why arent they talking at all about the AI?

[Spino]

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.

Actually your sales estimates are quite pessimistic and are way off the mark. Some time ago one of the developers posted some rough sales figures for Shogun & Medieval. It turns out since its release Shogun & its expansion have sold well over 500,000 copies (the actual number may have been closer to 700-750,000 but my memory is hazy). However I distinctly remember this person mentioning that Medieval & its expansion pack went on to sell roughly one million plus units. I think it's safe to say Rome & its expansion pack exceeded this number in a much shorter period of time.

[sunsmountain]

Yes, Spino, you're probably right, the problem is that it's quite difficult to google that information back at this time. Since i haven't seen any TW game appearing in the 1 million plus list, i took that as a reference. I'm sure Rome:TW will break that mark, while MTW and MTW:VI may have come close to 1 million individually (can't really add them together, as the latter needs the first to play).

So while I believe your numbers, my order of magnitude estimate isn't so far off. A little pessimistic perhaps, but then again i consider 300,000 copies sold to be a lot already.

[doc_bean]

reviews are generally useless (at least for top name games); reading dedicated forums often gives a much better idea of a games strengths and weaknesses.

I disagree, reviews are usually good for games that last about 10-20 hours. reviewers have a tight schedule, and they don't have time to play one game that much. They can hardly assess the replay value. Much of the problems with RTW came only to light after a few months (the missile bug !). Rome made a damn good first impression, if I had to have rated the game based on initial experience I might have given it a 92% also.

[Spino]

I almost forgot to comment on the thread's main subject...

CA is talking about the AI, certainly moreso than they have in the past. Clearly this is in reaction to the countless complaints leveled at Rome and its lackluster AI. However keep in mind that CA's generic and pithy responses regarding Medieval 2's AI is pretty much standard in the industry as most developers & publishers treat the open discussion of AI as a taboo subject. I'm not exactly sure why developers shy away from the discussion of AI in their upcoming games. It might have something to do with the level of understanding of the average gamer regarding AI in general. Any dolt (or game reviewer) can and will drone on about pixel & vertex shaders, surface mapping, etc. after a quick read of a video card review and that basic knowledge of the relevant technology translates into expectations which developers know their game must match or beat. Understanding the conventions, principles and jargon involved in AI programming is no simple task and certainly cannot be done via the casual perusal of articles written in layman's terms (good luck finding AI articles written for the common man).

Basically I think developers avoid going into detail on AI related questions for two reasons; 1) Using technical AI jargon in a conversation with the uninitiated will probably lead to countless headaches (i.e. developers would then be expected to explain the meaning of the technical term they throw at the press and public) and might risk drawing unfavorable comparisons to failed games that utilize the same AI design approach (i.e. neural net blah blah); 2) Giving gamers and the press an inkling as to the overall effectiveness of the AI could seriously undermine the game's reviews and affect overall sales (i.e. don't raise people's expectations unless you're certain you can match or beat them).

However, all our doom and gloom regarding the AI means nothing until Medieval 2 hits the shelves. For all we know CA may have heard and heeded our cries about the AI and have taken the MTW2 development team to task on this issue. One thing for sure is that when MTW2 is released most of us in the TW community are going to take every positive review and praise from an unfamiliar source on a forum with a massive grain of salt. I honestly don't expect to see too much of an improvement in MTW2's AI because when push comes to shove Sega & CA really don't need to change anything. Whether or not MTW2 provides any kind of meaningful challenge is completely irrelevant now thanks to the success of Rome. Rome's phenomenal sales have made it painfully obvious that there are more than enough casual strategy gamers out there who clearly do not care about such things.

[Brighdaasa]

Understanding the conventions, principles and jargon involved in AI programming is no simple task and certainly cannot be done via the casual perusal of articles written in layman's terms (good luck finding AI articles written for the common man).

a good example of a developer that's doing exactly that is Stardock, for their Galactic Civilizations II. Their AI programmer from time to time gives updates on his AI algorithms, telling the customers how they are tackling ai shortcomings or giving the ai new "routines". Also they're constantly updating their ai according to player suggestions/known tactics through their numerous patches.

As a consequence reviewers actually talked about the ai in their reviews, and communicating about the ai programming undoubtedly gave a boost to sales.

take this for example: http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=0&p=3&s=1 the On the road again... article

[sunsmountain]

Good post, Spino, I tend to agree with you on most points. Let's just hope CA will take a leaf out of Stardock's book, and give us a little more insight, or a chance to help them.

Galactic Civilization III is a painfully predictable game though, in which you can calculate a lot of what will happen in the future based on current parameters. Making a good AI out of that is easier than writing one for TW, where the situation on the field can change from moment to moment.

Even though I'm no programmer, I've helped programmers write AI code for games. I read the articles that are out there on the net, complicated or not, know about the A* pathfinding algorithm, it's effectiveness, why it's a little simplistic at times, etc.

In solving AI problems, it usually boils down to translating a game question into code. You first need to recognize & ask the question. That's a hard part, for anybody, but not something programmers are by definition better at than you or me. So we can safely say that the level of AI sharing is too low right now. AI programmers think they can solve big problems themselves, find some sort of solution, but it doesn't work. In a patch they try to literally patch up the algorithm, but it's too late: a better algorithm to start with would have been better.

Lucky for them and us, they make a clear division of tasks. Everybody has their own part in the project, which are fused together in a planned way to get a bug-free game. Rome is remarkably crash-free lately...

Anyway, maybe it is all too complicated, and only a few can solve the problem. But please oh please let them get to it and give them the time...

[IceTorque]

Whats an algorithm ? Is it like a really complicated arithmatic thingy ?

[sunsmountain]

Yes. Everything you see on the battlefield has to be expressed in numbers.
This is the hard part. It's tied to the question of what you want to do with those numbers, and how they compare to each other.

The algorithm starts:
Then, those numbers have to be added, multiplied or substracted and then they have to be compared somehow. After comparison, some of the numbers can go to some other formula, while others are stored and called upon later. This results in different commands for different units, who each have their own set of numbers.
The algorithm stops, and goes back to the start.

This already quickly explains the fact why some units go to that direction while other units go in the other direction, sometimes resulting in meaningless incoherent marching back and forth on the field, each time processing their own numbers, ignoring their fellow units. The AI does try to maintain some coverage of its flanks, but in practice is quite sloppy in doing so.

Recognizing this sloppy situation on the field is VERY difficult to express in numbers, because how do you recognize that your units are not in formation? You only have a position and a facing. A unit of chosen swordsman has a smaller flank than a unit of macedonian pikemen. When is a flank covered? One man of another unit? 5? 10? The entire unit (only happens in single line formation)?

Answering these questions once, in the context of this thread, may be done, but answering these questions 100 times or more in complex, dynamic and interdependent code is a Herculean work. Each day I hope to find one of the CA AI programmers begging for help from the forums, but they keep it internal. Let's see if they have more to say.

[Lucjan]

While speculation does seem to be the order of the day, it would be safe not to let ourselves get carried away. Whether the AI will be significantly improved or still have one or two of Rome's squallor rats stuck to it, I think we should all take into account that even though Rome's AI was mediocre at best, that didn't stop us. We played it anyway. And not only did we play it, but we made it better, we modded it, we improved on it, and we made our contributions free and available to everybody here on this forum. And I'd be damn more proud of myself if I had a hand in making someone else's work better than I would if I let myself get all upset about how their shortcomings disappointed me and let me lose faith.

So I say to you -
Fight on total was junkies! Fight on!





...as a brief side note, though I haven't been a member long enough to actually be a part of this 'we' I speak of..a brief motivational speech seemed due. ~)

[Lucjan]

*cough* ..that was..um..total war* junkies.

[Odin]

While speculation does seem to be the order of the day, it would be safe not to let ourselves get carried away. Whether the AI will be significantly improved or still have one or two of Rome's squallor rats stuck to it, I think we should all take into account that even though Rome's AI was mediocre at best, that didn't stop us. We played it anyway. And not only did we play it, but we made it better, we modded it, we improved on it, and we made our contributions free and available to everybody here on this forum. And I'd be damn more proud of myself if I had a hand in making someone else's work better than I would if I let myself get all upset about how their shortcomings disappointed me and let me lose faith.

Well no matter how long you have been here, welcome and continue posting. A broad contribution is required to really gain a very good sampling of the opinions out there.

Your quoted post above really says a lot. Why would CA talk about the AI when they dont need to? I have purchased many wargames, and have participated in several wargame forums and enevitably the topic of AI always comes up.

Its never adequately addressed (See Spino's post), but the games get produced anyway. Why is that? Why do war/strat games keep getting made if developers arent talking about the AI? Its rather simple to me, the product sells as is.

Yep, would be spectacular if more was done, more polish but there are very few precendents to support this hope. Maybe I am jaded or to cynical but it seems to me the bottom line is the bottom line, AI issues certainly didnt seem to hurt RTW sales (given the speculated sales figures in this thread) so why would the formula change for MTW2?

What we are doing here is effective, we are communicating as best we can our hope that AI issues from the past will get addressed, but at the end of the day it has to be backed up with your willingness to purchase the game. We can sqwauk all we want about AI, if we buy the game straight away anyways the effort is wasted.

Consumption is your power, consumers are the most powerful force in any business enterprise, sadly, we, the consumers have lost sight of that power and rarely employ it.

[doc_bean]

Making an AI that can make good decisions isn't that hard (see Deep Blue) in comparison to making an AI that make those decision with a limited amount of processing power (also see Deep Blue actually). I'm hoping MTW2 will be HEAVILY dependent on graphics cards for it 1337 graphics so that there is enough 'power' left on the actual processor for the AI.

The problem with AI in games in general is imo, that you will always have to make a trade off between graphics and AI, since they're both processor intensive. Graphics provide pretty screenshots, AI doesn't, that's why the balance has shifted to the graphics side imho. A game like Galactic Civ II doesn't have great graphics, and it uses the 3D card for most of its gfx processing I believe, so enough room is left over for the AI.

Answering these questions once, in the context of this thread, may be done, but answering these questions 100 times or more in complex, dynamic and interdependent code is a Herculean work. Each day I hope to find one of the CA AI programmers begging for help from the forums, but they keep it internal. Let's see if they have more to say.

Come on, you'd never hear Carmack or Sweeney talk much about the internal workings of their new engines, you'd have them mention some abstract concept once in a while (NURBS, Bezier curves !) to make it seem all a bit more impressive, but they don't go around asking for advice either. Code is almost always kept internal. (Sometimes the source code is released, yes, when the tech is outdated).

[Brighdaasa]

The thing is: they don't need to go into the details of how they achieved better ai. They don't need to get all techy about it.

For example: they could very well tell us things like

• We made the ai check wether they are under fire from guard towers and make the ai retreat more often when they're taking casualties from it
• We optimized to code to maintain a more coherent battle line
• Added counters against the most common human tactics
• Made the ai form bigger armies before deciding to attack in dibs and drabs

This is all talk about ai, not techy at all, and things we're waiting to hear for such a long time too. Even if they don't deem it necessary to relay that in press releases and on the website's front page, they can very easily tell such things on the forums (providing they're actually working on this). Why not? It doesn't hurt and tides over the hardcore community.

So the lack of communication about this means what? They don't care to comunicate this to us? They're too busy to post on the forums? They're not allowed to by the publisher/project managers/...? Or are they just plain not working on it?

[sunsmountain]

Making an AI that can make good decisions isn't that hard (see Deep Blue)

Ehmm, you mean that team of IBM scientists working on Deep Blue which is at heart a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP-based computer system that was designed to play chess at the grandmaster level. And still hold a straight face saying it isn't hard....

in comparison to making an AI that make those decision with a limited amount of processing power (also see Deep Blue actually).

Right. Besides the obvious comment of where do you buy a RS/6000, the comparison gets even worse. The number of different pieces in chess is 6 while the total is 16, the number of positions on the field is 64. The freedom of movement in number of dimensions is also limited for most of these pieces (3 to 8). Now consider Rome:TW. The number of different units can go up to 20 and so can the total, the number of positions on the field is practically infinite but let's say you can reduce it into squares of attack or something (this goes horribly wrong at the detail level but never mind), still leaves you the big problem of all the units being able to move like Queens (skip the jokes), ie 8 or more dimensions, actually as many as there are facings (which is 32).

Different units
6 vs 20 (overexaggerating somewhat here, though unit rosters support it,
actually you have only 4: Missile, Heavy, Light, Cavalry)
Total units
16 vs 20
Number of positions
64 vs infinite (the width of the map in yards, squared. A lot of them won't
get used but half of them will which is still a lot)
Number of dimensions in freedom of movement
3-8 vs 32

Just talking about how to move the units, never mind using a special ability (or not), or any ability for that matter.

I hope you begin to appreciate the difference in complexity, Rome is more complex than chess. Fuzzy rules and logic, pragmatic programming solutions and just basic trial-and-error are probably better ways to go about writing the AI than thinking and measuring it all through. That said, a lot can be learnt from Deep Blue in that it uses a lot of previous match data, which MTW2 could theoretically do as well (mainly on the campaign map, the battlemap would need a library of 10000 battles before any reliable intelligence is to come out of it, see complexity of problem described above).

I'm hoping MTW2 will be HEAVILY dependent on graphics cards for it 1337 graphics so that there is enough 'power' left on the actual processor for the AI.

Though I agree with this in principal, more important than CPU power is simply a smart algorithm. And see above RS/6000. That's a mainframe we're talking about.

The problem with AI in games in general is imo, that you will always have to make a trade off between graphics and AI, since they're both processor intensive. Graphics provide pretty screenshots, AI doesn't, that's why the balance has shifted to the graphics side imho. A game like Galactic Civ II doesn't have great graphics, and it uses the 3D card for most of its gfx processing I believe, so enough room is left over for the AI.

This is all true.

Come on, you'd never hear Carmack or Sweeney talk much about the internal workings of their new engines, you'd have them mention some abstract concept once in a while (NURBS, Bezier curves !) to make it seem all a bit more impressive, but they don't go around asking for advice either. Code is almost always kept internal. (Sometimes the source code is released, yes, when the tech is outdated).

See Brighdaasa comment, I don't want code specifics, I know they are not giving those anyway, but it would be nice to hear stuff like:

We're finding it difficult to recognize situations in which the AI should always retreat, and in which they should always attack. We're finding it difficult to get units to listen to army commands like: "stay together". We are succeeding in stopping units from walking back and forth without firing arrows or engaging.
etc.

[doc_bean]

Ehmm, you mean that team of IBM scientists working on Deep Blue which is at heart a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP-based computer system that was designed to play chess at the grandmaster level. And still hold a straight face saying it isn't hard....

The comparison part is what mattered most

Deep blue had massive (computing) resources and so a decent AI could be developed for playing chess, admittedly a much simpler game than TW. I realize how everything scales with complexity, but what I was trying to say is that a computer program can be written that can challenge a very skilled human player in a *simple* game. Deep Blue would likely have beaten 99.99999% of all people trying to play against it, there's no need for such an efficient AI in a game aimed for the mass market. But the reason it can do that is that it has a *very* powerful processor and doesn't have to make real time decisions.

I hope you begin to appreciate the difference in complexity, Rome is more complex than chess.

Yes, I was just looking for an example of good, effcient AI, that's hard to find . I didn't want to go into complexity and efficienty theory and such, though they play an important part, of course.

Fuzzy rules and logic, pragmatic programming solutions and just basic trial-and-error are probably better ways to go about writing the AI than thinking and measuring it all through. That said, a lot can be learnt from Deep Blue in that it uses a lot of previous match data, which MTW2 could theoretically do as well (mainly on the campaign map, the battlemap would need a library of 10000 battles before any reliable intelligence is to come out of it, see complexity of problem described above).

The problem with every method is that it has to provide both an easy, quick calculation and an efficient solution. Completely analyzing the situation and coming up with a true 'optimum' is going to be nearly impossible imo, so I agree 'simplifications' are necessary.

Though I agree with this in principal, more important than CPU power is simply a smart algorithm. And see above RS/6000. That's a mainframe we're talking about.

Of course, but there's a limit to how much you can simplify things while keeping a reasonably good AI. Less processing power means more simplification is needed. Assuming the best known methods for simplication are used. More processing power means more variables can be taken into account, or more quick calculations can be done, so, in theory at least, it could lead to a better AI.

See Brighdaasa comment, I don't want code specifics, I know they are not giving those anyway, but it would be nice to hear stuff like:

We're finding it difficult to recognize situations in which the AI should always retreat, and in which they should always attack. We're finding it difficult to get units to listen to army commands like: "stay together". We are succeeding in stopping units from walking back and forth without firing arrows or engaging.
etc.

Well, they're never very open are they ? They just have the marketing boys talking about the graphics all the time, barely discussing the gameplay, and as CA employees pointed out here, they can get in a lot of trouble for discussing their work here. I think it's an industry phenomenon. You only here the really big names publicly talking about their games/engines don't you. Nobody is going to fire Will Wright for lack of discretion.

But I agree it would be nice if they occasionally made comments about how great the AI is and why instead of just going on and on about the graphics.

[Duke John]

IMO you're giving the CA AI programmers too much credit. Sure programming AI is difficult, but there are loads of AI mistakes that could have easily been avoided by adding a single if ... then....
The current tactical AI can be designed by anybody who can think logically, it pales in comparision with the feat of displaying so many 3D soldiers. From what I have seen most of the effort seems to have gone into path finding. General army advancement is by a simple formation placed in a text file. Once the AI gets near it finds targets and just charges towards it. It doesn't even check wether your units already targeted resulting in easy wins as 3 AI units charge 2 of yours allowing your 3rd unit to flank, without doing anything you have outmanouevred the AI!

Couple it with the fast movement and you have a game that appears challenging and intelligent on the surface but beneath it boils down to run in a strict formation towards your army, send cavalry 200 metres left of your army, find targets, charge, missile units in range fire.

[Puzz3D]

So the lack of communication about this means what? They don't care to comunicate this to us? They're too busy to post on the forums? They're not allowed to by the publisher/project managers/...? Or are they just plain not working on it?

They used to talk about the AI during STW and MTW, but that stopped abruptly with RTW. Now all they say is that it's being improved. Sounds like management to me.

One thing they did tell us is that Total War is not for hardcore gamers. Suggestions that strike them as hardcore don't stand much chance of being implemented. Remember, they didn't think players would notice that the AI forgot what it was doing when a savegame was reloaded. That's the level you have to think at now with regard to the Total War series. There is a window of opportunity to point out problems and get suggestions implemented when a patch is being done. The window doesn't stay open for very long. Buy the game and test away so you'll be ready to make your suggestions when the window opens. I did that for 5 years, but I'm not going to do it anymore since the game no longer warrants that kind of effort.

[Lord Adherbal]

doing good tactical AI doesn't need massive CPU power. Things like collision/distance checking does, but that's already covered in the game (hence why a powerfull CPU is much more important then a video card when you want lots of soldiers in the field - even for MTW and STW). So that certainly isn't what's limited them.
All you need to write good AI is time, the time it takes to turn human tactical decisions into logical scemes, then turn them into code.

[sunsmountain]

Yes, I was just looking for an example of good, effcient AI, that's hard to find . I didn't want to go into complexity and efficienty theory and such, though they play an important part, of course.

No problem mate, I was a little nitpicky there. Even the problem of position can be reduced by only considering positions that are close (still about 200 for 20 units...) or ignore that and only consider targets that are close.

IMO you're giving the CA AI programmers too much credit. Sure programming AI is difficult, but there are loads of AI mistakes that could have easily been avoided by adding a single if ... then....

If... Then.. what? I know what an if then statement is, but how are you going to recognize the situation that it's crap, in numbers, and what are you going to order then, in numbers.

If it were this simple you are underestimating programmers that have been programming games since 1980... I doubt it would be this simple.

General army advancement is by a simple formation placed in a text file. Once the AI gets near it finds targets and just charges towards it. It doesn't even check wether your units already targeted resulting in easy wins as 3 AI units charge 2 of yours allowing your 3rd unit to flank, without doing anything you have outmanouevred the AI!

Not exactly. The AI tries to do more, and there's more in there than you're now suggesting. I don't know why individual units ignore their neighbours all of a sudden, but there must be a reason. If the AI has a lot of skirmish troops, they can be difficult to catch (ie you have to really herd them or face casualties), in siege battles, you can no longer fire at them and get away with it, they'll charge your archers this time. They keep their formation better before engaging. The improvements are minimal, but they are there.

I did that for 5 years, but I'm not going to do it anymore since the game no longer warrants that kind of effort.

Poor Puzz, you're taking this poor AI the hardest i think. I agree if they don't put the effort into it that we are looking for this time, they'll lose well at least 2 of their fans this time. And then we'll have a budget buy in a few years from now and come back for a patch or 2. Hopefully others can do the work for us :)

[IceTorque]

Well, I reckon their algorithm thingy's are pretty good, and it's their gameplay settings that need to be improved.

[Lucjan]

I see a schism opening between loyal fans who are just happy to see the series continueing and fans who feel depreciated because CA isn't catering to the wants of the more involved gamer. I just hope CA can build a bridge.

The best thing I think they could do is take the best of their ai coding from their previous games and expand upon that in the ways they see fit, then do something along the lines of...

1 Seperation of difficulty levels placing the ai at more heightened levels of awareness and tactical knowledge across the board. This, as per every game with alterable difficulty levels, has already been done.
2 Implementing a new option that would differentiate between 'realistic' and 'stylized'.

Thereby allowing for a total of 8 different difficulty levels, those four found in the stylized difficulty setting would be on par with the skills of casual gamers looking for some quick fun or those who are new and just not quite as picky as us. And those four found in the realistic difficulty settings would adress our concerns like unit speeds, strength and defense balancing, questionable tactical movements (the ever irritating 'macedonian army besieges your city then the next turn runs away for no reason whatsoever'), and sometimes just downright stupid ai. (I remember on more than one occasion having ai chase a unit of mine up to my walls and then running back inside, the ai would camp at my walls and I would just up the speed and let the towers pick them all off one at a time because the ai was actually too freaking stupid to move out of the tower range.)

3 Take into consideration that the group of people who built their strategy game empire were the loyal 'hardcore', though I don't quite like that term, gamers like us, to whom the total war series was a dream come true, and try to increase the challenge of the gaming experience for us while still building on their new found 'casual' gamer market.

[Lord Adherbal]

If... Then.. what? I know what an if then statement is, but how are you going to recognize the situation that it's crap, in numbers, and what are you going to order then, in numbers.

if "general is not the single unit in army" then "dont charge enemy"
if "archers have ammo" then "fire from max range while rest of army waits"

if they can't turn that into actual code they can always give me a phonecall.

[econ21]

if "general is not the single unit in army" then "dont charge enemy"
if "archers have ammo" then "fire from max range while rest of army waits"

In a similar vein, on the strategic map:

"if multiple armies can attack an enemy stack, get them to do so simultaneously (one adjacent to support another) rather than sequentially"

"if an army can kill your army, move out of range"

"don't attack if you are going to lose"

(Ok the latter two are going to have to be more complex, but it helped make homm3 quite competitive)

Sometime back I posted a list of simple tweaks that would make the RTW AI better. IMO, a few simple changes would improve it alot.

[maxpriest]

I sincerily hope they will be able to fix the simplest Ai problems rtw had, or at least give the modders a chance to fix it.
With 1.5 (battle diff very hard) : A unit charges at me, I defend. The unit then proceed to stop 2 meters in front of mine and faces a different direction.
That happens way too often.
I mean...what the hell.

[Callahan9119]

I see a schism opening between loyal fans who are just happy to see the series continueing and fans who feel depreciated because CA isn't catering to the wants of the more involved gamer. I just hope CA can build a bridge.

The best thing I think they could do is take the best of their ai coding from their previous games and expand upon that in the ways they see fit, then do something along the lines of...

1 Seperation of difficulty levels placing the ai at more heightened levels of awareness and tactical knowledge across the board. This, as per every game with alterable difficulty levels, has already been done.
2 Implementing a new option that would differentiate between 'realistic' and 'stylized'.

Thereby allowing for a total of 8 different difficulty levels, those four found in the stylized difficulty setting would be on par with the skills of casual gamers looking for some quick fun or those who are new and just not quite as picky as us. And those four found in the realistic difficulty settings would adress our concerns like unit speeds, strength and defense balancing, questionable tactical movements (the ever irritating 'macedonian army besieges your city then the next turn runs away for no reason whatsoever'), and sometimes just downright stupid ai. (I remember on more than one occasion having ai chase a unit of mine up to my walls and then running back inside, the ai would camp at my walls and I would just up the speed and let the towers pick them all off one at a time because the ai was actually too freaking stupid to move out of the tower range.)

3 Take into consideration that the group of people who built their strategy game empire were the loyal 'hardcore', though I don't quite like that term, gamers like us, to whom the total war series was a dream come true, and try to increase the challenge of the gaming experience for us while still building on their new found 'casual' gamer market.

what you said....oh and by the way, there are 7 people right now on the various !!mtw!! boards at 1:30 am est, thats loyalty.

they actually tried to market RTW, thats why it sold. until then CA depended on the loyal fanbase to pick up the chunk of its sales. they didnt have to dumb it down to sell it

[Lucjan]

what you said....oh and by the way, there are 7 people right now on the various !!mtw!! boards at 1:30 am est, thats loyalty.

Gotta love us nightowls.

[sunsmountain]

they didnt have to dumb it down to sell it

Amen. Let's just hope they didn't get around to making it smarter, yet.

[Puzz3D]

I see a schism opening between loyal fans who are just happy to see the series continueing and fans who feel depreciated because CA isn't catering to the wants of the more involved gamer. I just hope CA can build a bridge.

That's not going to happen. According to them, RTW is not aimed at hardcore gamers which is their reason for not implementing many of the suggestions made by the involved gamers, not keeping all of the features of the STW/MTW battle engine and not providing a speed setting that matches the older game. The older fanbase has now become a liabilty for them. I even saw a post by Dr. Jambo at .com about the Alexander mini-expansion fully deleted by MikeB.

[Lucjan]

Do you think it's because sega's putting some pressure on them to make the 'casual' gamer the new priority?

Personally I don't care much either way, when the game comes out, whether it's a work of art or otherwise, somebody will put together a team and mod their hearts out, and make an extremely enjoyable game for all of us.

[Spino]

That's not going to happen. According to them, RTW is not aimed at hardcore gamers which is their reason for not implementing many of the suggestions made by the involved gamers, not keeping all of the features of the STW/MTW battle engine and not providing a speed setting that matches the older game. The older fanbase has now become a liabilty for them. I even saw a post by Dr. Jambo at .com about the Alexander mini-expansion fully deleted by MikeB.

Did you manage to read what Dr. Jambo wrote before his post was deleted? Do you have a link to the thread he posted in?

Given the pedestrian and inhospitable atmosphere over at the official forums why on earth would any TW veteran even bother wasting their time over there? If you want sensible and reasonably civilized discourse on anything related to the TW games the Org & Twcenter.net are your best bet. Once RTW was released and the negative feedback from the TW community started to pile up in Com's forums the place became intolerable. Intolerable not because of the typically immature attitudes but because of the knee jerk, sledgehammer tactics utilized by the mods to deal with any kind of negative feedback.