Patch ETA?

[OMGLAZERS]

I've talked to a lot of people who have given some hazy times and relative ones for a patch estimated release.

Have they set a date or time area, and listed all the problems to be fixed?

I know passive armies are one, but how about unit cohesion, game balance, etc. ?

Just checking. Feel free to inform and delete my ass if this is just another worthless thread.

[Lusted]

Well when Wiki posted the info on monday he said about 2 weeks, so now its just over 1 week. He said a list of what the patch will change will be posted later.

[SIGGE]

Well when Wiki posted the info on monday he said about 2 weeks, so now its just over 1 week. He said a list of what the patch will change will be posted later.

1 week?!

That's great! Much less than I actually expected.

[Sir Robin]

Don't get your hopes too high.

It is possible that the patch will actually require a patch in case something new slips through.

Hopefully the major issues will be addressed and the minor ones will be fixed by later patches.

As far as garrisons the AI seems pretty inconsistent to me. Some campaigns I'll see large garrisons and some campaigns I won't. I have been playing on H/VH lately and even if the AI garrison is small there will usually be a strong stack within a turn or two's distance.

So instead of getting to wait out a siege I have to assault pretty quickly or face two enemy armies on the battlefield.

[Chrisky]

Any news yet?

[Grimmy]

What often happens, simply because of the logistics of production and preparing for distribution, is that the bugs discovered during beta get addressed in the first patch to be produced as close to launch as possible.

It takes time to create the disks, packaging and stockpile for shipping so that part of production is usually well underway during the latter part of a beta.

It is quite possible that the coders have been working on a patch for the last month or more already.

That's my understanding of the general process anyway. I could be wrong, I often am.

[PorT_Lobo]

The most important issue they must fix in patch is campaign AI.

AI Campaign is dumb...... a child can finish the game in very hard..... AI is not agressive and don't garrison their castles.

[shifty157]

Should be around the end of november.

[Faenaris]

The most important issue they must fix in patch is campaign AI.

AI Campaign is dumb...... a child can finish the game in very hard..... AI is not agressive and don't garrison their castles.

I'm playing on Hard/Medium as Denmark and I'm in a stalemate. The English are at my door with 5 armies and I invaded Scotland with one army and I'm about to be repelled. Their cities have medium to large garrisons (Edinburgh has a FULL stack in it). I wouldn't call the PO dumb.

If you want a challenge, play on very hard as Denmark and *don't* rush the PO (programmed opponent). They are at their weakest right at the start of the campaign and if you let things go their way for a time, you will be facing some very though cookies. Just take over Stockholm and Oslo, maybe even Helsinki. And then wait a good deal of turns.

EDIT: Just wanted to add: the campaign AI in Rome was dumb. On Very Hard, it got 10000 denarii extra a turn, just to give an impression that it isn't. I find the one in M2TW much brighter.

[Ciaran]

Do you really expect a patch a few weeks after the release? I wouldn´t, for a ouple of reasons. First, the issues that need to be adressed have to be identified, second, a solution must be found, third, the patch must be tested. Now it just wouldn´t do if we got a patch that needs patching, or worse, breaks more than it fixes. Been there, seen it.

[Daveybaby]

Do you really expect a patch a few weeks after the release? I wouldn´t, for a ouple of reasons. First, the issues that need to be adressed have to be identified, second, a solution must be found, third, the patch must be tested. Now it just wouldn´t do if we got a patch that needs patching, or worse, breaks more than it fixes. Been there, seen it.

That would all be just peachy, if CA hadnt already stated that there is a 'release day' patch going through QA at this very moment.

[TB666]

Well CA seemed to have been aware of most issues that we have raised since the game went gold and stated that most are already fixed or will be fixed.
Let's just hope that the patch wont add new bugs tho.

[osb0t]

The most important issue they must fix in patch is campaign AI.
AI Campaign is dumb...... a child can finish the game in very hard..... AI is not agressive and don't garrison their castles.

I've found playing on H/H that the AI *usually* garrisons cities with large stacks, it NEVER garrisons castles with more than 3 or 4 units.

[anders]

The most important issue they must fix in patch is campaign AI.

AI Campaign is dumb...... a child can finish the game in very hard..... AI is not agressive and don't garrison their castles.

The Ai may not be the smartest around, but "not aggressive" sounds like a very different Ai than the one I am currently a war with. Also, the fact that eery single computer-controlled faction jumps you seems plenty agressive enough to me.

The AI also seems to do som clever moves once in a while, f.ex. the french are currently surrounding my german armies onn the campaign map before attacking, so that my field army faces attacks from four sides on the battle map.

[troymclure]

my take on the campaign AI - it's pretty good, it's also pretty historically accurate with one caveat. You look at a map near the end of the game and the factions have expanded but noone is huge. It can end up like present day europe even.

It's not however particularly aggressive, sure i've been at war with every faction on the map for the better part of the game most games... but they still weren't overly aggressive. It's like the AI plays like an old medieval kingdom would, they don't do what the player does and create a war machine, they never mobilize their nation or seem to dream of great conquest. The AI IMO plays pretty good as a king, but doesn't seem to be able to do conquerer.

I think this may be part of what still makes the game easy despite the improved AI. Various nations have shown (france and napolean, hitler and germany, alexander and macedon) what can happen when you dedicate yourself to being a war machine. But the AI just doesn't.

I remember in Shogun you could get rival clans racing you to control japan, and you'd end up with just two factions left, both owning a sizable chunk of japan. It sometimes happened in MTW as well, most often with egypt...

But i digress, my main point, is that the campaign AI is GOOD, it very very rarely does something stupid, something that i haven't done even but it never really tries to conquer the globe and as a result it will never truly offer the player a challenge in it's current state.

[Spendius]

2 bugs matter more than any other:
- passive AI
- ladder bug
First one spoils the fun, and I don't want to play WITHOUT missiles
Second one forces me to abandon very interesting battles, defending a fortress with an inferior army, retreating to the second wall ring, the battle issue is uncertain, and then, ladder bug, I have to abandon