CA's definite answer on the Loadgame "issue"

[pyj99]

Totalwar.com post


I find quite distressing as I guess it means no corrective measures against this feature.

PYJ99

[lars573]

So they don't think it's a glitch, they think it's a part of the way the AI behaves over time. Part of that post is true though, I have had instences where the AI has laid siege to a city only to leave 3 turns later of their own volition. So the loadgame issue is a just the AI retreating to re-evaluate it's strategies, interesting.

[tai4ji2x]

hahahah, as if we should have expected anything better. pathetic.

[Wishazu]

I can now feel my unshakeable faith in CA actually starting to shake :( oh well

[Puzz3D]

The fact is if you load a savegame the AI doesn't make the same decisions when you hit end turn that it would if you had played the turn without saving and reloading. In my opionion, proper design would be to have the game make the same decisions as if you played continuously rather than starting over with it's assessment of the entire strategic situation everytime you load a savegame because it seems to take the AI two turns to get all the decisions back in place.

The Shogun's post also seems to say they intend to squash anymore discussion on this issue.

[ShellShock]

CA say this is the AI breaks sieges on loading a game because on load it does a periodic assessment of its position, and decides its forces are better used elsewhere. This implies that the periodic assessment is a more thorough/better (and lengthy?) analysis of the AI's position, compared to the normal end turn.

Dedicated testing by others has shown than if you reload every turn, the AI never expands beyond its initial settlements.

Imagine if the periodic assessment DID occur every end turn - the AI would never expand.

So, we do not have a bug in the save game file, but we now a design flaw (bug?) in the periodic assessment by the AI, which gives worse results than if the AI just did its normal end-turn assessment.

[Marcus Maxentius]

It also sounds dumb that when you reload, the AI assesses that since it already sieged it's got to choose to do something else from a list of possibilities only to reassess later on that it's better to siege the same settlement. If that's the way it's designed, it's not realistic for an army to surround a settlement and then leave without trying to take it over. It should really think about whether finishing the siege might be a higher priority since it's always better to finish what you start.

[starkhorn]

For them to totally ignore other issues like getting protecture, lack of ships being built, etc is staggering really but not unexpected given the silence. Typical programmers attitude, they really have hidden behind the "it's a feature not a bug" excuse.

Oh and the attitude to calling people who complained about this issue as a "subset of players" was quite disturbing.

Excuse me but the last time I checked, EVERY player must load up a game at some point so won't EVERYONE get affected by this bug....oh sorry wait...feature. ???

Good-bye CA and Total War. I've had fun with STW and MTW but this is the end for me.

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Puzz3D]

After a reload, my Julii campaign test clearly shows the AI breaking sieges on Syracuse and Athens when I hit end turn. If I hit end turn again, the AI reinstates the same two sieges. The AI didn't break the sieges because it was responding to other threats because there were no other threats. The sieging armies moved to places where nothing was happening and stood there. If I don't reload in this test and instead play continuously, the AI doesn't break those two sieges, and takes both cities two full turns before it does in the reloaded game.

If this is CA's idea of proper game design, it amounts to trick on consumers because virtually every gamer assumes that continuing a strategy game from a savegame doesn't alter the course of the game.

[CBR]

So it's a feature and not a bug


CBR

[Oaty]

Well all I'll say is 9 times out of 10 the A.I. maintains the siege and assaults without reloading.

Reassements........ if I'm the Gauls and besieging Segesta and the Britons besiege Condate Redundom(sp) what chance does that army really have of breaking the siege ..........none well at least almost none.

Usually if there is no threat to the A.I. that they can reach in one and sometimes 2 turns they never leave.

But the main FACT I see is that NO siege is maintained after a reload.

Watch what you ask for, and some of yas got it an answer.

[player1]

As far as I understand CA developers dodged the issue by saying that AI reasseses the situation after the load, and thus somtimes liftes the seiges.

But, since AI never does offensive action in turn after realod (including taking non-walled cities), that can only lead to reassessment algorithm that gets initiated after reload is buggy.

How elase to explain that AI factions will never (100%) expand if you only play 1 turn per session?

However, we will take all of your comments and feedback into consideration with regards to other games in the TW series and any expansions. All of your comments were read (as always). So...

And this quote shows that there will be no patches for this issue in RTW.

Pretty sad, since this stupid bug drasticly reduces preformance of AI for everyone who doesn't play the game for at least several hours (confirmed so many times).

[Puzz3D]

So it's a feature and not a bug

If it was a feature, why did CA hide it for 6 months? Surely they could have gotten some PR value out of it such as, "Innovative AI which actually changes it's mind on reloads!".

[SpencerH]

Great, a 'feature' that pretty much ends the game for me unless I leave the game running all the time. Nothing else explains why I didnt fight one defensive seige and why the AI didnt expand in the one campaign I played after switching from 1.0 to 1.2.

EDIT. I started a campaign yesterday as the Brits. I didnt save and it was pretty tough to get started. I finally took a city from the much larger gauls. They counterattacked and beseiged my new city. Unfortunately it was late and without thinking I saved and quit. Upon re-starting the gauls packed up and left. 2-3 turns later the gauls reappeared but I had re-equipped and was prepared for the festivities. With no further re-starts the Germans are now attacking me.

[Midnight]

Well, it's been a while since I loaded RTW. From the outset, one of my biggest complaints was that the map never seemed to change. Factions stayed in just about the same places, very different from the dynamism present in MTW. Now I know this was a 'feature'. A pretty awful one, if you ask me.

I'm not one of those people who can sit for marathon gaming sessions. I also like to take command of all major battles (ie where I don't massively outnumber the enemy so it's not even a contest), so the number of turns played on any given day isn't that great. At the end, a save. I'd imagine most people work this way - so, given that, why on earth was such a 'feature' included? I'm quite certain MTW didn't suffer from the same problem...

It would be brilliant if CA actually announced they were going to fix this in the x-pack (it should be done anyway, IMO, but in an x-pack's better than nothing). For goodness sake, CA, put the dynamism and fluidity of map control present in MTW in RTW!

[Shambles]

just stop playing it.
its not that good any way, i dont Like 98% of the game,
and the 2% i actualy like is the Idea behind it,

I prefer shogun :)

[starkhorn]

It would be brilliant if CA actually announced they were going to fix this in the x-pack (it should be done anyway, IMO, but in an x-pack's better than nothing). For goodness sake, CA, put the dynamism and fluidity of map control present in MTW in RTW!

No don't be silly, this is a feature not a bug. THey can only fix bugs, not planned "features".

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Old Celt]

Oh, I'm pretty sure they will fix, .. er.. change that bug, I mean feature for the expansion pack, for the simple reason that they will be getting paid for it. No money in hot fixes. And apparently no guts over at SEGA to demand better for us.

[player1]

just stop playing it.
its not that good any way, i dont Like 98% of the game,
and the 2% i actualy like is the Idea behind it,

Well, I liked it 98%, but awarenesss of this bug pretty ruined RtW for me.

[player1]

I wonder if we could issue some sort of protest for whole disregard of the problem.

Like all unofficial forums chaning color to black for few days and adding problem in the news sectoion of their sites.



P.S.
Or it would be too risky (like CA staff not posting in such forums in the future)?

[Shambles]

Dont get me wrong RTW had some real potential.

but i really dont like the feel of the game,
Or the layout of the campaign map and moovment with in it,
(I really love the way shogun did it)

I play shogun with 120 men in a Unit, So when i see A few units of hostiles aproaching In Shogun, Im afraid.
But in rome TW I dont feel any threat from any one apart from eliphants,


P.s
I used to like watching eliphants throwing My units in the air, but decided that this was a poor substitute for a decent game design.

Honestly though I love games of all kinds,
And Shogun Is 1 of my Very favs,
But where as Rome may be appealing to me, 1st thing i decide to play it again,
I get dissapointed and go to play Shogun.

But im off topic here,

So il Stop =)

ShambleS

[Marcus Maxentius]

Who knows, maybe they really screwed up when they were figuring out how different groups people play the game. Maybe they thought only inexperienced newbies save and reload multiple times and have one turn sessions because they don't know how everything works yet. They keep losing battles or money and want to restart. So what they thought is hey let's mess with the AI so these people who've obviously never played a game like this before a break to catch up?

That of course would be wrong since both veterans and beginners equally have other priorities and attention span lengths.

[Browning]

If what they think is what they say, then they haven't read what we posted on that issue and haven't tested. In this case they are a bunch of liars and loosers.

If they think one thing and say another one, they are a bunch of liars and loosers.

That's it for my purchases of CA products.

Sorry I just had to vent off.

[Belenus]

I haven't posted much since I was here but...I've now truly lost all hope of getting back into RTW soon. Like I said in another post if I want to play against static A.I I might as well play Battle of Middle Earth or Kingdoms Under Fire.

[Turbo]

Complaining about this isn't going to change anything. We need to fight back by using public opinion to force a change in CA. This can be done by emailing review sites and computer magazines (CGW etc.) and complaining about the poor support we the users are getting from CA.

An expansion to RTW is going to be as poorly supported as RTW is today if things don't change.

[Red Harvest]

Disgraceful. A game buster problem, being denied as a bug and instead treated as a feature. Do you think CA has hired the ex-Iraqi Information Minister to handle bug reports?

[player1]

Complaining about this isn't going to change anything. We need to fight back by using public opinion to force a change in CA. This can be done by emailing review sites and computer magazines (CGW etc.) and complaining about the poor support we the users are getting from CA.

An expansion to RTW is going to be as poorly supported as RTW is today if things don't change.

Let's start with forum protest idea I proposed earlier?

[Kraxis]

player1 it is far from a bad idea.
But the problem is that at the same time we would have to refrain from actually discussing it as that would invariably lead to hot-headedness. So like CA we would have to consider the issue settled on our part that it is indeed a bug. No more discussion about it. And that should not impact our relation to the devs. Whenever they treat us with a visit we should be cordial and friendly and refrain from mentioning this (we wouldn't need to as it would be on the frontpage).
It would be childish of the devs to consider a silent protest an attack when we a as friendly as ever, just making certain that they understand that we don't agree with the choices made.

I just fear this can't be done as somebody will always voice their discontent.

[hrvojej]

Right now I actually think it would be better to start a campaign of advising potential buyers not to buy the game or any future products. After all this is a game. If it's not worth getting upset about, then it's not worth the effort to try to pick up attention of the devs in any other way either. The enjoyment I get for the money I spent is obviously not high on their priority list, and hence I don't see why their "feelings" or purses should be high on mine. And the one who programmed this assessment algorythm for the AI, since it's obviously a feature and not a bug, should be fired. Mistakes such as bugs happen, bad features are just bad any way you look at them.

ps.
Out of respect for this forum, I won't actively campaign against the game here, the staff need not worry about that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do you think CA has hired the ex-Iraqi Information Minister to handle bug reports?

"There are no bugs! We have driven the infidel bugs into the sea! All the bugs are dead! That is, that is....a feature! Yes, that is not a bug but a feature!

Indeed, it seems they have.

A sad day. It seems they pulled a Microsoft and advertised lag as a feature.

Though, that really is unfair to Microsoft. They made several patches to AoK for balance and also to The Conquerors.

Crazed Rabbit