EB criticism from woman's point of view

[Semigall]

As i read in one other topic, u here lack women opinions about EB. So i decided to post (in short) what my sister said about EB.
As my sister mainly focuses on realism of different pc games, this was the point she also criticized in EB.

So the main drawbacks she accented:
flaws in graphics:
- some textures look bad/weird from distance (ground textures, some bush textures, etc)
- lack of some details that add feeling realism (trails, blood, etc)
- some animations are too stiff/unrealistic (skirmishers and those with javelins on horses)
flaws in gameplay
- unability to engage diplomacy with small tribes
- sometimes weird AI behaviour in combat (sending his troops forward and backward for no appearant reason and such)
- too weak aspect of troop morale in battlefield (low morale troops obeying totally idiotic orders, etc)

Hope this helps u :) This all is short and censored version of what my sister said. I suppose, i don't have to say that she didn't liked EB at all...

P.S. Oh, and this probably is my first post here, so hi to everyone ;)

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

I think those gameplay 'issues' are all hardcoded.

At this time EB is imo the most realistic game you can have but it is still limited by hardcoded stuff.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

As i read in one other topic, u here lack women opinions about EB. So i decided to post (in short) what my sister said about EB.
As my sister mainly focuses on realism of different pc games, this was the point she also criticized in EB.

So the main drawbacks she accented:
flaws in graphics:
- some textures look bad/weird from distance (ground textures, some bush textures, etc)
- lack of some details that add feeling realism (trails, blood, etc)
- some animations are too stiff/unrealistic (skirmishers and those with javelins on horses)
flaws in gameplay
- unability to engage diplomacy with small tribes
- sometimes weird AI behaviour in combat (sending his troops forward and backward for no appearant reason and such)
- too weak aspect of troop morale in battlefield (low morale troops obeying totally idiotic orders, etc)

Hope this helps u :) This all is short and censored version of what my sister said. I suppose, i don't have to say that she didn't liked EB at all...

P.S. Oh, and this probably is my first post here, so hi to everyone ;)

Tell here all of these problems are hard-coded and the exclusive responsability of The Creative Assembly, not of the Europa Barbarorum MOD. We can't do anything about them since they are unmodable.

[GodEmperorLeto]

So the main drawbacks she accented:
flaws in graphics:
...
- lack of some details that add feeling realism (trails, blood, etc)

Blood in Rome: Total War! If only!

Sadly enough, all of the problems your sister detailed are not only hardcoded, but if could be fixed (with the exception of the horse-skirmisher example), they'd run havoc on your memory. I mean, the computer is already rendering hundreds or thousands of shooting, fighting, and running troops/horses, missiles, vegetation, and unbelievably gigantic landscapes! Some of the battles I've fought in Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul are breathtaking, by the way. But anyway, imagine if your computer had to give every single soldier a gruesome (albeit realistic) death (i.e. hacked limbs, beheaded, disemboweled, etc.). It would be way cool, but not really practical. Besides, mothers everywhere would croak if they saw all the gore a realistic ancient warfare game should have.

[Cheexsta]

- some textures look bad/weird from distance (ground textures, some bush textures, etc)

Unit sprites aren't done yet (being done for the move to 1.5, from what I've gathered from these forums), other textures and such aren't because of EB. It might be the graphics settings that are at fault.

- lack of some details that add feeling realism (trails, blood, etc)

Hardcoded. Modders can't change this. There is a blood mod out there but it only works for missile weapons and looks pretty average.

- some animations are too stiff/unrealistic (skirmishers and those with javelins on horses)

Agreed, some of the animations are stiff. Equites, for example.

- unability to engage diplomacy with small tribes

Hardcoded. RTW has a limit of 21 factions, including Rebels (Eleutheroi in EB). The Eleutheroi are one of these factions, so engaging in diplomacy with a "small tribe" is like doing so with a single, big faction. EB has done some work on this by adding "alliances" that smaller cities have with larger factions, such as Kyprus being "allied" to the Ptolemies, but I don't think there's much else that can be done.

- sometimes weird AI behaviour in combat (sending his troops forward and backward for no appearant reason and such)

AI is hardcoded. The move to 1.5 might rectify some of the AI issues, though, such as advancing in cohesion.

- too weak aspect of troop morale in battlefield (low morale troops obeying totally idiotic orders, etc)

Good idea, but hardcoded. Unless someone can come up with a battle script where certain commands are greyed out when a unit has reached a specific morale level (which I doubt is even possible, without a ton of code), then it can't be touched.

[Arman]

MTWII will have blood and all the rest if you wish! :-) So preper your computer get Pentium 64 3Mz 1GB RAM PCIExpressx16 VideoCard 256Mb Video RAM. And then may be you will have all those issue things. But IMHO AI will still be stupid, this is the biggest issue of all strategic games never seen one with smart AI, this is generally true for all games.

[Dayve]

That's true... AI in all games is terrible... Especially strategy games, my favourite type...

Although, the AI in BF2 is phenominally good... But they only allow 15 AI's on any map with you so that's probably how they got it so good... Give it another 4 or 5 years and we should have great AI...

[Arman]

Give it another 4 or 5 years and we should have great AI...

Very hard. Development of artificial intellects is the weakest point of software development now, still most of the software either does imple stuff or relies on human decisions. We few improvements in this area for last 10 years, software become bigger, has more capabilities, better graphics but from AI point it's as good and as bad as 10 years ago.
The real smart neuron network system doing very complex analisys requires suppert computers or computing greeds. Remember you need Deep Blue monster to win Casparov in chess. And strategic games are more compless than chess since battle field is much more diferent than chess board. I simply play MP when I want to have descent battle.

[LorDBulA]

The real smart neuron network system doing very complex analisys requires suppert computers or computing greeds. Remember you need Deep Blue monster to win Casparov in chess. And strategic games are more compless than chess since battle field is much more diferent than chess board.

Not only this. Deep Blue uses hundreds of years of human solutions for chess games, this we will never have for computer games.
Good AI is something that is out of reach right now, and the more complex the game is, the worst it gets because human have more opportunities to use its creative brain.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not only this. Deep Blue uses hundreds of years of human solutions for chess games, this we will never have for computer games.
Good AI is something that is out of reach right now, and the more complex the game is, the worst it gets because human have more opportunities to use its creative brain.

However, at the same time human limitations in ideas for making AI often mean there's a limitation to how good the players can become. It's actually not very difficult to make an AI that can beat the player, for example in an FPS game you only need a few calculations to get the exact angle the AI should aim to always hit you in the head, making a completely undefeatable AI in open ground. You can also apply "AI cheating" of a not too serious kind, such as AI always knowing where you are, even if you're behind a hill, or worse cheating such as the AI having more hitpoints. So the real problem is usually how to make the AI mistakes look realistic.

In any case, a good AI requires as much as, or more coding than programming a graphics engine and a game engine, and if the developers feel short of time they rarely ever want to put that effort into better AI. If there is to be better AI in TW games it either takes release of source code or that those improvements come in the second game they make with the same engine, such as MTW1 and now MTW2.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Maybe it's just my computer, but every once in a while, the AI has flashes of absolute brilliance. For example, correctly timing a cavalry charge at the right exact point, breaking my line and routing my army. Or withdrawing units to pull me into a trap.

...

But that is a rare (and special) occurrance.

[Dayve]

Maybe it's just my computer, but every once in a while, the AI has flashes of absolute brilliance. For example, correctly timing a cavalry charge at the right exact point, breaking my line and routing my army. Or withdrawing units to pull me into a trap.

...

But that is a rare (and special) occurrance.

In other words... Fluke coincidence...

Oh well, you can't have everything... I'll be happy when the EB mod is completely finished with all the new units and unit card images and traits and all that other good stuff...

[Idomeneas]

Well ai is still in general in childhood. Remember that 10 years ago the pc games were absolutely primitive. Personally the first game i saw with some ''cleverness'' it was close combat 3- . You can actually lose if you just storm the field without plan. RTW has much distance to walk but it adressed some serious issues. The ai gathers actual armies and not just the cheapest units. So you face a rather good unit mixture and not just poor beggars all the time. So when the ai has good economy it uses it. Ok the battles are not like playing with human but they are not totally rediculus as with other games.

Rush attacks are deteriorated by the ai. It waits to gather a proper army not constantly attack with beggers. I bet when all started playing they didnt won all battles. It was exciting then, but the greatest problem of ai is that it repeats itself with a certain rythm. Once you figure it out the ai is finished in every game.

[hoom]

I'm not so desirous of a smart AI so much as one that apropriately keeps its army in formation most of the time & uses historically sensible tactics.

RTW (& actually all previous TW) AI just can't keep its units in formation thus individual units are easily swarmed & it forces the player to also split, again not using historical type tactics :(

I really can't see how it can be so hard to get the AI to actually keep a phalanx in phalanx line & occasionally try refusing a flank, stuff like that.

[the_handsome_viking]

I find it really hard to fight back the urge to do this...

Oh I just can't...

To your sister



Forum police men forgive me =(.

[Turin]

Oh god that's hilarious Viking! Did you do that one yourself? (not sarcasm)

But yeah, they're all part of the game EB has already done a heroic job of mitigating a lot of the problems. For example the AI actually forms meaningful alliances and such now. On the battlefield the AI marches in close order right until they attack, then it's RTW CA style!

FYI many of the diplomacy and battlefield AI problems are fixed in 1.5. It was quite orgasmic to see a phalanx actually sticking together somewhat to attack you.

[Urnamma]

And locked.

[khelvan]

Viking, this is the second time you've crossed the line between "funny" and "offensive." I like to give a lot of leeway, but the comments you made a few weeks ago and this one together show a lack of tact. I hate to start giving out warnings, but I will be forced to if this continues.

Please remember that what may be funny to some can be offensive to others, and try to exercise a little restraint. In this forum we must err on the side of those who might be offended, no matter how that might grate on the nerves of some of our posters.