Has anyone been to totalwar.com recently

[therother]

You can chose to sit around and whine for weeks on end or you can roll up your sleeves and try to nail down this bug.

You are, of course, right Gregoshi. It would indeed be pointless if all the community had been doing was sitting about. The problem is, unfortunately, that many have expended a large amount of their time trying to nail down this bug. And to be honest, I think the efforts of the community were entirely successful, within the limits of what we can be expected to do. Beyond that, we need CA to come in and give us a hand.

IMHO, the community has demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that an issue exists. The sheer weight of evidence that something changes when a game is reloaded is simply staggering.

CA's "definitive" response means that they have extensively tested this issue, and found no fault. If this is indeed their final say on the matter, then it is entirely possible that the Expansion Pack will not resolve this issue. But this new response gives little or no concrete evidence to explain many of these observations.

The Shogun talks of a bell-curve. If we can demonstrate, statistically, that there are in fact two distinct Gaussian distributions (one for continuous play, one for reload), then perhaps CA will listen. We can but hope.

In any case, I imagine the TW community will continue its efforts to find a workaround.

[player1]

Of course! I see it now. The loading from saved game is a feature. It's the normal game that's bugged.

I mean, if the AI decides to stop sieging when you load a game, it's because it did a reassessment that told it to move its troops elsewhere. But when you hit end turn, you obviously don't get that reassessment. That means the end turn button is bugged.

We should all demand that CA fix this glaring bug, and make the end turn button do a reassessment properly. I mean, that would fix the game, and make sure those nasty AI never did anything offensive.

It was supposed to be Rome: Total Boredom, wasn't it?

Bh

Bhruic, are you the guy who made unofficial patch for MOO3 to fix some glaring errors?

[Cruelsader]

You can chose to sit around and whine for weeks on end or you can roll up your sleeves and try to nail down this bug.

I guess that you are trying to balance negative reactions but .... why could not CA simply make a request to provide all the information they need to test whether there is a bug? Just out of courtesy, does not even matter whether they have done it before or whether they need the information .... The more I think of, the clearer it becomes to me that CA is in a desperate need for a (more) professional PR.

Finally - and some of you may choose not to believe this, if you wish - I'm not in a position to make any kind of official statement about patches or expansion packs until or unless they have been subject to a formal announcement. Long industry experience means that I'm not inclined to make informal comments on these matters either.

Personally, I am glad for this clear statement. I wish there were more like it.

And I would be even happier to see more posts like this. (Plus, I strongly believe that such communication would make reading the forum less frustrating experience for CA staff.)

Will there be an expansion?

Why wouldnt there be one?
Dont expect me to tell you what it is though.

Will we continue making "Total War" games?

Of course.
Why would we be so stupid as to knock a good thing on the head?
As above, don't expect me to tell you what the next version will be.
Just take it from us that it will be great and it will knock any competition in to a hat.

Do we care about the quality of our games?

Yes. Deeply.
I can't think of any other reason for the amount of time and work we put in to producing our games.
We would all rather make great games than work in a dull 9-5 office or produce "run of the mill clones".
I, as do many here, smile ruefully when certain people suggest we don't care or that monkey typists could do better. Perhaps this comes about from a misunderstanding of just how many and how complex the mechanisms we put in place are, to get the game to a playable state, let alone the polished state we like to aim for.
As we live in a real world, we have to deal with some limitations in terms of money and manpower and thus also in terms of time. The result is that we can miss stuff or get it wrong And for this we are very sorry.

So before you put the boot in any more, pause, take a breath, and think about it.
How many strategy/battle games with a 3D camapign map, thousands of 3d troops on 3D battlefields are there out there, that allow you to play the Roman Empire?
And how many of those are better than RTW?

Dont worry. We wont rest on our laurels. And keep the faith.

Yours sincerely

Intrepid Sidekick
C.A Staff

[starkhorn]

Actually, I didn't blame the RTR mod. A number of hasty individuals chose to read my words that way. The usual system of "ooh, look what I think he said..." then did the rest.

What I did was offer an opinion that installing a mod meant that you should look to your own resources for help after installing it. No company can ever track the mods that are done to its games.

I also made clear the modders do a damn fine job in modding. And just in case anyone else chooses to snip out chunks of this and post it elsewhere let's make this really clear: THE MODDERS DO A GOOD JOB.

But hey - don't let that screw up a perfectly good urban legend of CA being heartless bastards.

Well I'm not really going get into a game of "You said, she said, I said etc".....I also can no longer find that thread to refresh my memory....I think it's in the graveyard somewhere now.

Suffice to say that when I first read your post, it seemed that your first sentence in the original post was dismissing someone's thread because they were using RTR mod, thus indirectly blaming the RTR mod for the issue. I do not seem to have been alone in this thought.

As for the rest of the thread, I agree 100%. If I mod a game then it's my responsible for anything that goes wrong. I do not expect any official support from the programmers.

I wrote a modding guide for MTW:VI on how to add a new faction and in this guide I wrote a small disclaimer stating that it was the users own responsible if they tried to mod the game so I agree with you on modder's responsible and the support expected from a company.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...125#post461125

Oh and as for the urban legend comment. Well I certainly never called CA heartless b$@$%%@. I'm disappointed with RTW and the AI "re-assess feature" but at least we no longer need to suffer in silence. We at least know CA's stance on the issue. For that CA deserve some credit.

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Bhruic]

You can chose to sit around and whine for weeks on end or you can roll up your sleeves and try to nail down this bug.

I'll go with door number 3 please.

Seriously, CA has given us their definitive response. Of what use is continued efforts? Once someone has made up their mind about something, you aren't going to change it. CA apparently has made up their mind that this isn't a bug. Short of pointing out where the problem lies in the source code, I'm not sure what more you think the community could have done to document this bug?

Bhruic, are you the guy who made unofficial patch for MOO3 to fix some glaring errors?

Yeah, that's me.

But in case you were going to ask, no I'm not going to get involved in a similar effort here. Once is enough.

Bh

[Red Harvest]

As for modding to fix this the only relevant question I have:

Is there a switch that tells the AI not to consider the past upon reload; or is it merely the act of not recording sufficient info that thereby forces it to become an Alzheimer's patient?

If it is the latter, then there is unlikely any hope for a mod. If on the other hand the info is stored in the save game and there is a switch for accessing it, then we have a chance of fixing this somehow.

I suggest we rename this the Alzheimer's feature.

[Midnight]

If the bug hasn't been 'nailed down' by now, I don't know what it'll take. No, CA aren't listening. IMO, their response to this is nothing short of disgraceful - how can this 'non-aggression', 'protectorate-accepting' behaviour be considered normal? Unless, of course, they actually planned it to work exactly as it does, in which case I think it was an astonishingly bad design decision.

Could it be they simply couldn't be bothered coding a feature to save the AI's state? Note: I'm doing nothing more than speculating.

If people don't register their displeasure, CA will surely do nothing, as is their stated intention.

[Tricon]

But in case you were going to ask, no I'm not going to get involved in a similar effort here. Once is enough.

Bh

Fair is fair.
Just know that there (still) are a lot of people out there who thank you for that effort, bruhic. Your efforts (and other modders, of course) made that game fun. Right now, I don't play it because I lack the time, and that is coincidently EXACTLY the reason why this "loadgame feature" ticks me off.

Sorry for the OT.
Anyway, high you all. I've been lurking heresince the beginning of this year, but I never got around to register. Obviously this has changed now. I'm looking forward to some nice conversations...

[Kraxis]

Actually a silent protest along the lines of a black frontpage with a smiley (or something else) with its head hung low would in fact make the point much better than any kind of discussing the issue.
But at the same time we would need to be almost entirely silent about the whole issue, besides perhaps making more tests, with no emotional outbursts.

There is nothing more effective than the sad look and then silence. But that effect would be ruined when somebody choose to scream at a dev or make a rant about the issue. Thus I think such a protest is impossible here or any fansite for almost any game.

Since we have gotten to the point that the two sides are very much set in their oppinions, I think we need people who have yet to voice anything in this matter to enter, people who have a history of being silent. If a number of them can produce images of the strategic map around 200BC looking like the starting game or worse (rebelling cities can still happen) then a point would have been made.
If it happens to be those who has been most vocal we run the risk of getting dismissed as wanting to see the bad side or perhaps worse of creating the images.

It is indeed a very sad post by the Shogun. But even if CA has understood the problem (which I hardly think they haven't) then what else can they do if they have used up their quota of patches? Silence hasn't worked, perhaps dismissal will... If they said that it was indeed a bug and then mentioned that there won't be any patch to fix it, then what would we be seeing now? An even worse reaction.
Personally this has confirmed to me that there is a quota of patches, and it has been used up. And sadly this also makes me realize that we won't get an official yet unfunded patch like the one we got after VI (yes that was made in the sparetime).

On the positive side, as I mentioned I think they have recognized the issue but can't say that, they will silently fix it in the expansion. Who would notice? We could say that now the AI doesn't lift all the sieges, but if they refuse the issue was ever there how could they have fixed it? Thus they don't have to explain anything.

All in all I read the statement to say:
No more patches prior to the expansion.
We have noticed the problem but we can't resolve it as per a patch.
We will most likely fix it in the expansion.

[therother]

*sigh*

It's all so completely unnecessary. The sullying of the atmosphere here, at the .COM, throughout the community. All they probably needed to say, if they were going to say anything, was something of the ilk:

"The programmers have been discussing and testing this Load Game issue. As yet, we've been unable to verify if the AI is behaving unexpectedly. As with the pri-sec bug, we gratefully appreciate the efforts of the community to find and report potential problems with the game. Rest assured, we will continue to investigate and invite our customers to assist us in our efforts."

I still don't see why they had to stir up opinion throughout the community with such a dismissive response. They must have pretty much guessed what the reaction of the community would be: the announcement was locked after all.

[hrvojej]

Thank you for letting me know that I don't have to hope to ever play this game again. And that I should advise others not to buy/play it as well.

Best regards,
Cockroach

[sassbarman]

"There are also another reasons to lift a siege. It simply doesn't have to be carried to a conclusion to be damaging".

Please, conquering cities is the whole point of the game. nuff said

[demon rob]

Is development of the expansion pack so far down the track that they cannot return to the Rome source base and fix the bug?
I think that may be the subtext of the Shogun message.
If this is the case does that mean that they will give us free copies of the expansion pack so we can play Rome?
Hey, surely they can, we are only a tiny minority, thats not many copies.

Seriously, CA, please don't send out misleading emails. You have done the tests inhouse. You know there is a bug. You probably have even fixed it. Don't demean your customers like this. We want to support you or we wouldn't be here. Disclaiming clear evidence really doesn't work - even the Church now agrees with Galileo, not many people believe in a flat earth, etc etc.

Mislead the .com people if you like, but the .org should be treated nicely. Captain Fishpants of the Org is so much better than MikeB of the Com!

[SpencerH]

Actually a silent protest along the lines of a black frontpage with a smiley (or something else) with its head hung low would in fact make the point much better than any kind of discussing the issue.

The smiley could go into our sigs instead. That would very quickly show the 'lay of the land' without offending anyones sensibilities.

[Pode]

MikeB/Capt FP

I have a semi-photographic memory, and your .com post on the loadgame issue made me so livid it was burned into my memory. Allow me to assist you in recalling what you said and why it was poorly recieved. This may not be perfect, but I would swear in a court of law that it does not differ in any material detail.

, I lost all sympathy for your problem as soon as I read that you were using the RTR mod. You cannot mod the game then complain to the developers that their game is broken.

Yes you did not explicitly blame the RTR mod for the issue, but I can't believe for a second that you are so foolish as to believe that it would not be interpreted that way. Oh wait, you're part of the team that believes there is no load game issue, maybe you are that stupid. Mea culpa.

[IrishMike]

Alright guys, just calm down here. Yes their is a load game bug, I don't save to much, but I have seen it. Yes they don't think its a bug. The simple fact is that we can all have heart-attacks and die right in our computer chairs, but thats not gonna change anything at all. Whats done is done, and their is not a single thing we can do to change it. What we must do is improve/fix what we can, and the rest were just gonna have to live with. Also you can't really direct your anger at MikeB/Capt FP, these guys can't just come one here and post whatever they personally think. They got jobs to keep. Just like you can't tell your boss he sucks and still have a job. Its the same way for them, so just ease up a little, and think that mabey they agree with us, mabey they don't, their just keeping their job.

[ElmarkOFear]

First off, since I see a lot of new faces here, I will give you a little of my TW history:

I began playing STW online (never an SP player) after about the 2nd month the game was out. I enjoyed the MP game so much I stuck around thru the Mongol expansion, MTW and its Viking expansion, and finally left TW MP after the first week of RTW's release. I do not like RTW MP. Each game in the series has taken a little more away from the MP experience and RTW finally ruined it for me (For a whole list of reasons I will not get into, but those that know me are well aware of.)

During my time in the TW community:

I hosted the first MP 1v1 tournament (STW) and then a 2v2 tournament (STW) a bit later.

I was a moderator here at the .org for several months until lack of time, forced me to resign that spot.

I actively participated in the MP clan community. First as a member of the small Blood Ronins clan, which then became the Fearful Ways clan.

I eventually became Fearful Ways Diamyo and remained for several months, until lack of time, once again, interfered and I resigned my position after making sure there was someone to take my place.

My love of Shogun, and the frustration of no MP campaign (which was the big issue at that time), made me want to try and host an MP STW campaign. After much open discussion and trial and error practice campaigns, a small group of us established a fairly good working MP campaign. Alas, time once again forced several members to drop out and the campaign faded away.

During the last days of STW, myself and Obake (A former .com admin), established an Honor Society which was a multi-clan group which tried to educate and influence the MP community on TW ettiquette and fairplay.

We also started a small community called Ugli (United Gamer's League, International). This group consisted of members from almost every clan in TW, at that time. It was created as a "non-competitive" group, which allowed members to leave clan-business/politics behind, while still maintaining membership in their respective clans.

Eventually, the Ugli's changed into a multi-gaming community, due to the problems many had with MTW's bugs, imbalances, gameplay, etc . .

During the last stages of MTW, I was asked to become a .com moderator and after a few months I was asked to admin. there. I had high hopes for RTW, especially since I was brought there initially to start up an MP forum section, and to gather ideas from the MP community on what was wanted for RTW's MP. It was a non-flaming environment with some great discussions, which led to a nice list of what the veteran MP community and newer MP players wanted to see in the next game. After, RTWs release, I realized that I had been misled as to the seriousness of CA towards creating a great MP experience for RTW. I thus played RTW MP for one week, created a long list of MP problems and expressed my dissatisfaction in the private .com admin section. I then resigned from my position as admin. since I no longer felt I could moderate patrons who were just expressing their anger at the direction RTW had taken.

I know this was a long intro, but I felt it was necessary since it proves how much I have enjoyed the series, how intimately involved I was in the community and the forums, and how dissappointed I was with RTW and CA's change of direction for the series (without letting anyone know of it until they actually bought the game and played it.)

First off: The .com moderators and Admins (With the exception of Eradosan) were all asked to become mods/admins by the current mods/admins (at that time) and not CA. There was and still is an unspoken rule, that if you actually WANT to be a .com mod. and ask to be one, you will never be asked to become one. Bat, Wart, Aurelius, Tarrak, Psycho, Killemall, all were surprised when they were asked to become mods. And they were not exactly sure they wanted to become one either, especially since they saw the way the community treats mods and admins.

Knowing I am not happy at all with CA and that I resigned from the .com because of it, I am hoping you will finally believe that there is no conspiracy to silence dissent, or complaints from patrons. Due to the sheer volume of new patrons and the unruliness of a few, many good threads get the short-shrift and are closed, moved, deleted or sent to the graveyard by the moderators and admins. Since none of the mods/admins are paid by CA and are not in any way, shape or form employees of the company or any of its affiliates, they are not compelled to defend anything CA does. The reasons some good threads get closed, is the mods/admins do so in their spare time, which in most cases is limited. This means they do not necessarily have the time to edit out pages and pages of a good post gone bad, so they just close the post. I was guilty of it quite often, but I always tried to go back to it, when I had the time and edit it and reopen the thread minus the bad stuff. I am not sure if any of you remember me from there, but I always tried to keep things light and fun for everyone.

The problem is not what is being said, but HOW it is being said. The problem you are complaining about with what MikeB (Fishpants), and the other CA reps have said, is the EXACT same problem the mods have with YOU at the .com forum: Many post appear insulting, flaming, trolling, spamming etc . . It is a fine line to know when to edit, delete, and ban and when to step back and let things continue on their course. The mods/admins always have to make a judgement on the intent of the patrons and try to keep things light and fun for the rest. Plus they also have to try to keep things tidy, by closing redundant threads and saving good threads from quickly running off of page 20. I saw a good thread started and run off of page 20 in the listings, in less than a day's time, recently in the RTW forum. If the mods/admins did not try to maintain order there, there would be NO good threads and everything would be a rehash of old statements/ideas/discussions.

So cut them some slack. I know them, I know their personalities, and I know they only mean well for the .com community. What you really have a problem with, with some of the mods, is with their manner of posting. Some may seem, at times, brusque, demeaning, short-tempered etc . . What you fail to realize is the mods not only take abuse in the open forum, but they also receive quite a few, extremely nasty PMs from individuals who feel they have a right to call people names, publicly demean other patrons, and other nefarious deeds. Being human, the mods/admins all have their breaking points and hot buttons and you might have been the last straw and they vent their frustrations on you. A lot like when someone at school makes fun of you and embarasses you in front of a lot of your friends and then you end up saying something to hurt your brother's or sister's feelings when you get home.

Until you walk in a .com moderator's shoes, you cannot know what it is like and do not know how you will react to patrons taking pot-shots at you and making false accusations. I can assure you it will feel EXACTLY like you felt when you thought Fishpants was dissing you. Now multiply that by 10 and you know what a .com mod has to put up with.

Lastly: On CA's PR and willingness/ability to patch. It is deplorable. They don't fully understand the game mechanics of the game they have been working on, and are offended when the community finds things and complains. This is why they appear arrogant. They fail to realize there is a big difference between the programming of the game and the playing of it. You guys are unbelievably innovative and in-depth in your findings, but you spend much more time at playing the game than CA ever had the time for. It is CA's job to make the game, and try to make it fun. They don't have the luxury of setting around playing the game and studying in-depth every problem that crops up. Especially with a completely new game engine and the next game/expansion coming up. This is the real problem occuring. CA doesn't understand your viewpoints and you don't understand theirs. Different focuses colliding and causing a spark which can easily to into a flame war.

I believe I have just created the longest thread I have ever made and that is saying something! Sorry, but I wanted to give you a semi-unbiased opinion on the .com forums and the people who moderate/admin there, and also cut CA a slight bit of slack. They are people just like us, who get angry, say the wrong things, are full of themselves, and sometimes easily offended, care deeply what the community thinks of them, and are genuinely surprised by all the commotion and don't know what to say to make things better.

[Quietus]

And as for the official and unofficial comments made by CA patrons here and at .com being interpreted as "insulting our intelligence"

Gregoshi, no, no. That's just inaccurate. If you re-read my post carefully, the first part simply asks Captain Fishpants a direct question - that's it.

The whole second part was entirely directed and devoted to one of the .COM Admin's inane conclusion of the siege bug, which btw was quoted by tai4ji2x on the 5th page of this thread.

[Captain Fishpants]

...
OMG. When RTW was first released, wasn't Captain Fishpants that sang the praises of the ORG and spoke of its importance in terms of the development of the series? Now he doesn't like the ORG because it gives him honest opinions that aren't heavily censored like the .COM?

Users here aren't personally mad at Captain Fishpants, they are fed up with a game in dire need of a patch! Fix the game and the negative reaction will vanish.

Actually, we even thanked the .org patrons in the RTW game credits. No: what I'm worried about is the now-automatic reaction by some that I'm from CA, therefore I must be fibbing, pig ignorant or just plain evil. A lot of that kind of comment has been personally directed at individuals within CA - just look at the reactions to TorquemadaUK's posting.

As to opinions over at .com being 'censored', they aren't to anything like the degree that you suppose. I'll say it again: our games are certificated to a T or 12+ audience; therefore a certain degree of decorum/civility is required so younger patrons and their parents can feel comfortable in visiting the forums. Is that so unreasonable? Abuse and profanity are removed, opinions are largely left alone, unless they are in areas that are clearly demarcated as off-limits. There is one category of post that does merit automatic removal: pirating the game. Then again, that is hardly surprising.

And once again, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the 'dire need' for a patch.

[Browning]

Actually, we even thanked the .org patrons in the RTW game credits. No: what I'm worried about is the now-automatic reaction by some that I'm from CA, therefore I must be fibbing, pig ignorant or just plain evil. A lot of that has been personally directed at individuals within CA - just look at the reactions to TorquemadaUK's posting.

If so many are angry at so few, then perhaps there is a problem with the mentioned few?

As to opinions over at .com being 'censored', they aren't to anything like the degree that you suppose. I'll say it again: our games are certificated to a T or 12+ audience; therefore a certain degree of decorum/civility is required so younger patrons and their parents can feel comfortable in visiting the forums. Is that so unreasonable? Abuse and profanity are removed, opinions are largely left alone, unless they are in areas that are clearly demarcated as off-limits.

Possibly we read different forums. I saw there (at .com) whole threads with valuable info disappear because of some abusive posts.

And once again, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the 'dire need' for a patch.

Yes, that's the problem: you (CA in general) are not getting into the discussion on the issue.

[Browning]

Is it possible that the CA tests a different software version than we have? Is there a "developer release" and a "customer release"? In the company I work for we have this, and these versions have, of course, quite a different info in their savefiles....

[Jambo]

Actually, we even thanked the .org patrons in the RTW game credits. No: what I'm worried about is the now-automatic reaction by some that I'm from CA, therefore I must be fibbing, pig ignorant or just plain evil. A lot of that kind of comment has been personally directed at individuals within CA - just look at the reactions to TorquemadaUK's posting.

As to opinions over at .com being 'censored', they aren't to anything like the degree that you suppose. I'll say it again: our games are certificated to a T or 12+ audience; therefore a certain degree of decorum/civility is required so younger patrons and their parents can feel comfortable in visiting the forums. Is that so unreasonable? Abuse and profanity are removed, opinions are largely left alone, unless they are in areas that are clearly demarcated as off-limits. There is one category of post that does merit automatic removal: pirating the game. Then again, that is hardly surprising.

And once again, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the 'dire need' for a patch.

Mike, believe me, it is nice to be appreciated in the credits. It was a hard and "testing" time being a beta tester for reasons that I'll I not discuss here. Though it's not to say I wouldn't love to discuss these with CA developers, and this is solely for the benefit of CA and future TW titles, not myself..

I guess what's been hard for some to accept is lack of reference to any of the glaring evidence that has been provided and tested by patrons over the past month or so. The points put across in Shogun's (CA's) response go a long way to explaining how the AI works and assesses its plans each turn and that these may differ upon reload. Fair enough. But there's no mention or comment on the following issues discovered by patrons other than myself, which to me seemed quite conclusive of an issue:

-Protectorates able to be negotiated with any faction in the first turn upon reload. Think this covered all diplomacy, e.g. ceasefires, but don't quote me on this part.

-The differences in AI expansion when playing a consecutive number of turns without one reload compared to varying degrees of saving and reloading and playing the same number of turns. This culminated with the AI unable to take any cities when the game was saved /reloaded on each turn.

I would agree that I have noticed the AI break sieges anyway, mainly in response to the encroachment of enemy armies in their own territory or through rebels, but I've also seen them simply return to a city upon a reload, which doesn't strike me as responding to anything in particular. They'll then re-siege the same city they left, in the following turn. This is really easy to test on the Isle of Sicily.

You see, it's the lack of comments on the evidence provided that's frustrating patrons. Ca have always insisted that this was important as opposed to just shouting "bug!" coupled with a loosely constructed theory. Well the patrons did this and yet still no comment.

I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

Jambo

[Kraxis]

Elmo, that was one fine post. Thank you!

I'm Tarrak and in a semi-retired state over at the .com. I'm tired of it simply, and mainly for the reasons you mentioned.
But I fear your post will be ignored here, people are set in their ways and it is a chore to make them believe otherwise. Sadly.

[Captain Fishpants]

Yes, that's the problem: you (CA in general) are not getting into the discussion on the issue.

Perhaps you missed my earlier posting, so I'll just repeat this bit again:

Finally - and some of you may choose not to believe this, if you wish - I'm not in a position to make any kind of official statement about patches or expansion packs until or unless they have been subject to a formal announcement. Long industry experience means that I'm not inclined to make informal comments on these matters either. This isn't 'fueling the fires of frustration', but *not* providing fuel for those fires. I really can't do anything else here given that there are people who, I believe, actively relish the chance to fan flames.

As to any other comments you made, I shall not respond. And thus the flames will not be fanned.

[Browning]

Perhaps you missed my earlier posting, so I'll just repeat this bit again:

(part of the message reposted)

Yes you maintain that you (CA people) read our posts. But a discussion, by definition, requires answering questions. So far, we (the community) have been waiting for the answer to our most basic question: have any of the developers performed the simplest of the tests, the one that on my crappy computer takes only 30min to complete: play a 20 turns game, note the results, play a game of 20 single turns saving-reloading, compare the results.

Because you remain deaf to such simple questions, writing instead pages on how we misappreciate and misuse your product, you are loosing our respect very rapidly, sir.

[Cruelsader]

Perhaps you missed my earlier posting, so I'll just repeat this bit again.

There is a difference between discussing a problem (loadgame anomaly) and announcing a patch. Your previous post does not answer why you, not speaking of CA in general, prefers to avoid the subject... or rather, why CA prefers to dismiss the issue, without convincingly explaining the anomaly.

BTW, could you state, please, who is in a position to make announcements about patches? Are you allowed to describe CA policy in regard to patches?

[Jambo]

Mike, like Elmo astutely stated, I think the main problem is miss-communication between what CA members and forum patrons think the alleged issues are with Rome TW.

Just to clarify:

Many of the questions being asked or points put forward by the patrons were answered by CA indirectly with no reference to the information displayed before them in the threads.

For instance, and I apologise as this reiterates what I said before, the testing people were conducting and the subsequent evidence posted to prove their points wasn't apparently being heeded. Whether this is because CA have actually ignored it or not I don't know. The tests were simple and easy to replicate and so it confuses and infuriates people as to why no reference or subsequent disproval of these tests was made by CA in their "no bug" answer by Shogun.

Regardless, the answers being given in response to all this evidence were on "how the AI is programmed to behave and what it does to assess its options each turn". Fair enough; we can't argue with that as we didn't program the game. However, this, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is different from the points that were raised by the community in those now discarded "LoadGame" threads. See my post above for those.

Perceived miss-communication, whatever the issue, is always likely to cause problems. It can give the impression that people aren't listening/reading what's being put in front of them, or in the worse case scenario are being completely ignored (irrespective of whether or not this is true).

Cheers

[*Ringo*]

...current febrile atmosphere... reinterpreted and hurled back with some invective editorialising... correction of misinformation... misinterpretaion was immediately repeated... odd situation for many... delight in thinking the worst... negative reaction... keep them orderly.... a duty of care... within those boundaries... UK libel law... anonymous posting of defamatory material...

...official statement... patches... expansion packs... formal announcement... isn't 'fueling the fires of frustration'...

After some careful analysis of the Good Captain's post, i have come to the conclusion... and by changing a few words here and there it could say...

Only joking, just gonna say there are some who read official posts with a degree of appreciation of both the problems faced by CA in regards to customer relations & also with development of good software. Good wishes go to all at CA, patients allows me the virtue of waiting for the real information that i seek. Not idle speculation; that often leads to people that (quote) "actively relish the chance to fan flames".

[Puzz3D]

I have a campaign test that clearly shows the siege problem in 6 turns. I already posted it here and at .com. It's obvious that all the variables are not being restored to their prior values upon a reload. If they were, the AI could easily come to the exact same decisions that it does in continuous play.

CA is loosing credibility because they don't see such a basic programming error as a problem. It now throws into question whether CA is capable or even wants to make a serious strategy game. I've seen very clear statements by CA that historical accuracy and realism were not their focus in making Rome. They claim that gameplay is their focus. So, where is the commitment to doing that in the face of a programming error that detracts from the gameplay?

[a_ver_est]

It seems that the main problem may be the "bug" meaning.

After reading CA feedback I think that there isn't any bug, if we understand bug as a "broken code". As coders has said, the program works out as expected.

It looks like they hadn't never expected AI remind its current strategy after a game load. Why ? it is Perhaps because it is easier to implement or because they thought that it would have a minor impact in the on going camping or ...

After some test done by some community members it is clear that frequent loads have a big impact in the game development. Call it bug, issue, desing error, feature ... whatever you want, but these are there, and a lot of people are waiting for a solution.

IMHO the CA answer: "it is not a bug" looks like a big simplification of the problem.

Edit: A sad 100st post.