why arent they talking at all about the AI?

[Mooks]

However, I'm trying to suspend judgement until I've played the demo.

Most likely the demo will be dumbed down for nooby players.

[screwtype]

Yeah, I remember people saying the same thing about the RTW demo as well. They turned out to be wrong.

Apart from the fact that the RTW demo was scripted, it gave a pretty good indication of what the actual game was like. I expect it will be much the same for M2TW.

But I probably won't just rely on the demo. I'll wait to see what the consensus about the game is from experienced TW'ers.

[Rodion Romanovich]

the graphics are pretty, they love to point this out....but what about the AI?

6 months till release<rumor> why no talk of the AI?

getting annoyed with them talking up the graphics and animations and nothing about improved AI <which is really what any game is about>

It's very difficult to program much of the AI before finishing most of the graphics engine, so it's natural that graphics are presented first. I'd guess they've made most of the AI by now, but it's probably not yet in a finished state. As it's the last thing done before testing and tweaking, it'll probably be finished around 3 months before release or something like that.

[Callahan9119]

It's very difficult to program much of the AI before finishing most of the graphics engine, so it's natural that graphics are presented first. I'd guess they've made most of the AI by now, but it's probably not yet in a finished state. As it's the last thing done before testing and tweaking, it'll probably be finished around 3 months before release or something like that.

good argument...unit stats etc etc must be tested and such, but couldnt ai be developed fairly independently? i just feel like it should be something constantly worked on from concept to actual design...ai has become a major focus point for game designers, look at for example many fps games when stw launched now we have halo...and many other games that have ai miles away from 4 years ago

yet this type of game does not have the market fps have...so i have and will cut them some slack...i have a powerful system i want the best


but you do have a good point regardless

EDIT

and before anybody crucifies me, saying its easier to do ai for a fps: as TW is dealing with thousands of units....its just really 10 as its just a big blob of animations...not that its easy to do this :)

[Rodion Romanovich]

good argument...unit stats etc etc must be tested and such, 1. but couldnt ai be developed fairly independently? i just feel like 2. it should be something constantly worked on from concept to actual design...ai has become a major focus point for game designers, look at for example many fps games when stw launched now we have halo...and many other games that have ai miles away from 4 years ago

yet this type of game does not have the market fps have...so i have and will cut them some slack...i have a powerful system i want the best


but you do have a good point regardless

EDIT

and before anybody crucifies me, saying its easier to do ai for a fps: as TW is dealing with thousands of units....its just really 10 as its just a big blob of animations...not that its easy to do this :)

1. after graphics have been planned and implemented enough it's possible to implement AI. But sometimes when graphics are extended it might affect ai. Probably they could start working on AI after getting the basics of the grahpics engine ready. After all it's necessary to be able to preview how the AI looks in practise to be able to program much of it. But yes, it's possible to do it independently to some extent, but preferable for the developers to do after all graphics are done
2. yes, if the developer has made the same type of game several times, they can learn what dependencies there are between graphics engine and AI, i.e. what organization they need for the data from a fast graphics perspective. Due to the high framerate requirements it's often necessary to adapt data structures to graphics. Therefore if graphics are upgraded a lot, like from RTW to MTW2, there might still be problems figuring out AI before making most graphics features.

[sunsmountain]

The guy at the .com who was at CA's stall in the Sega section of E3 said that CA has 2 guys working on the AI, 1 for campagin map AI the other for battlefield AI. But to be fair the kind of coding work that making AI is would really only be a 1 man job. But if AI is all they are both doing then that's several hundred hours for the development of both.

I have a feeling who this 1 man is, and though I trust in his abilities, I would appreciate it if he shared his design problems with the STW/MTW veterans, to see if they can find solutions. They can't be purely programming problems, ie there must be some puzzles to which we can perhaps supply answers.

What I'd like to see most is AI armies acting in a co-ordinated manner instead of each unit acting completely independently of the rest. It makes it so easy to beat the AI piecemeal. And there's no sense of a controlling enemy intelligence at all. RTW AI armies basically behaved in a totally random fashion.

No, not random. And the AI armies do tend to stay together before engaging. Not talking about the three way battles of course, or players deliberately tempting the AI army to split up (which is of course, only natural). On a unit level, the unit AI seems dominant. What it needs is indeed higher level command, that can synthesize ALL situations and provide answers in ALL situations.

Though the AI was designed from the ground up to allow such higher level decision making, the time needed for tweaking this was no longer there, and patches have already begun as far as i can see to add what i call "formations before engagement".

I remember everything that has ever been said about the AI because CA isn't going into details about it (copyright and stuff), but I don't have the links anymore to prove what i've said. Safe to say that there's a lot more to the AI than you may think. A game has to be finished, anyway, before any AI can be written. That kind of puts a stop on new ideas (and Thank God).

All they would really need to do is to program the AI to have half a dozen different battle plans for each of the main situations, ie field attack, field defence, siege attack, siege defence etc., and you would have a game that was entertaining, unpredictable, and challenging. But what are chances we will get something like this?

I suggested as much with a combination of MTW and RTW AI, giving initial starting formations to the AI, and different strategies for each one. But in RTW, if you give the AI a certain mix of units, it will always apply the same initial formation & strategy, no matter what. That has to change, well if i am to buy it anyway.

As far as speculations about M2TW AI, I was initially quite hopeful we were going to see significant improvement in this game. However, the movies we have seen so far are not terribly encouraging. Units still seem to be moving too fast, kill rates still too fast, not much evidence of AI smarts. So I'm beginning to grow cynical again and to think we are going to get RTW with prettier graphics.

Yeah I just hope they turn down the kill speeds so we get to enjoy the effects more of what we do. This is the main point for me to buy MTW2 or not. Followed quickly by a cunning AI (better than RTW, although RTW is not THAT bad).

[Callahan9119]

ok i see your point, yet i still want to hear SOMETHING regarding AI concerns that have been around since stw....anything they just keep upgrading the graphics...the mori <sp> clan randomly breaking my alliance was no different than when any other stupid rtw faction does it...same with units eating missles etc....all i want is them to throw me a frickin bone

[sunsmountain]

Wait a minute, Rome had 11 programmers. Surely more than 1 could do & help with battlemap AI??
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...tech_info.html

[Odin]

ok i see your point, yet i still want to hear SOMETHING regarding AI concerns that have been around since stw....anything they just keep upgrading the graphics...the mori <sp> clan randomly breaking my alliance was no different than when any other stupid rtw faction does it...same with units eating missles etc....all i want is them to throw me a frickin bone

While I understand your frustration level, and I know its shared by many, CA has a well established model for releases. Since STW, I dont recall the AI as being the seller of any of thier games.

The graphics seem to drive the initial release/sale process and then, after the feedback from the masses a patch or two gets released, then an expansion with a last patch.

I dont forsee this changing, as its seemingly a successful formula for this developer, otherwise sales wouldnt justify the continuation of the series. You're best bet might be to hold off on preorder or purchase at release and let it hit the masses first, maybe wait for a patch to come out before leaping in.

[Furious Mental]

"I dont forsee this changing, as its seemingly a successful formula for this developer, otherwise sales wouldnt justify the continuation of the series. You're best bet might be to hold off on preorder or purchase at release and let it hit the masses first, maybe wait for a patch to come out before leaping in."

I understand this, but there is a way around it and personally I really wish CA would make use of it. All they have to do is, once a game is released, licence the engine to other developers who can then work on making games with a new setting, whether it is ultra-accurate history or over-the-top fantasy, or on making powerful battlefield AI, or any other things that CA has not enough time for. People who want the most graphically dazzling TW game could get whatever CA makes itself, those who are prepared to accept less advanced graphics but with a setting that they like or with better AI or whatever could get second-party games. And I think alot of people would get both- any Total War is best seller.

[screwtype]

One thing I wish and that is that game code would go public after a certain time. There are so many great old games, often from defunct companies, that could just do with a little tweak here and there to bring them up-to-date and make into perennial all-time classics.

It's such a shame to see all this code just go to waste. I wish somebody would pass a law to say that gaming code has to be preserved and released to the public domain after a certain time period, say, five years. Then all those brilliant old games could be revived and built upon by entreprising programmers.

In fact, I think I'm going to start a political movement with this as my central platform

[Furious Mental]

I'd vote for that.

[Mooks]

Same here.

[Odin]

I understand this, but there is a way around it and personally I really wish CA would make use of it. All they have to do is, once a game is released, licence the engine to other developers who can then work on making games with a new setting, whether it is ultra-accurate history or over-the-top fantasy, or on making powerful battlefield AI, or any other things that CA has not enough time for. People who want the most graphically dazzling TW game could get whatever CA makes itself, those who are prepared to accept less advanced graphics but with a setting that they like or with better AI or whatever could get second-party games. And I think alot of people would get both- any Total War is best seller.

In sentiment, I agree with you. In practice though, there is no need to get around anything. CA seems to be doing just fine with the current business model. What is there incentive to change their current practices? Like it or not the TW series has been a commercial success, and CA is a business.

Ideally it would be a more open source coding so the moding would be easier (AKA Paradox titles) this way, end users like you and I can actually tweek the AI and come up with mods free to the community. I dont know if CA would license the engine, an intriquing idea but not something I have heard a lot about.

Is there precident for this in the gaming industry? I honestly dont know, but again, reality suggests that CA has a proven business model going on the 4th title, I dont see it changing. The only thing that is a variable at this point, is the end user purchase.

If that changes, then thier development process will change.

[screwtype]

Same here.

Maybe we should all start a gamer's lobby group or something

[sunsmountain]

Already now, when 5 years have passed, most companies no longer pursue copyright infringement actively for certain titles. Reverse engineering them to create new titles however, always gets a response, especially if you stand to gain money from it.

While money is an important aspect, you can not totally alienate your original fanbase. You could, but some of us would eventually post a negative comment on Gamespot, hurting their sales & image.

On a human level, the programmers can identify themselves more with us than they can with WCIII players, though they do also have to cater to those or face their investors. They have Quality Assessment Groups, in which they test all new ideas on average gamers, and bug testing is thorough. Though we may not like Rome:TW, all intended ideas were implemented (not necessarily balanced) and the game is relatively crash free. I have yet to crash version 1.5...

The AI remains a tricky point. It cannot be marketed, so we hear nothing about it. Who wants to be smart instead of pretty? The latter sure sells...
But I am confident they will take their time this time, and if they don't, our judgement will be accordingly.

If you want to help, become a playtester (beta release) for Activision, and submit feedback on the AI, IF you get to play beta MTW2 (which isn't a sure thing).

[TB666]

If you want to help, become a playtester (beta release) for Activision, and submit feedback on the AI, IF you get to play beta MTW2 (which isn't a sure thing).

That wouldn't help since CA are with SEGA now

[sunsmountain]

oh yes. So help SEGA then. Do they even have playtesters? Oh dear...

[Dead Knight of the Living]

Forget the AI. WHy aren't they talking about what advertisement flyers they're going to put in the box with the game.

[Furious Mental]

"In practice though, there is no need to get around anything. CA seems to be doing just fine with the current business model."

I was referring to the fact that the reason invariably given for the underdone AI and bugs is that they have know no time therefore no one can make a Total War game with computer players who were not dropped on their heads as babies. That is what they are supposed to be "getting around". As far as incentives go, well I would have thought the opportunity to make even more money licencing the engine to other studios would be an ample incentive. In the FPS development business it is commonplace. Of course it's entirely up to them. But the fact is that their engine will not maintain a virtual monopoly in this field forever, unless they licence it. If they don't eventually someone will develop a credible rival.

[Odin]

I was referring to the fact that the reason invariably given for the underdone AI and bugs is that they have know no time therefore no one can make a Total War game with computer players who were not dropped on their heads as babies.

True enough, but after 3 titles, and expansions players keep purchasing the product, underdone AI and all. While the AI might not be up to par with our expectations, clearly, someone at CA (or whomever makes the publishing decisions) feels its adequate enough to sell.

As far as incentives go, well I would have thought the opportunity to make even more money licencing the engine to other studios would be an ample incentive.

I honestly dont know the numbers, however licencing the engine would allow someone else to develop the product line, maybe better then you. So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself. Unless that agreement cover the original developer, like I said I dont know.

Of course it's entirely up to them. But the fact is that their engine will not maintain a virtual monopoly in this field forever, unless they licence it. If they don't eventually someone will develop a credible rival

Well that might be true, but here we are years later after STW and you would be hard pressed to find a "credible rival". If you know one please post a link, I would love to check out a new game. Im not suggesting CA has cornered the market, but they consistantly have used the same model of development, release, patch, expansion with a patch, new title.

Seems to be working for them, and while I want an AI thats top notch as much as the next person, my faith in gaming companies is down the toilet. I'll wait on the sidelines see how the response is from the community, wait for a patch or two then make a purchase.

[sunsmountain]

I honestly dont know the numbers, however licencing the engine would allow someone else to develop the product line, maybe better then you. So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself. Unless that agreement cover the original developer, like I said I dont know.

Sales of all TW products fall on or below the 1 million copies sold line, which does not consist of enough market for other companies to buy a license from SEGA, who would have to spend money first licensing it.

My estimate, for total sales:

Shogun 200,000 sold
STW mongol invasion 100,000 sold

Medieval 300,000 sold
MTW viking invasion 150,000 sold

Rome 1,000,000 sold (eventually)
RTW barbarian invasion 300,000 sold (eventually)

These are quite optimistic numbers, I might add. Of those 700,000 new members to the TW community, only 1 in 10 registers with the fora, while almost 50% of the STW/MTW group is registerd. These are again my own personal estimates. A lot of the sales for Rome:TW have nothing to do with AI, but simply a sound commercial marketing strategy, and the fact that it's unique amongst strategy games.

[doc_bean]

My estimate, for total sales:

It's nearly impossible to make an estimate of sales in my experience. They're bound to float around the web somewhere, if only we oculd find them (CA enlighten us !)

[Callahan9119]

improving the ai should be an obligation over 6 + releases and expansions

what has really changed?...where is glorious achievments? seems we lose something everygame with minimal improvements besides the graphics engine. the more they dummy the game the more they throw themselves to an area where companies already have the market cornered. it might work, seems risky to me though. u know they wont be going anywhere in the mp department with gamespy as is

not many buy a game for the singleplayer experience if its not challenging and deep

and the clickfest rts mp gamers will laugh and laugh when CA tries to market to them with its awful 4 year record of MP, but maybe they can actually trick some into buying it....we'll see. Last night was in MP for 5 hours, actually managed 4 games 15 failed games <not from my end>

rome was as talked up as this, and the ai is worse than it was in mtw and they did nothing to the mp stability <if anything its worse> why will this be any different

[Furious Mental]

"So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself."

Did you actually read what I typed? I said they should licence previous iterations of an engine after they have developed an improved one, e.g.licence the RTW engine sometimes between the release of RTW and MTW 2. Arguably if MTW 2 is such an improvement upon RTW that it merits another one hundred dollars they should have no problem in commercial terms with selling a licence to use the Rome engine to another development studio.

"I honestly dont know the numbers, however licencing the engine would allow someone else to develop the product line, maybe better then you."

How is it a rival product line if they're paying to use the engine? The terms of a contract can easily be written to preclude certain changes being made to an engine, such that if CA wants to ensure that its own games are always the most impressive in terms of graphics, numbers of troops etcetera all it has to is stick a stipulation in the agreement. If you actually look at the "competition" to Total War games it's pretty clear that it consists chiefly of developers and a market which either doesn't care for games on such a large and realistically rendered (in terms of graphics) scale or hasn't the skill to make them and would be interested chiefly in changing the setting and gameplay. Thus I find the idea that they could or would use a licenced Total War game to make a clone somewhat dubious. If/ when some studio pops up which has the skill and intention to create a genuine Total War rival themselves then they would make such a game whether they can use the Total War engine or not.

[Odin]

"So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself."

Did you actually read what I typed? I said they should licence previous iterations of an engine after they have developed an improved one, e.g.licence the RTW engine sometimes between the release of RTW and MTW

How is it a rival product line if they're paying to use the engine? The terms of a contract can easily be written to preclude certain changes being made to an engine, such that if CA wants to ensure that its own games are always the most impressive in terms of graphics, numbers of troops etcetera all it has to is stick a stipulation in the agreement. If you actually look at the "competition" to Total War games it's pretty clear that it consists chiefly of developers and a market which either doesn't care for games on such a large and realistically rendered (in terms of graphics) scale or hasn't the skill to make them and would be interested chiefly in changing the setting and gameplay. Thus I find the idea that they could or would use a licenced Total War game to make a clone somewhat dubious. If/ when some studio pops up which has the skill and intention to create a genuine Total War rival themselves then they would make such a game whether they can use the Total War engine or not.

Yeah I read what you typed.

All they have to do is, once a game is released, licence the engine to other developers who can then work on making games with a new setting, whether it is ultra-accurate history or over-the-top fantasy, or on making powerful battlefield AI, or any other things that CA has not enough time for. People who want the most graphically dazzling TW game could get whatever CA makes itself, those who are prepared to accept less advanced graphics but with a setting that they like or with better AI or whatever could get second-party games. And I think alot of people would get both- any Total War is best seller.

Thats what you typed. No where did you mention:

I said they should licence previous iterations of an engine after they have developed an improved one, e.g.licence the RTW engine sometimes between the release of RTW and MTW

You state they could license the engine once its released, not after a new one is developed, if you meant to say that fine, but yeah pal I "actually read what you typed" maybe if you were a little more clear on what you meant it might make your point quicker and you wouldnt have to take 3 posts to do it.

How is it a rival product line if they're paying to use the engine?

The fact that someone else is now devloping your engine, allows them to take it any direction they want. Thus direct competition with the liscensee unless they develop a new engine and liscense out the old one. So you develop a new total war engine, and you allow someone else to use the old one, well what are they going to use it for? To develop games?

Why the hell would anyone give someone else the means to compete directly against them with a product they developed, even if its an older version? Maybe it happens in some FPS or other joundra (sp?) of gaming but I havent seen it much in wargames that I have played.

In addition to that, I am sure there are people in the industry, and at CA who are far more intelligent about the gaming industry then you and I, and they havent done it yet. Why? My contention is very simple, there is no need to, gamers keep buying the product, no need to change the current formula based on a few hundred complaints about AI, of which about half of those people will buy the game anyway.

[econ21]

Odin, please let's keep exchanges in this forum friendly.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

IF a company decided to make a historically accurate game of the order of EB, with the dramatically reduced audience for such a game then they would have to charge a lot more, say theres 10% of the market that there is for RTR, they would have to charge £250 just to make the same kinda profits as CA.

Maybee CA could be incouraged to allow mods to use their engine like UT2004 has, the main reason i brought it was because of all the cool mods there are for it, its like buying 6 games in one!

[Lord Adherbal]

with the dramatically reduced audience for such a game

my goodness, is it THAT bad with the current youth?

I can't remember the term "historical accuracy" ever scaring me off

[Furious Mental]

"Thus direct competition with the liscensee unless they develop a new engine and liscense out the old one. So you develop a new total war engine, and you allow someone else to use the old one, well what are they going to use it for? To develop games?"

Umm yeah. Are you going to tell me how that is dangerous competition any more than the existence of other Total War- like games is? It is in fact a way to make money from competition.

"I havent seen it much in wargames that I have played."

And? It is done. I can think of a few licenced engines off my head- AOE II, WoW, CnC, etc. Besides which the fact that it is more common in FPS games is essentially immaterial. Your reasoning seems to be "they don't do it therefore they shouldn't do it". Interesting.

"no need to change the current formula based on a few hundred complaints about AI, of which about half of those people will buy the game anyway."

First of all, I said, I think, more than twice even, that it is not just about the AI. Second of all, it's also not about "changing the formula" or "need". It is simply an obvious way to make cash by capitalising on the existence of old engines. It is hardly the only way to do it either. Another would be to expand the possibilities for modders and subcontract prominent mods to make retail add-ons, which has proved to be immensely successful in FPS games. The very fact that it has been under-exploited in the strategy genre means that it is big fat opportunity screaming to be seized. Yet another would be to expand the number of ancillary studios which are responsible for expansions, which eliminates the issue of competition completely.