A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW

**Wandarah** · 07-21-2006, 12:02

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.

If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!

well obviously it's either one extreme or the other.

**Orb** · 07-21-2006, 12:15

This looks like another RTW...

Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.

IMO, CA reached their pinnacle with the original Medieval. All these 'new' features that they are 'introducing' seem to be either from the previous games or graphical.

You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.

**econ21** · 07-21-2006, 13:07

Originally Posted by Orb

Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.

....

You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.

"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.

**edyzmedieval** · 07-21-2006, 13:19

The previews looks good, but something tells me the AI is going to be as bad as in RTW. They need a new engine, definitely.

**Puzz3D** · 07-21-2006, 14:50

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

They need a new engine, definitely.

Removing the bias that causes the AI to attack with weaker armies and make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target units would help.

**Orda Khan** · 07-21-2006, 17:08

Originally Posted by econ21

"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.

Very poor would be a better description, though when talking about 'Intelligence', non existant is fairly close. The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?

........Orda

**econ21** · 07-21-2006, 18:39

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?

To be honest, I don't recall STW AI being markedly better in any of above three respects.

RTW starting formations can be modded. But I don't have a big problem with them. I can't say they seem any worse than MTW ones. Maybe they sacrifice depth for breadth, occasionally. The main formation problem that irks me is a not the formations per se but a failure to keep formation - specifically breaking up a nice phalanx line at the last minute for no good reason. The formations/AI for barbarian and the horse archer armies perform reasonably ok.

The AI use of projectiles is kind of hit and miss, it is true, but then it often has been in TW.

The lone units charging to certain death does happen occasionally, but I noticed it more in STW when most neighbouring factions would have become rebels after 20 turns or so because they lost their Daimyos in suicide charges against me.

It's true the STW AI gives you a much better fight. But I think that is largely because of its behaviour at the strategic level (with a little cheating, it plays the Risk game extremely well IMO), so that you are often beaten before the battle starts. And it's also because the higher morale and slower kill speeds allow it to grind you down on the battlefield (especially when combined with the remorseless reinforcements coming from its smart strategic performance).

**Lucjan** · 07-22-2006, 01:31

I never seemed to have a problem with rome's ai when the enemy had a larger army than my own, which, because of the factions I habitually play as, happens quite often. If they can only somehow make the ai behave more like it does when it knows it's numbers are superior even when it's not, it might provide a little bit of a better fight.

**Ibn Munqidh** · 07-22-2006, 02:07

Guys, why do you all have negative opinions on this game?!! THE GAME HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED!!! Since now, ive seen a dozen guys confessing they're not buying it!

I remember STW's AI was quite good (long time since I last played). It did know how to interact with environments and set up good formations. MTW's AI was even better. Rome's was just, Rome's. Stupid formations, suicidal general who charges head on to a phalanx, archers who shoot fire arrows all the time. I think that CA might have pulled it off this time.

If you remember the video where there was the english vs the egyptians, where the german player was saying "Zultan Zaladin", which also contained cannons. I remember that the AI actually mauled the player (or he could have been a noob.lol.), and advanced to the players position similarily to MTW's AI.