Gamecloud BI interview with Mike Brunton

[Probus]

Hi,

I do not recall having seen a link to this interview elsewhere. It is worth a read.

http://www.gamecloud.com/article.php?article_id=1158

[caesar44]

"Gamecloud - First, was the Creative Assembly pleased with the reactions that Rome: Total War received from critics and the press?

Mike Brunton - Chuffed to bits. Ecstatic. Almost willing to go to the pub and drink a small sherry on the strength of it in a quietly understated and British way. :) It's always nice something that took years of hard work emerges blinking into the light and, rather than being squished like some mutant slug, is recognised as a worthwhile thing - nay, a work of genius! - and praised."


Aha.........................................................

[Zatoichi]

Thanks for the link Probus! It all looks very splendid indeed!

One thing I noticed - he says 'Roman loyalty and civil wars'. Does this mean these are specific to Romans alone? So no Saxon/Hunnic/Frankish etc loyalty issues? Or am I reading it wrong?

Anyone? Or are we left guessing for another 4 weeks?

[TB666]

Thanks for the link Probus! It all looks very splendid indeed!

One thing I noticed - he says 'Roman loyalty and civil wars'. Does this mean these are specific to Romans alone? So no Saxon/Hunnic/Frankish etc loyalty issues? Or am I reading it wrong?

Anyone? Or are we left guessing for another 4 weeks?

I don't know but I don't like the sound of it.
Sure the romans had huge loyalty problems but I think the rest should still have it.

[Sol Invictus]

I agree, Attila almost certainly killed his brother to rule supreme and after Attila's death, his empire evaporated through internal conflict. Barbarians shouldn't suffer as much as the Romans from civil war but they certainly shouldn't be completely immune.

[Zatoichi]

Well, according to the review in the October UK PCGamer, loyalty is indeed only a factor for Roman generals. Religion is the major cause of unrest for the other civilisations, which can cause rebellions, unrest etc.

Well, it's a shame that only Romans get the lotalty attribute - I guess this is all tied in to the new mechanic whereby you get the emergence of the East and West Roman rebels. However, I'm glad it's made it back in some form, even if it has a more limited scope than I'd first hoped.

I'm sure when the talented modding community gets into the guts of the game, they'll be able to tweak the new gameplay elements in many different ways.

[Orda Khan]

It is a great shame if this is so, I just assumed loyalty would be applicable to all factions. The Huns were not even united until Attila and even he campaigned against his own for some time

.....Orda

[Ludens]

It is a great shame if this is so, I just assumed loyalty would be applicable to all factions. The Huns were not even united until Attila and even he campaigned against his own for some time

.....Orda

True, but remember that the Goths certainly will be able to split into two factions too, so I doubt only the Romans will have loyalty problems.

[Puzz3D]

The Total War tactical AI works well when the rock, paper, scissors is strong. With Rome's relatively weak RPS, the AI would do better if it kept the units in formation and stop trying to make individual unit matchups. It should also bend over backwards to protect its flanks because the units in Rome are very vulnerable to flank and rear attacks.

The Rome tactical AI is far too prone to attack with insufficient force. It is as though it's trying to fight a war of attrition, but too often looses by a 10 to 1 casualty ratio. In STW, a weaker AI force would either stay put, try to flank or withdraw, and would not attack you frontally.

[Doug-Thompson]

The Rome tactical AI is far too prone to attack with insufficient force. It is as though it's trying to fight a war of attrition, but too often looses by a 10 to 1 casualty ratio. In STW, a weaker AI force would either stay put, try to flank or withdraw, and would not attack you frontally.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. There was no logical reason for the Egyptians on the mountainside in my example to come charging down the hill.

[Orda Khan]

You didn't disagree with me Doug. I said I would like to see a competent AI army take the field. I did say there have been issues with all the titles but not that they were worse or better than RTW. I can remember the MTW AI general, post v2.01, charging through his front ranks to attack my army frontally and I can remember that same AI had a problem using archers/crossbows properly. I can also remember destroying an AI army that was nearly five times greater than my own, because once the initial army routed all you needed to do was deploy along the red zone and take out the reinforcements one by one. The pace of RTW was a shock after MTW but there again, so was the pace of STW/MI. After playing MTW for some time, I played a few MI games and thought my PC was playing up. It will be a long time before the tactical AI matches a human player, if ever but I honestly think we will see some nice improvement with BI

..........Orda

[Steppe Merc]

Only Romans get loyalty? Who cares about religion, damn it! Non Romans had just as much infighting due to not relgion as anyone else! More reason to never want to get this thing...
And we probably won't be able to do anything with this... it's gonna be hardcoded, I gaurentee.

[sunsmountain]

Notice how the interviewer asks nothing about the AI. Perhaps it's not as important to the majority.

[NodachiSam]

I'm really surprised they would've sacked loyalty for other factions. Don't they have that in regular RTW? I mean, its not like Romans are another species of humans from the barbarians that only they have to deal with loyalty. I guess we'll have to wait to see how it works, eh?

Also, I'm fond of the ostrogoths, maybe with modding though.

I realise that it is hard to make a historically based game open ended. Who is to say that the Roman Empire might not have recovered a little, sure they were heading for a collapse but maybe they could've hung onto italy, sicily, sardinia and corsica for another 500 years or so.

[Spino]

Notice how the interviewer asks nothing about the AI. Perhaps it's not as important to the majority.

No, I disagree. For the interviewer to not ask about the AI tells me that he didn't actually play RTW for any length of time. In fact most of the reviewers for the major gaming sites/magazines who went bonkers over Rome and gave it ultra high marks back when it was released clearly didn't play it long enough to notice the AI in action. How can anyone give a game 85%+, 8 or 9 out of 10 or 4 out of 5 stars when it doesn't provide any kind of meaningful challenge?!?

RTW's lackluster AI is one of the major beefs the fans have with the game since it was first released. I'm not just saying that because the AI has been such a sore point for me personally either. Since day one I've spotted countless posts about RTW's AI by other casual gamers in non-RTS related forums. It seems that anytime someone asks about other strat games in the market someone mentions Rome and either they or someone else mentions the poor AI, the glaring bugs or the ultra fast clickfest combat.

[Dorkus]

The AI is bad, and the game is way too easy (having played it only on VH/VH). But seriously speaking, has anyone played any strategy game recently that has reasonable tactical AI?

So relatively speaking, RTW wasn't bad at all. And easy as it was, it was still a blast (better than any other game put out in the past 2 years or so). I always got my challenge out of trying to complete the campaign asap.

The bad side of this is that I never actually got to the marian reforms after the patch came out (in rtw 1.0-1.1, marian reforms were linked only to the construction of an Imperial Palace, not a set game date) :(

PS Spino, if your'e going to give rtw an 85%, what other games over the past 2 years get 90+%? Surely rtw beats pretty much anything the competition (in any genre) has put out recently...

[Orda Khan]

I tend to agree with Dsyrow1. There has been so much mentioned at the Org about poor AI, yet many forget the fact that we have been playing Total War for years. There will always be those who play only VH and complete their campaign in one sitting and then complain that it was too easy. I have been mainly MP, though I have campaigned with SP too, but I can honestly say that most of the issues discussed in these forums about SP bugs etc have not really manifested to the extent that the campaign becomes becomes boring or downright silly. I never rush through the campaign and perhaps I do things a little differently...I have never use bribes. There again I have never witnessed the load bug, I just continue campaign and the game carries on, with no aimless AI armies 'forgetting' their orders. There are issues with the game as there have been with all of the others. Blatant AI cheats to prolong the game are probably my biggest annoyance. I would like to see a more competent AI army take the field but I also realise that the AI will never match a 'real' player. I try to get around this by fighting armies that outnumber mine. In the meantime, I have every confidence that CA are trying to address as many problems as is reasonable and I believe that BI will provide possibly the best campaign of the series.

MP issues such as stacking units will also, hopefully, be addressed. Gameplay flaws, again, have always existed and players who look for and exploit them, too, have always existed. I doubt that BI will be any different and, no doubt, something will arise that the exploiters can profit from. As is usually the case, you solve one problem and all it does is create a new one. Although this paints a poor picture of RTW MP, it is still possible to enjoy some very good battles, particularly when playing people who do not look for exploits. With MP also, I think BI will deliver a big improvement

........Orda

[Spino]

The AI is bad, and the game is way too easy (having played it only on VH/VH). But seriously speaking, has anyone played any strategy game recently that has reasonable tactical AI?

So relatively speaking, RTW wasn't bad at all. And easy as it was, it was still a blast (better than any other game put out in the past 2 years or so). I always got my challenge out of trying to complete the campaign asap.

The bad side of this is that I never actually got to the marian reforms after the patch came out (in rtw 1.0-1.1, marian reforms were linked only to the construction of an Imperial Palace, not a set game date) :(

PS Spino, if your'e going to give rtw an 85%, what other games over the past 2 years get 90+%? Surely rtw beats pretty much anything the competition (in any genre) has put out recently...

Please reread my post. I never gave Rome 85% but questioned why it got so many high marks in reviews when it simply doesn't offer the kind of challenge and longevity that other high scoring games offer. True, Rome does beat the competition but to be honest up until recently its only competition was found in the small, independent games market. So to compare Rome to a standard RTS is simply wrong. Rome is, for the most part, it's only competition!

RTW triumphs in many areas and sets the bar incredibly high for any comers looking to infringe on CA's strategic/tactical TW turf. However despite those triumphs RTW simply doesn't provide any kind of meaningful challenge unless you're willing to only play the minor factions or severely handicap yourself with a laundry list of self imposed house rules. I simply cannot consider a game that requires such handicapping to be an all time great title. I hold Medieval in higher regard than Rome because for all its faults and shortcomings, it is clearly the most challenging TW title to date.

The thing about RTW that drives many of us TW veterans nuts is that it's painfully obvious CA didn't assign any kind of meaningful priority to the AI or the campaign games so that they match the spectacular graphics, sound and presentation. Rome may be packed to the brim with eye candy and features but it is alarmingly short on challenge and depth. Less challenging battles and a more simplistic Risk-style 'conquer x number of provinces' campaign game is simply not enough for me. Speaking of which, why on earth did CA not incorporate a Glorious Acheivements campaign in Rome?

To reiterate this point for the umpteenth time (sorry but it's been covered ad nauseum in other threads) most of us who complain about the AI are NOT clamoring for the digital equivalent of Napoleon or Alexander the Great! Most of us realize this won't happen in video games for quite some time. We simply want a competent AI opponent who gets the basics right and throws us an occasional surprise now and again. Much to our shock and dismay RTW's tactical AI not only fails to get the basics right but is actually worse than its predecessor! I think it's a fair and reasonable expectation to assume that the TW series was going to evolve in this area, not devolve. I have lost count of how many times the situation on RTW's strategic map appeared to make my position seem precarious if not hopeless only to have the tactical AI completely shoot itself in the foot during the ensuing clashes. Had I known that autocalcing all the battles was the only way to make the game challenging I would have never bought Rome in the first place! After all this is a TW title! The whole point to the TW series is fighting the tactical battles!!!

If programmers are clever enough to invent ingenius and efficient level of detail routines which enable the game engine to depict thousands of 3D soldiers onscreen at the same time then I am certain they are up to the task of devising a competent AI opponent. But I believe with respect to RTW the AI simply wasn't given high priority by CA and the game suffers because of it.

[Puzz3D]

Notice how the interviewer asks nothing about the AI. Perhaps it's not as important to the majority.

Apparently, it isn't as important to the majority as it is to the more serious strategy gamer. However, Jerome Grasdyke has been able to look at the battle AI and make some improvements which could be quite significant, and he made other improvements which he said probably wouldn't interest the majority of gamers. So, there is a commitment to create a serious strategy game as long as the business interests are satisfied as well. The difficult part is keeping the gimicky gameplay features that the business interests want from sabotaging the serious gameplay, and implimenting all these things fast enough that you still have time to refine the gameplay and debug the game.

I remember a post by Jerome when RTW v1.0 was released where he expressed satisfaction that all interests had been satisfied. It must have been a bit of a nightmare trying to satisfied everyone and still meet the deadine. However, in retrospect, I think the serious strategy game lost out to gimicky gameplay features which ate up a lot of time to develop. It looks like with v1.2 and BI the pendulum is swinging back in the direction of serious gameplay which I think is good for the Total War series. The serious gamer will probably still have to resort to mods in SP which is ok as long as the underlying game mechanisms are working correctly and the AI is reasonably competent. Multiplayer is going to remain in the realm of the casual player since mods are of limited use there.

[SigniferOne]

I think you guys are seriously overreacting on the AI issue. I have been able to have quite an enjoyable time with my games lately, on H/H. I guess AI could be better of course, and I wish thatbugs which cripple the AI already present are fixed, but once those bugs are done, I think it will be great. It already is an enjoyable game. So I don't know who you guys are who beat the game on VH/M within five turns -- maybe you might want to play with some Iron Man rules or something. After all, a lot of the complaints here are that the game is TOO FREE, allowing you to customize your armies however you like and maybe not as historical as it was, so all of you uber gamers are really asking for a MORE RESTRICTIVE game, and yet then complain when CA imposes other limitations. So it's almost impossible to satisfy you the uber gamers, I hope you realize that. If you find some gimmicky way to beat the AI, don't use it. For example, if you find that bribe costs are too low, as they once were, no one forces you to bribe the enemy and thus win the game easily -- yet you abuse this advantage, and then complain about it. I never really went crazy on the bribes, and never wanted to, so the bribing was never even a problem for me. Same with a lot of other issues, I just don't exploit them like the power players do, and so I don't really complain after abusing the game in such a way, unlike the power players...

[antisocialmunky]

People do iron man on RTW. But the fact is, that the AI isn't particularly bright and there's no effective way to Ironman through a crap AI unless you play with only Town Watch(Pez) or something. Yes, you can make the game more challenging, but it doesn't change the fact that he point of a strategy game is to make the player think rather than sit there and watch the AI try to walk through walls and phalanxes.