Would you be satisfied?

[ToranagaSama]

Please don't hesitate to specificy your reasoning and/or wants.

Seems like we may still be able to influence the AI's development as, apparently, its done last.

[Tamur]

no question, I'd rather have the AI be the best possible. AI should be one of the top three (if not the top) consideration for a game like this, since MP is a small fraction of the retail market. Doing less than best effort on it seems unacceptable to me.

[Perplexed]

It's infinitely better to develop an excellent AI for a game than to focus on a pumped-up graphics capability and hope that it'll prop up the game by itself. I know that the AI is probably the most difficult game-aspect to program, but it's also the game-aspect that supports all the others and forms a foundation for everything else to rest and run on. Not even the best graphics in the world can do that in it's place.

So yes, AI should be of the highest priority for M2TW.

[B-Wing]

I assume the full question was meant to end with "MTW?", to which I'd say no, I would expect the AI to be at least as good as MTW. MTW (or STW, in some people's opinion) set the standard for the series and I see no reason why they shouldn't meet or exceed it in M2TW.

[x-dANGEr]

But, I'm sure that if this was a new title with a GREAT AI, and "poor" graphics, it wouldn't rise off the land.. So.. ?!

[ToranagaSama]

Hello all,

The end part of the poll question got cutoff for some reason. Econ21 is going to edit it for me. It should read:

Would you be satisfied with a battlefield AI better than RTW, but less competent than STW/MTW.

My apologies.

[Perplexed]

But, I'm sure that if this was a new title with a GREAT AI, and "crap" graphics, it wouldn't rise off the land.. So.. ?!

There's no reason to totally drop graphics, but in the case of a strategy-game in which the vast majority of players will only play single-player, AI is far more important and should be seen as such by developers. Furthermore, it's perfectly possible to have a game with more-than-decent graphics and a competent AI; it doesn't have to be a total trade-off. I imagine that a game that takes this into account would be just as successful as a game with nothing to its name but shiny graphics.

Also, we don't need "great" AI, just AI that actually works well, instead of being the intellectual equivalent of a blind, deaf, and mute sea-slug with crippling brain defects.

[x-dANGEr]

Well..

If I was a developer I'd make a holywood game and I'm sure it would sell more than a Sun Tzu one

[Oaty]

I voted no

IMO time would be better spent on campaign A.I. although there is always room for improvement in all categories.

My reasoning for a better campaign A.I. is if it can bring a stronger army at you then the battlefield A.I. is of less relevance. Too often the A.I. had trouble sporting a full stack. Wich allowed you to make piecemeal of the A.I.

So the first part of the step is to have the A.I. bring a challenge to the battlefield, then the difference with the battlefield A.I. will be much more noticeable and perhaps worthwhile.

Of course I'm sure they will improve the A.I. at its worst such as the A.I. missile troops running around as soon as they get hit by 1 misile as many others.

[Duke John]

No. The lousy AI of R:TW has put me off enough not to buy M2:TW on the day of its release. I will first wait for detailed reviews from M:TW players. But equally important for me is the movement speed. If it is still as high as seen in the videos then that will be enough of a sign for me that I am not part CA's targetting group.

[PanzerJaeger]

After playing multiplayer for years, even STW's AI seems rather pathetic.

Make the multiplayer element the best it can be, it will be the only with real replayability.

[sunsmountain]

Both AI's will have to be significantly better.

But comparing them to Shogun or Medieval is unfair, especially those campaign map AI's aren't even shadows of the current campaign map AI because of the simplified map you're playing on. As for the battlefield AI, in my poll about that, MTW/STW AI can actually be imported into the current RTW AI, on the army level. The question is whether you would want to do that though, since it may not be adequate any more.

In Medieval TW for example, there is only 1 single unit AI for all units, cav, inf, spears, swords, doesn't matter. Each unit follows the same considerations for attacking, charging or retreating/moving. Army level AI is strictly imposed and little freedom is allowed for individual units moving. Not so the RTW AI, allowing for a much larger degree of freedom. Sadly, that still too often means RTW units not behaving as they should. Unit level AI will have to be perfected first, if any STW/MTW level AI is attempted!

That doesn't have to be hard, spears, swords and cav work pretty well, its mostly phalanx and archers - and other infantry even having the possibility of getting stuck in a loop that goes: Attack, march, reform, attack, march, reform, etc..

Once this is sorted out, battle line cohesion can be attempted and imposed. Already, before engagement, static army formations are attempted as of patch version 1.5/1.6. Any player tests of RTW would have to be done now to be of some merit to the programmers, and use the latest version. You can help! I'm a little busy...

[Puzz3D]

Of course I'm sure they will improve the A.I. at its worst such as the A.I. missile troops running around as soon as they get hit by 1 missile as many others.

I'm sure CA is hoping that lots of people think this way. Not giving out any details has its advantages.

Seems like we may still be able to influence the AI's development as, apparently, its done last.

Maybe, but you are dealing with a company that thinks the running speeds are ok, stacking units is ok, suicide general is ok, sieging with an army that's substantially weaker than the garrision is ok, ranged units that can't shoot because the last man isn't in position yet is ok, all men shooting because 1 man is within range of the target is ok, a unit walking halfway across no man's land under fire and then turning around and walking back to it's own lines is ok, chasing fast skirmishers with infantry is ok, units that don't know enough to shift their shields to the right if they are being shot from the right is ok, units with very weak flanks exposing those flanks is ok, units frontally charging a stronger unit that they have no chance of beating is ok, units attacking piecemeal is ok, units stopping to throw their pila while engaged in melee is ok, leaving slow moving artillery unguarded while the army moves to a new location is ok, rapid fire artillery is ok, fire projectiles working in heavy rain is ok, siege artillery used as anti-personel weapons is ok, foot skirmishers that are nearly as fast as cavalry is ok, ranged units that decide charging in with their dagger is better than using their ranged weapon is ok, infantry trying to break away so that it can charge again as though it's cavalry is ok, etc. I haven't even touched on the diplomacy.

A game that got rated 92% on average shouldn't need substantial improvement. It got substantial improvement in the patches. It must be a 97% game now, but how can that be when it still needs significant improvement? Something isn't right here.

For example, take the problem of cav beating phalanx frontally which was pointed out in the forums shortly after the release of RTW. It took a year after release to get the reversed charge on phalanx fixed, and that only happened because Oaty found the cause and was able to demonstrate conclusively that men in the frontline of the phalanx were dying when the cav hit the pikes. It was fortunate that this was discovered during a window of opportunity just before the release of the v1.3 patch. Now this was fixed, but it introduced the butt-spike problem where cav charge (and I believe infantry charge) is reversed no matter from what angle they hit the phalanx. This is similar to the pila fix where the units went from not throwing the pila at all to throwing it even when engaged in melee. In both cases the gameplay is better due to the fix, but you can't say it's fully fixed in either case.

[sunsmountain]

Maybe, but you are dealing with a company that thinks the running speeds are ok, stacking units is ok, suicide general is ok, sieging with an army that's substantially weaker than the garrision is ok, ranged units that can't shoot because the last man isn't in position yet is ok, all men shooting because 1 man is within range of the target is ok, a unit walking halfway across no man's land under fire and then turning around and walking back to it's own lines is ok, chasing fast skirmishers with infantry is ok, units that don't know enough to shift their shields to the right if they are being shot from the right is ok, units with very weak flanks exposing those flanks is ok, units frontally charging a stronger unit that they have no chance of beating is ok, units attacking piecemeal is ok, units stopping to throw their pila while engaged in melee is ok, leaving slow moving artillery unguarded while the army moves to a new location is ok, rapid fire artillery is ok, fire projectiles working in heavy rain is ok, siege artillery used as anti-personel weapons is ok, foot skirmishers that are nearly as fast as cavalry is ok, ranged units that decide charging in with their dagger is better than using their ranged weapon is ok, infantry trying to break away so that it can charge again as though it's cavalry is ok, etc. I haven't even touched on the diplomacy.

This is why we love Puzz3D, he's our archive on "What can I find to throw at CA today?"

I'm seriously positive by now they will have a poster of his username and avatar enlarged so they can throw dart bolts at it. Next to mine, of course

Time to get some ingame proof using custom battles, Puzz, you know you want to! I'll try to help but i'm really busy trying to graduate and stuff...
... other takers?

[danfda]

Puzz3D is my new hero. All hail Puzz3D!

Seriously though, I'd be happy with MTW's graphics if the AI (campaign and battle) were better. Heck, if just the campaign AI was better I'd be tickled pink. I understand that is likely quite difficult to accomplish, but what Puzz said underscores what I feel, and sunsmountain feels (obviously :P ), and many others feel. Fix what can be fixed, and the AI will already be substantially better. Give us small improvements, and let modders work on other issues. Take what was learned, and by the time the NEXT Total War is released, the AI should be able to level cities and raze nations. Right? Or am I daft?

I think I'm daft, let's be honest...

[Puzz3D]

Time to get some ingame proof using custom battles, Puzz, you know you want to!

What good will that do if they aren't considered to be problems? Getting the game to play without it crashing is the big thing for the developer. Gameplay issues are secondary. Unfortunately, playing the game for many hours only to find that it wasn't worth the effort is, in a way, worse than the game being unplayable because it crashes. At least you don't waste a lot of time on a game that won't run as you do on a game that turns out, in the long run, to be not worth the time and effort required to play it.

I'm not sure that Creative Assembly appreciates the ethincal implications of producing a game that runs without crashing, but has unsatisfying gameplay. I know that a lot of companies are unethical in their business practices, but Total War is supposed to be one of the top computer games available today, and I would say that carries with it a responsibility to produce not only a game that looks good graphically but that also plays well. After all, they established their reputation with the gameplay in the earlier games in the series. They had an established customer base that expected that same high level of gameplay in their big RTW project which was "the game they always wanted to make" if I remember the quote correctly. The game they always wanted to make didn't even save the whole state of the campaign in the savegame file.

Another issue is CA's acknowledged predisposition to making the game elements conform to what they say are popular misconceptions of ancient warfare. This is why the game has incorrect Egyptians and incorrect hoplite spears and probably why it has incorrect artillery and other things. This game would have been a great opportunity to replace those misconceptions with more accurate visualizations. Instead, we got a response about this from CA that the game wasn't a history lesson. How sad especially when many people bought the game because they were interested in history. RTW was used in the History Channel's program Decisive Battles to reenact historical battles which set up a certain expectation in potential customers. How foolish of people not to realize that Total war is just a silly game. How embarrasing for any adult to admit that they play this game.

[Hepcat]

I would like the campaign ai to be a bit better and not break alliances the turn after making them. The Battle ai could be improved vastly but it will be difficuilt to do simply because of the fexibility of a human player.

I enjoy playing RTW on LAN with friends so if the ai is really bad I will still buy the game.

[Puzz3D]

Fix what can be fixed, and the AI will already be substantially better. Give us small improvements, and let modders work on other issues. Take what was learned, and by the time the NEXT Total War is released, the AI should be able to level cities and raze nations. Right? Or am I daft?

I think you're right as concerns single player campaign. The things that CA should fix are those things which modders do not have access to such as strategic and tactical AI behavior and battle mechanics. For instance, if relative movement speeds are not adjustable then CA should pay extra attention to getting the relative speeds relatively correct in terms of gameplay, and that is probably just a matter of keeping them somewhat close to realistic values which would actually enhance the impression of realism in a way that's consistent with the realistic graphics. They can have their bias in the auto-resolve and the AI decision level of when to siege or attack, but pick those values up from a text file so that they can be changed. These parameters could be put in the preferences.txt file. I'd like to see ammo, fatigue and morale be variables as well, but this might not be possible. There was a significant improvement in the way the strategic AI consolodates its army stacks between RTW v1.3 and RTW v1.5, naval invasions and Roman diplomacy wer fixed in RTW v1.5, so things like this can be fixed if the effort is directed to them and some testing can be done to be sure the fix works.

I think multiplayer probably can't be changed enough in M2TW to recapture the complexity of the gameplay in the previous games because it's just too much work. I have no expectations of playing M2TW multiplayer.

[Puzz3D]

I enjoy playing RTW on LAN with friends so if the ai is really bad I will still buy the game.

You and your friends might enjoy playing STWmod for MTW/VI on LAN. The intensity of these battles is very high. I believe this comes about because you have 8 distinct, well defined catagories of units (14 unit types total) which creates a complex task within a rapidly changing situation, but at a gamespeed which allows a player time to respond with his units on an individual basis. You can have many instances of strike and counterstrike with the tide of battle flowing back and forth. Another wrinkle is that, if it starts raining, guns stop shooting which changes the tactical situation temporarily. It usually only rains periodically during a battle.

[sunsmountain]

What good will that do if they aren't considered to be problems?

They will become problems for CA if you make them fact: Solid replays that can be downloaded, replayed and viewed with criticism of the Rome:TW engine. Videos are even better since people are lazy.

What good will that do if they aren't considered to be problems? Getting the game to play without it crashing is the big thing for the developer. Gameplay issues are secondary.

Yes, the game is pretty crash free. That means the ground work is done right. Gameplay issues to you are not necessarily gameplay issues to them, unless you make your point convincing.

One of the ways to make your point convincing is simply creating a custom battle, with specific units you would like to test, and show in the replay that the AI is making a stupid decision and where. All this takes is playing the battle, noting the AI mistakes (they will be plentiful if we take your word), and making a post with the attached replay. Use pause and note down the times during replay.

Unfortunately, playing the game for many hours only to find that it wasn't worth the effort is, in a way, worse than the game being unplayable because it crashes. At least you don't waste a lot of time on a game that won't run as you do on a game that turns out, in the long run, to be not worth the time and effort required to play it.

Well if you want to prevent other gamers of suffering your fate, the least you could do is play a few more hours and point out exactly what made you quit this game. I assume you are no longer playing Rome, or are you?
If you want these series to go back to the superior days of Shogun, you have to make your case convincing. Listing your grievances is a first step, and my god you seem a library for it. Perhaps me and others can help you complete this endeavour, and make Puzz3D a nail in CA's coffin.

Until that time though, all comments are moot. MTW2 isn't finished yet, and here we are, dreading in anticipation... only battle replays might make a dent... note that videos that were made showing AI dumbness in the past did result in improvements in the patch!

How sad especially when many people bought the game because they were interested in history.

Look, i like Head Hurlers. And I especially like the Egyptians. If I want a history lesson, i'll go and study history. CA is not Microsoft, they can't cater to both historians and gamers while maintaining creativity. History just isn't that creative, and that is a fact. If Egyptians looked like Greeks, that wouldn't have helped the historical debate on any level, it would simply present another opinion on what things looked like back then...

[econ21]

Perhaps me and others can help you complete this endeavour, and make Puzz3D a nail in CA's coffin.

"nail in CA's coffin" is not the most fortunate turn of phrase - it's a colloquialism for something that helps kill someone.

[sunsmountain]

"nail in CA's coffin" is not the most fortunate turn of phrase - it's a colloquialism for something that helps kill someone.

Yeah, I had a feeling you might jump on that one, econ21.

But that's my poetical license . Besides, can't imagine them really being pleased reading Puzz3D's summation there:

Maybe, but you are dealing with a company that thinks...<cut!!>

[Puzz3D]

Besides, can't imagine them really being pleased reading Puzz3D's summation there:

I'm not pleased with the game I got for $80 usd (RTW + BI), but mostly it's the time I lost that bothers me. The music is good and the graphics are impressive. The gameplay leaves a lot to be desired, and the fighting animations are comical. For whatever reason, RTW shipped with a huge number of problems which killed any chance of fine tuning the gameplay over the course of the patches. Even without that complication, it's hard to see how the new battle engine could be made to play as well as the older battle engine due to the missing features.

Also, faster routing, slower combat cycle and smaller unit size all contribute to more uncertainty in the combat which the game didn't need. There was already criticism that the older engine had too much uncertainty in the combat although I didn't think so. The smaller unit size is not due to graphical performance considerations because the game is cpu or possibly i/o bound. If the code is less efficient because each man has more parameters associated with him, you could construct an argument that the modelling is less good than the previous engine which had fewer parameters per man but a better statistical combat model simply due to the larger units size and faster combat cycle. Using larger units helps in RTW/BI if your machine can handle it, and phalanx really needs to be a large to work properly. Actual phalanxes were 11 ranks deep.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

i choose this: I want an AI better and more challenging than STW/MTW. why would i want an AI worse than MTW/STW?

[IceTorque]

I just bought Total War: Eras today, and installed Alexander.

For the first time in a long time I began to play vanilla Total War. I stopped after the third battle, I just could'nt take anymore of the silly movement and kill/rout speeds, not to mention the wide thin line that is supposed to represent a battle line. It's all like one giant skirmish, with units running/routing/rallying all over the place. No sense of order, no tactics, just thousands of men running around like chooks with their heads cut off.

Before I installed Alexander I watched the bonus CD of the making of TW games, in it the guy said how easy it was to apply Sun Tzus rules of war to STW and how the only thing that does'nt change from game to game is the AI. I wonder what happened, and how the TW games could end up like this.
Perhaps the fast battle speeds are to try and mask the un-polished engine or perhaps some one thinks this is what the mass market wants ??? I'm more inclined to think this type of gameplay would scare off many would be second time customers.

TW games imo are still the best pc games available, but only when the gameplay settings are tweaked. The question is how many customers mod or use mods ? I would think only a small minority. As for the AI question, when the game is tweaked I think it's pretty good and I don't mind when the AI occasionally exposes their backsides to my archers, cheap yes but I need all the help I can get sometimes, yes the AI can be that good, or perhaps I'm just not such a good player.

The CA guy on the CD seemed like a reasonable sort of a bloke and I'm sure he/they will be taking onboard all the complaints, and MTW II will no doubt be a more fun game out of the box than RTW/BI/ALXNDR is. Although those gameplay vids of MTW II showing the fast running speeds and the wide and thin unit formations are a bit of a worry, but at the end of the day there is no real alternative to TW games and the best we can do is give feedback/whine/complain/bitch etc, and hope things improve.

Now I'm off to revisit fuedal Japan and become the Shogun, for one last time. Then I'll probably play MTW for a bit before I begin to tweak Alexander.

-IceTorque

[Fwapper]

Seems like we may still be able to influence the AI's development as, apparently, its done last.

I doubt a poll of this type can influence them. It basically says "We want great AI!!" They already know that, so just telling them to make it better doesn't mean they will or even can within their budget.

[SpencerH]

I pretty much only play two series of games, TW and CIV (I just dabble in RoN etc). As far as I can tell, the developers of those series appear diametrically opposed with respect to player input. The CIV developers go out of their way to have player feedback from their experienced fans at all stages of development. That choice is certainly a reason why CIV4 is probably the best version of the game since the novelty of the original. OTOH, I have yet to see much evidence that the folks at CA listen and act on anything said here.

I voted for 4 without reading the correction. I would like to see an AI that is substantially better than any of the previous games. Without AI the graphics (and the game) is worthless.

[Duke John]

I don't really need a challenging AI. If I want a challenge I play a MP. All I care for is an AI that doesn't destroy the immersion. I would much rather see a very basic AI than the R:TW AI that tries to do complex things but fails so miserably that the game becomes an even larger walkover.

But in the end it depends on the movement speeds. If the enemy can reach your lines in 20 seconds than AI or tactics on your halve doesn't matter. It would be like starting a game of chess and you have all kinds of opening moves in your head and your opponent just shoves all his pieces towards you. It leaves you with a "What the heck happened?" One minute you were deploying, then you manuevre just a bit before the whole enemy army charges, quickly becoming a big mess with little fights and routs. But perhaps that is just how TW will remain as long as CA keeps the units working independent of each other.

[Captain Fishpants]

...OTOH, I have yet to see much evidence that the folks at CA listen and act on anything said here...

Just FYI, CA staff members do monitor the forums here and elsewhere - and this has been said so many times, it's a wonder it needs saying again. But there's a limit to how active we can be, or appear to be.

There are many reasons why we might not necessarily respond to a thread.

We are actually quite busy, most of the time.

We have to consider commercial confidentiality (we can't tell you everything that is going on for all kind of reasons).

We might have already considered and rejected an idea being discussed. You have to remember that anything that's mentioned in public may already have been work in progress for months.

A game might be in a fluid state so that if we do confirm or deny a feature, it may have changed on the next build.

The posters may have built a case on supposition, rumour and conjecture - this happens more than you might imagine. And indeed, there are so many people who assume they really, really know what we're thinking that we are sometimes convinced that they are listening to pixie voices. Usually we're found very wanting by such posters.

And sometimes we simply don't post because we have try to have good manners and try not to rise to the hostility and contempt thrown in our direction by the unpleasant few.

Any and all of those reasons would be why no one from CA has responded to the overall thrust of this thread. In my case, I'm not on the M2TW team, and so I'm not in a position to comment on specifics of that title.

[R'as al Ghul]

But in the end it depends on the movement speeds. If the enemy can reach your lines in 20 seconds than AI or tactics on your halve doesn't matter. It would be like starting a game of chess and you have all kinds of opening moves in your head and your opponent just shoves all his pieces towards you. It leaves you with a "What the heck happened?" One minute you were deploying, then you manuevre just a bit before the whole enemy army charges, quickly becoming a big mess with little fights and routs. But perhaps that is just how TW will remain as long as CA keeps the units working independent of each other.

Ah, the Chess analogy. I liked to use that to explain to people what Total War battle mode is all about. Since R:TW it doesn't work for me anymore.
In my opinion the manoeuvre phase is really important and fun. And the distinction of Total War against other RTS games like AoE should be that you're able to react to manouvres and that your units fight in formation, not as single units. In chess the individual pieces heavily depend on each other for protection. That's not so different from TW, Archers rely on protection from Spears to be save from Cav, etc. I don't get why this concept was abandoned and I really hope that it's gonna be changed back to its original idea of a tactics game.

R'as