Avalon Hill that put out strategy games? Each one of these companies started out strong with good products and a strong customer base. Progressively each put out poorer and poorer quality games. Their customer base dried up and now these companies are ghosts of what they were.

There are always excuses and justifications that the suits rushed the game out, they ran out of money, blah blah. The worst excuse I keep hearing from the lapdogs are that we (the consumer) should be *grateful* for a patch that fixes bugs. The developers make a patch because they don't want to allienate the hardcore users. Allienate us and their sales go down.

[Old Celt]

Turbo,

I've read alot of posts on several forums and never once found a remark from a "lapdog" saying you should be grateful for a patch. All software has bugs. When they are identified, the releasing company has a responsibility to act for a reasonable length of time to support their work. Customer satisfaction as an overall indicator is very important.

The other side of the coin on support issues is that some people will never be pleased. No amount of work will make them happy. Now, if you are designing new programs, do you target the majority of your audience (whom you CAN please), or the few people who will never be happy? The answer is obvious there. Maybe you will like the next Total War release better, but even if you don't, whether or not CA cares by necessity, has to boil down to a question of whether you represent a large portion of their target market. You are in the minority, so guess what? Do you think Microsoft cares if 10% of the world hates Windows XP? (Mac users). Nope Microsoft doesn't care because they can't please those people.

I see these kinds of discussions on every gaming site I visit. You have people who like the game, and want to talk about it to get tips, or just to share their experience, and then these few people who want to beat up on it. The logical response is: so then go play something you like, but why cry in other peoples beer? The result of your complaints in this context isn't going to change a thing.

If you are really unhappy with the product, then write to CA and tell them so directly. Be specific about what you don't like and see what response you get. Tell them you vote with your dollars. If enough people complain, they get results. I just think you are totally barking up the wrong tree with a game that has gotten such consistently good reviews and happy people playing it.

[Red Harvest]

Programming a decent battlefield AI distills down to figuring out within the rules of the game what a competent human player uses as their own decision tree and coding in such a way that the computer AI can duplicate these decision trees in context. The decision tree aspect (pre-patch) is certainly lacking in RTW. I won't claim it is easy to get the multiple unit army handling to work, but when single unit management is poor, the root of the tree is rotten and you are sunk.

Chess doesn't apply, different type of strategy with very discrete rules for moves and pieces. Chess is far more based on pattern recognition and intuitive grasp, and requires overview of the entire board at once, things that are much more difficult to build into an AI. You cannot break it down as simply as you might a combat AI. I had quite a bit of experience playing chess computers in the old days. Opening books have improved, and computing power is literally thousands of times what it was when I bought my 2100 Expert Rated machine back in the late 80's (a Par Excellence running at 1 or 2 MHz.) It could give me a good game. One thing I noticed comparing chess software then and in the late '90's was how LITTLE had changed. They were all using the same basic numerical positional analysis that I remembered from the mid '80's software. The refinements were slight, but the increase in computing power and tricks was adding plies.

I have seen many folks pull off amazing things with very modest tools, because they believed they could--even when I thought the task was impossible. My own experience is that given some time, I could usually make complex computer simulators match real life performance of my process units. While my coding skills are limited, I did make insights to bridge the gap from simulation to reality, and develop algorithms that worked. (This is not advertisement for me, this is illustration that even non-programmers can have considerable insight into programming problems.) I worked in software development for a time, poking through the code to fix problems, testing the applications, adding features, improving the interface, and handling the tech support. I saw far more potential than I saw limitation while doing development.

I've also seen that it is possible to take an existing AI engine, and modify battlefields and the like to improve AI behavior, by knowing what the AI's goals were. Now if I can do that from the outside, imagine what a skilled programmer should be able to do from the inside?

I'll leave you with this consideration: in my years of working in manufacturing and software and trying to improve the tools I had at my disposal, I never saw anything improved by saying it would be too expensive and time consuming to do it right. I have seen projects fail that way though. I learned quickly (and the hard way) that when someone thought they could accomplish something with the tools at hand, you were best off to either help, or stay out of the way; because they were usually right.

[Colovion]

MTW;VI AI > Vanilla RTW's AI



Which game is the newest?

oh right - the one that is LESS THAN the other

It shouldn't be hard to keep things in the game which were once there. Not at all am I ragging on the devs here as they have deffinately shown their true colors by releasing this mammoth of a patch list before the patch is released... that is something I have truly never seen at such a scale before.

How about this: We wait until the patch comes out before we start arguing. I know I'll be putting in my two cents (or $3.08 as it'll turn out to be) but until that we're just doing this:



at least wait until they revive the horse before we run our mouths about problems which might be on the way to being fixed.

[Red Harvest]

Turbo,

I've read alot of posts on several forums and never once found a remark from a "lapdog" saying you should be grateful for a patch. All software has bugs. When they are identified, the releasing company has a responsibility to act for a reasonable length of time to support their work. Customer satisfaction as an overall indicator is very important.

Huh? I've seen those posts OVER and OVER and OVER again about how grateful everyone should be for the game or for the patch and that nobody should ever criticize it. It is common theme in any game forum. We call them the whiner whiners.

I've also seen many posts where folks can point to specific problems and be told they are wrong by the same types... It is amusing when a patch actually fixes the "non-existent" problem.

And the WORST defense of all is that "well, if you want a better product, you are a whiner and in the minority, so go away." That is what you are in effect saying. The best input I got for software development and bug fixes was from those "difficult customers."

Turbo's right about companies failing when they lose the thread. Drive off your core users and you have a serious problem. I have seen this from within a company as well as from outside. It usually takes a couple of years to reach a crisis state, but some of us see the indicators well ahead of time, when the shift occurs. Moving out of your niche into an over competitive commodity market is a classic blunder. When you decide that servicing your core niche is no longer important, you might as well put a gun to your corporate temple.

Hint for you: Don't go to a core player site and tell the core types that they are an insignficant part of that games market.

[Colovion]

Old Celt you should've been here during the demo/release times.

Then you would know what those lost vets truly feel.

Maybe do a little searching.

[Old Celt]

Red Harvest,

I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist. Building software is all about money in the gaming world. There are, no doubt, plenty of devs on the team who wanted to build it better than they did. But they were a year late. Intolerable by todays standards for delivery. There comes a time when the project manager and lead programmer go in a room, have a screaming match, and the release date is firmed.

I would absolutely love to see military genius in the AI of games I play. But it's never happened. Real military genius revolves around perfect timing and positional analysis of battlefield events, and these do relate to why chess programming is harder than it looks. A real commander evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the units opposing him, not just numbers. Effective tactics like sacrificing some cheap units to kill the other side rely on sharp assessment of all the variables of battle. I believe the chief problem is that no military experts on ancient warfare were directly involved in the product development (at least from a tactics standpoint). One day, a game developer will get smart, and realize that the added expense of playtesting with real experts will pay off in spades with the finished product. Until such time, we will have rudimentary computer opponents.

[Red Harvest]

Red Harvest,

I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist.

Old Celt,

It is time to get some of that optimism back! Don't let the b******* get you down. Nothing wrong with being a realist (except that being realistic with management can effect your raise or employment status.) Finding a balance is important. I'm a firm believer in the concept of continual improvement. Even if something has been done that way for ages...there is often a better way of doing it. That is where innovation comes from.

[Old Celt]

Hint for you: Don't go to a core player site and tell the core types that they are an insignficant part of that games market.

I think you might mean, "hard core" don't you? You seem to think that because you have a history of playing the series, that somehow entitles your opinion to have more value? What makes you "core" players? Most people don't complain bitterly about the shortcomings of the game because despite them, they still have a good time with it.

You are trying to tell me that by creating a GOTY, CA has also alienated their "core" players and "put a gun to their temple"??? I think you are overreacting to the situation just a tad.

They seem to have a good history. Their base product is good. I have faith that they will make good fixes in the patch, but that you will have to wait for an expansion pack (if any) to address AI issues.

And I don't want you to go away. You are just as entitled to say what you want as anyone else. I simply think what you are saying won't change anything, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT. That's because money makes the world go round, not doing the right thing. The hardest lesson I ever learned in life was that being right doesn't matter a whit, unless you're in charge.

[Colovion]

Red Harvest,

I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist. Building software is all about money in the gaming world. There are, no doubt, plenty of devs on the team who wanted to build it better than they did. But they were a year late. Intolerable by todays standards for delivery. There comes a time when the project manager and lead programmer go in a room, have a screaming match, and the release date is firmed.

I hope you realize that they would have had a product completed on time - but from their own mouths - Activision gave them a year extension so that they could build in other features and goodies that wouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Bhruic]

Speaking of being sick of something... How about these constant chess comparisons? Sure, one of the top ranked players in the world can sometimes beat a computer AI. Sometimes it beats him. Often they draw. That means that it can easily beat 99.99999999999% (probably a few more 9s in there) of the planet. Consistently. Are we asking for anything even remotely that challenging? Not hardly!

Asking for a decently challenging AI in a game is not at all similar to trying to program the 'ultimate' AI for a game. I've been decently challenged by freeware chess programs, and while I don't play chess often, I'm certainly not 'bad' at it. I would say I'm certainly in the top 50% of people who have played chess. If your program can beat over 50% of the population, then the AI is pretty good.

So yes, you can drag out the strawman fallacy with the "can't even win in chess", but that's all it is, a fallacy. It doesn't connect to this situation in the slightest.

Bh

[mambaman]

i think you should all take a deep breath.....and calm down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but lets have some respect for those same opinions eh?

As someone who doesnt post very often it dismays me to see people who obviously care deeply about the game having a go at each other like this......

[Colt374]

I think you might mean, "hard core" don't you? You seem to think that because you have a history of playing the series, that somehow entitles your opinion to have more value? What makes you "core" players?

Sorry to have to point this out, Old Celt, but that's exactly the case! Having a history of playing a series of games, no matter what the series, will always mean your opinion has more value when you are talking on their relevant forums. How often will you see the veterans views widely respected and noted on forums, while the newbies are often disregarded, (if not scorned) for their views!? Lets face it, it's the way the world works.... those with experience usually know more about the subject.

And frankly, I can't see how anyone who HASN'T played MTW and STW before RTW can EVER say anything about whether Rome is a great Total War game. How can they, when they obviously don't have all the facts and haven't seen the development of the series!? Only the veterans who played every game in the series, one after the after from the beginning of STW, can truly appreciate the differences and improvements that each new game has brought around.


One last note : When this site is the only site with a link on the Offical TotalWar.com website, I think you can safely assume that not only are the members here "core" players, but that CA also think so too.

Colt.

[IceTorque]

STW and MTW were " best sellers.
and with RTW they wanted a greater market share ????

maybe they should decide which market they want
the 50% of gamers who are starved of decent games who want a more mature game.... sim v's arcade
or the other half who are at saturation point with new game titles.

remember the STW demo spearmen v's archers wow i thought at last a realistic battle sim.
and MTW demo yep things were "looking better"
but the RTW demo left a sour taste in my mouth i only bought the game because i was such a fan of TW.

i waited years for this game but i'm not too interested in the next one

[Red Harvest]

IceTorque,

That sums it up for me as well (except I never tried the STW demo...went right to the game.) When I tried the RTW demo I was disappointed. I decided to buy the game right away, because it looked like it needed work. With other games I wait for prices to fall a little bit and a patch or two to come out. But with RTW I felt it was going to need all the input it could get...including mine. Waiting until it was too late to comment would have been stupid and self defeating. So I bought it right away so that I could dig into it.

Another reason for buying right away: I was expecting a single major patch, and that would be it. Indeed that is what we will be getting. I still can't figure out what CA was thinking with regard to speed. They had plenty of input to suggest it was too much and not a welcome change to most players. Merely giving an option to slow things down would have been an improvement.

[Sol Invictus]

I have owned all of the previous TW games as well as the expansions and I can see RTW going down a fairly consistent path. I think most of the TW vets remember STW and MTW as they ended up and are comparing mint fresh RTW to that standard; v1.1 doesn't even count as a patch imo. I truely believe; god let it be so; that RTW will be greatly improved by v1.2 and will finally be in a pristine state after the Expansion/Patch. Only at that time should we judge RTW in comparison to STW and MTW. The release versions of the preceeding two had plenty of problems.

I am worried about the noticeable move toward a more "user friendly" engine, but I will reserve judgement until after the expansion. I think that at that time, the vast majority of TW vets will judge RTW the finest iteration of the series. Then again, I may wrong.

[AntiochusIII]

Hey, err, anyone knows how to buy M:TW again?

I moved a country a year ago and didn't bring the M:TW game with me. After reading the forums I (now act as if I'm crying like a baby) WANT TO PLAY IT!!!

Unfortunately no place in Las Vegas seems to have the game.

I HATE Walmart. One day I'll kill them all with my gladius... I swear. (an oath to Jupiter.)

[Dimeola]

The problem is that the SP AI has a onetrack mind. The earlier games in the series were better programmed in this respect, IMHO. The first step is to give the AI some variation, then make it smarter. There is much that can be done to RTW in this regard that is not expensive or very timeconsuming.
D