24 reasons why I won't buy the next Total War release...

[Zakor]

Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...

24 Characteristics of RTW that will cause me to not buy their next game:

1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.

2) Lack of a remedially competent AI.

3) To compensate for (2), rampant "cheating" by the AI is used. That's not a compensation. That's an excuse.

4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?

5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)

6) The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.

6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.

7) Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.

7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.

8) Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?

9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.

10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?

11) Eye candy doesn't replace intriguing game play. Haven't we all learned this by now? ***IMPORTANT*** You guys have made a good start, though.

12) Bowmen that can outrun horses on combat map.

13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.

13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).

14) Forcing me to replay the tutorial every time I reinstall, and NOT allowing me to shut that Romulan Bird-of-Prey commander up.

15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).

16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.

17) The fact that even a city with 1000+ troops and 2 spies guarding it will still rebel/revolt. Yes, I know that there are other factors. See also (4).

18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?

19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?

20) Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.

21) When I highlight ALL the troops, and tell them to charge, that doesn't mean keep half of my horsemen back without charging. Is this difficult?

22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?

23) I don't care how courageous my enemy is, when I have 7 units of bowmen, and a unit of mercenaries, against one general unit (two stars) of 20 men, Autoresolve should NOT make me lose my defense, especially when I am inside a city's walls.

24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.

[The Mad Scandinavian]

Sounds like a rant and rave. I'll drink to that. I'm not going to buy BI unless it's good.

[sik1977]

7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it.

Thanks for a good laugh.

[Mongoose]

Well...mostly very reasonable...but you can skip the tutorial by going to prefernces.txt and changing FIRST TIME PLAY:TRUE to FIRST TIME PLAY:FALSE

Alot of people say that MTW had the same problems though...

[Mikeus Caesar]

Ack, as much as i hate to, i agree that some of those things are incredibly annoying...and i quote:

7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.

Dear god, that is one of the stupidest things i have encountered yet. Fortunately, that problem seems to dissapear if you remove Fog of War.

4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?

So technologically advanced, they've invented Aluminium and Cloaking Technology!! Amazing!

6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.

Please, do not remind us of the amazingly show ship speeds. It is in no way realistic. Wouldn't it have taken about 6 weeks at the most to travel by sea that far? Unless of course back then there was barely any wind in the Med...nor any storms either...

15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).

Aaaah! That is so f*cking annoying, pardon my language. I once had a grand greek navy, with a grand army on board, ready to finish off the Roman scum. Only problem was...those bastard Armenian allies of mine had surrounded the port. I had to wait ten frickin years for them to all bugger off and clog up the Black Sea, and by that time the Romans had regained some power, so my Grand Army got a good thrashing after about 5 battles.

19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?

That is incredibly dumb. I have gone into many a battle setup, got my men all sorted nicely on the walls and in front of the gates, only to realise the enemy are on the other side of my city, forcing me to spend another ten minutes arranging my men.

Good rant mate!

[BrutalDictatorship]

this needs to be posted up on totalwar.com's forums...lol

seriously...

[clayton ballentine]

Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...

24 Characteristics of RTW that will cause me to not buy their next game:

1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.

2) Lack of a remedially competent AI.

3) To compensate for (2), rampant "cheating" by the AI is used. That's not a compensation. That's an excuse.

4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?

5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)

6) The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.

6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.

7) Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.

7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.

8) Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?

9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.

10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?

11) Eye candy doesn't replace intriguing game play. Haven't we all learned this by now? ***IMPORTANT*** You guys have made a good start, though.

12) Bowmen that can outrun horses on combat map.

13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.

13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).

14) Forcing me to replay the tutorial every time I reinstall, and NOT allowing me to shut that Romulan Bird-of-Prey commander up.

15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).

16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.

17) The fact that even a city with 1000+ troops and 2 spies guarding it will still rebel/revolt. Yes, I know that there are other factors. See also (4).

18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?

19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?

20) Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.

21) When I highlight ALL the troops, and tell them to charge, that doesn't mean keep half of my horsemen back without charging. Is this difficult?

22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?

23) I don't care how courageous my enemy is, when I have 7 units of bowmen, and a unit of mercenaries, against one general unit (two stars) of 20 men, Autoresolve should NOT make me lose my defense, especially when I am inside a city's walls.

24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.

but i will buy it

[Midnight]

Haha! A brilliant write-up, sir.

Barbarian Invasion's going to have to do a *huge* amount more than just provide a new campaign and a few new features...

[Mongoose]

The sad thing is that not even a fanboy will try to argue with the list...

[Zakor]

25) WITH

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Some comments:

1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.

You can't blame CA for not having a feature that would essentially be a completely new game. This would be incredibly difficult to implement in even a mediocre way. And if they tried, they would be mocked for it failing to be great.

5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)

There is a lot of abstraction on the strategic map. As you noted, the growth rate includes immigration. This is a bit of a nitpick on your part, especially if you mean that an increase in population should not mean an increase in unrest. As the population increases, the city becomes more crowded, and there are more poor people. This makes people unhappy. But the revolt risk may be exaggerated, at least in some cities.

9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.

To be fair, CA doesn't have to help modders, but I do agree with you.

10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?

Not sure what you are talking about here...

13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.

I dunno. I don't think I've seen that, but it sounds like a case of good AI.

13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).

I assume you meant that point 13 could be easily circumvented, and not 13a, which would be a recursive statement.

16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.

Talk to a modder about this one. It's a V&V, and we can mod those (I believe).

18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?

What is the spies' valor? If they're n00b spies, then a two-star assasin may get them. And probability makes the scenario unlikely but not impossible.

19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?

The answer is yes.

22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?

24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.

I agree that armies, at least those commanded by generals, should have more functionality.

25)

Just find a mod (like EB) that does not or will not have peasants. They are an all-around stupid unit.

---------------------

If I didn't comment, I agreed with you.

[bodidley]

You can't blame CA for not having a feature that would essentially be a completely new game. This would be incredibly difficult to implement in even a mediocre way. And if they tried, they would be mocked for it failing to be great.

I keep on hearing that MP campaign is nearly impossible, but that's simply not true. Conquest of the New World, for example, had a great MP campaign engine

[Zakor]

Alexander, I'll touch on a few of your comments:

You can't blame CA for not having a feature that would essentially be a completely new game. This would be incredibly difficult to implement in even a mediocre way. And if they tried, they would be mocked for it failing to be great.

How would this be "incredibly difficult?" Civilization et al did it TEN YEARS AGO

To be fair, CA doesn't have to help modders, but I do agree with you.

No, they don't, but then, we don't have to buy their game. They should cater to their audience, which you agree with.

I dunno. I don't think I've seen that, but it sounds like a case of good AI.

That's a case of an OMNISCIENT AI.

Just find a mod (like EB) that does not or will not have peasants. They are an all-around stupid unit

Ah, but my gripe is not with the existence of peasants, but with the existence of peasants that have more combat experience than nearly every Urban Cohort that I've slain.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't know about that game, but the complexity of RTW is such that the lag alone would doom a MP campaign game. Plus, you would have to wait about an hour for every battle, keeping in mind that there are more than one battle per turn per player.

At the very least, it would be a nightmare to make. Probably worse to play it.

[Zakor]

I keep on hearing that MP campaign is nearly impossible, but that's simply not true. Conquest of the New World, for example, had a great MP campaign engine

I absolutely LOVED that game. If you ever get a MP running by Internet, PLEASE let me know, I'd LOVE to play.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's a case of an OMNISCIENT AI.

To piddle and twiddle a bit, I would argue that if there are a bunch of large, angry men running at my general direction, and me being the commander of my army, I might run away. I haven't seen this actually happen (the enemy generals are too busy charging my spearmen) but it might be omniscient AI.

Ah, but my gripe is not with the existence of peasants, but with the existence of peasants that have more combat experience than nearly every Urban Cohort that I've slain.

Is the problem that there are experianced peasants or that soldiers that experianced are still peasants? Because that sentance it too vague, let me explain. I think you are having problems with the existance of soldiers that are highly experianced but still peasants. I agree. It would be nice if there was a way to upgrade experianced units to better ones. But would inexperianced urban cohorts win against those peasants? I don't know, but I suspect so.

[Zakor]

To piddle and twiddle a bit, I would argue that if there are a bunch of large, angry men running at my general direction, and me being the commander of my army, I might run away. I haven't seen this actually happen (the enemy generals are too busy charging my spearmen) but it might be omniscient AI.

I can target the bowmen BEHIND the General, issue charge orders, and he won't flee.

If I target the General, and issue charge orders, my troops won't change direction, but that General will high-tail it and flee. In both instances they are running in his direction.

Is the problem that there are experianced peasants or that soldiers that experianced are still peasants? Because that sentance it too vague, let me explain. I think you are having problems with the existance of soldiers that are highly experianced but still peasants. I agree. It would be nice if there was a way to upgrade experianced units to better ones. But would inexperianced urban cohorts win against those peasants? I don't know, but I suspect so.

Yes, that's what I meant, those 9 xp peasants that spring into existence from the ether.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I can target the bowmen BEHIND the General, issue charge orders, and he won't flee.

If I target the General, and issue charge orders, my troops won't change direction, but that General will high-tail it and flee. In both instances they are running in his direction.

Now I understand. And agree with you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The sad thing is that not even a fanboy will try to argue with the list...

Funny, and accurate.

[Productivity]

I don't know about that game, but the complexity of RTW is such that the lag alone would doom a MP campaign game. Plus, you would have to wait about an hour for every battle, keeping in mind that there are more than one battle per turn per player.

At the very least, it would be a nightmare to make. Probably worse to play it.

I remember people saying this about the Heroese of Might and Magic series. I stilled played it multiplayer reguarly (teh battle time that is).

And lag, well say you need a LAN connection.

[Azi Tohak]

Mind, I change the @#$*@#& movement allowance by a huge amount for my RTR games, but why the heck do I have to? (To 250 from 80 if you want to know, and no bugs.) You are right about the slow speed. It never has made any sense. But what I like is that the computer seems to be able to use my changed movement speed too! I attack Damascus with Armenia, and the Ptolemtaics move an army from Susa to help. I like that! (To be sure, I still butcher them...but the point is the computer uses the speed.)

Azi

[The Stranger]

13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.

ah that's good, the general need to stay alive and gets the hell out of the frontline when the battles start (oke only when his name is alexander he stays, charges and get killed) the archers stay to hold the lines.

as for point 22

that's so annoying, then you've to train a whole new unit, that's not so bad, but it is when the dissapered unit had 9 chevrons

[parcelt]

Good post Zakor, I have one comment and one question:

6a) ship movement speeds: can't these be modded just like for the land units?

7a) 'Yes Ambassador Moron, ...'. That was freakin' hilarious!! Must have read it over ten times but it keeps making me laugh.

[Orda Khan]

All these " I won't buy " threads are tiresome and boring. If you don't like the game, don't buy it

.......Orda

[Butcher]

All these " I won't buy " threads are tiresome and boring. If you don't like the game, don't buy it

.......Orda

Ah, but what if you have already bought it eh?

[Orda Khan]

Barbarian Invasion has not been released yet, so I doubt anyone has bought it.
I have read so many threads of this sort ( since STW ) Plenty of people were not buying MTW either, or VI, or RTW. The strange thing is, these very people were the ones discussing the game on its release date

.......Orda

[Mongoose]

"I have read so many threads of this sort ( since STW )..."

I guess thats why you them so much...maybe i would too if it was the 1009 "i won't buy it" thread that i was reading

[Rodion Romanovich]

Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...

24 Characteristics of RTW that will cause me to not buy their next game:

1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.

2) Lack of a remedially competent AI.

3) To compensate for (2), rampant "cheating" by the AI is used. That's not a compensation. That's an excuse.

4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?

5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)

6) The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.

6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.

7) Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.

7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.

8) Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?

9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.

10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?

11) Eye candy doesn't replace intriguing game play. Haven't we all learned this by now? ***IMPORTANT*** You guys have made a good start, though.

12) Bowmen that can outrun horses on combat map.

13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.

13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).

14) Forcing me to replay the tutorial every time I reinstall, and NOT allowing me to shut that Romulan Bird-of-Prey commander up.

15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).

16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.

17) The fact that even a city with 1000+ troops and 2 spies guarding it will still rebel/revolt. Yes, I know that there are other factors. See also (4).

18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?

19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?

20) Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.

21) When I highlight ALL the troops, and tell them to charge, that doesn't mean keep half of my horsemen back without charging. Is this difficult?

22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?

23) I don't care how courageous my enemy is, when I have 7 units of bowmen, and a unit of mercenaries, against one general unit (two stars) of 20 men, Autoresolve should NOT make me lose my defense, especially when I am inside a city's walls.

24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.

I agree with most of your criticism but there are some things I don't think is completelty justifiable to require, like 1) for example. It's a real load of work to do. 21) is extremely annoying. I've found a way to circumvent the group orders bug, by ungrouping the grouped units, then give an order, then group them again. Then they will all attack the same unit if I order them to attack the same unit, instead of attacking different units and/or moving instead of attacking and/or leaving most men behind not doing anything at all. By 22) I assume you mean the disappearing small armies? Well, they are partly justified because small 30 man large armies retreating and getting retrained to 500 men is unrealistical and boring. Given how the rest of the campaign map system works, it's a good abstraction. About 18) I don't agree, but I totally agree about no. 24).

[Cheater]

I understand why you're irrated at this. I maybe a cheater, but even I can tell bad AI and bad gameplay when I see it. I, too, won't be buying BI unless it has some seriously redeeming features in it that would warrent me shelling out cash.

To top it all, I should add a few things that annoyed me about the game.

1: The 'arab' voice. While I am a Middle Easterner myself, I can testify that having all Eastern/Carthagian factions have the same annoying voice is plain ridicules. I've seen many Egyptians who would have a voice remotely like that... but never Iraqis, Iranians (check out the Seleucid and Parthian factions for that) and definately not the Armenian or Pontus factions at all. But they all have the same irritating voice that is the PRIMARY reason why I rarely play them!

2: Towers and gatehouses having their own, perminant archers is very annoying. There should be people who are at least deduced from your total troops to man all those towers during combat, and vice versa for your enemies.

3: Your spies can open the gate for you, but for some reason can't keep the enemy from pouring boiling oil over your troops when you try to pass through... anything more needed?

4: You can have your own spies, diplomats, faction members, and other assassins murdered by your assassins... any explaination needed for this madness?

That's pretty much all from me, and I do agree with many of your points.. especially those about the lack of movement points and the fact that you can't attack a diplomat just like that.

[ManqueM]

4: You can have your own spies, diplomats, faction members, and other assassins murdered by your assassins... any explaination needed for this madness?

Maybe you cant afford your agents and need to get rid of them. Perhaps one of your generals is mad or has a really bad vice and you dont want to send him on a suicide mission.

The primary reason though is for training your own assassins and make them über-assassins