News on the patch.

**Lord Condormanius** · 11-30-2006, 08:13

I have to admit, I did see some random daylight torches.

**Furious Mental** · 11-30-2006, 08:49

I agree that the devs should definitely ignore all of you. But they should definitely listen to everyone I say.

**cambrax** · 11-30-2006, 10:28

I mostly agree with mor dan, and I think the examples of Inquisitors and Assassins perfectly illustrate the problems inherent in taking your developmental lead from gaming geeks who live on the internet.

I don't think either assassins or inquisitors are in any way broken, I think they are exactly how they are meant to be and work in an effective and (more importantly) balanced fashion. With a bit of forethought, I have dodged most of the Inquisitors in my games, and when I have been caught out by them it's just another factor to deal with. Issues of historical accuracy aside, just because they burnt my favourite general doesn't mean the game is broken.

As for assassins, I think they are perfect. Really hard to train up, but if you get the guilds going and concentrate on assassination and subterfuge over blunt warfare, then you can easily have four or five maxed out assassins running about the map (I have on vh with Milan). If it was easy to off opposing generals and characters the game would become farcical.

Even given that both these parts of the game are (imho) balanced, there is still a huge outcry in places like this for them to be recognised as a bug/flaw and for them to be changed in a patch. It's an easy cop out to say the game is broken just because there's an aspect of it that is difficult to deal with or not exactly the way you want it. After all, this is still just the vanilla setting, and I'm sure people can tweak the balance of the game how they want when they get modding.

**AussieGiant** · 11-30-2006, 10:42

I think many of the issue are easily resolved and hopefully so, by being correctly distinguished by the CA Q&A team.

You both (cambrax and mor dan) point to examples that are in fact balancing issues not bugs.

I'm totally sure that CA is able to determine what is a balancing issue or a bug based on feedback because they do know how it is designed to work.

Either way, I don't expect CA to do everything the community asks for.

What I do expect CA to do is sift through all the feedback, determine what is a bug and what is a balancing issue, and with their own understanding, find a solution to bugs that they ID using our feedback and re-balance those issues that were not designed to be so extreme or the way things are occuring in the game.

For example. Inquisitors. I believe they in fact may be balanced, because if you keep your standing above 8 at all times, you seem to be able to avoid them.

CA will know this because they understand HOW they want it implemented. Maybe they lower the standing to avoid serious levels of inquisitor burning becuase they have determined it is in fact too extreme and beyond what they wanted because it was not meant to be so harsh...

we will never know...but I expect CA to be able to easily work that out themselves and make the adjustments if necessary.

**Frantz** · 11-30-2006, 11:18

played the game for many hours and the only real problem for me is the AI on tactical battles ... a game fail when you realize tht you are playng alone against a stupid computer ... MTW2 is so near to be a perfect game that is a shame to see 500 knights massacred by 2 units of militia crossbow ( if the game isnt patched i will halve the amount of arrows/darts when possible )
but lets help CA with some heavy scripts :

IF you have 1 unit of archers and the opponent 12 THEN attack !!
IF you your units are standing for more than 5 minutes THEN move your a...
IF you are getting to the ram and the door is already open THEN leave it and enter the door !!
IF you sustain more casualties by arrows than your opponent THEN retreat or attack !!
and build more ladders !!!

**absents** · 11-30-2006, 12:24

Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.
Good for you, I guess. There's a saying in my country; if one is given with a spoon, can't demand with a scoop.

**Barry Fitzgerald** · 11-30-2006, 12:28

Hmm maybe a tad harsh there!

I think maybe some are just pretty happy, and some fussy.

**econ21** · 11-30-2006, 12:40

Originally Posted by absents

Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.

If you are talking about patches - as we are - then you are quite wrong.

The patched MTW/VI was significantly improved over MTW 1.0 and RTW 1.5/1.6 is significantly improved over RTW 1.0 (if you doubt me, ask the EB or RTR teams why they are porting to 1.5 from 1.2).

I've never read anyone arguing otherwise or wanting to play with a v1.0 TW game rather than the final patched version.

**Jambo** · 11-30-2006, 14:36

What Shogun posted is not what I'd call news. Wikiman already said there would be further news in 2 weeks approximately 2 weeks ago! All Shogun has done is repeated that statement and the sycophantic fanboys go delerious for a few days giving CA some more time. If I was being cynical I'd say it was simply a stalling tactic, and it's worked. They now have till next week to come up with something, whatever that may be. As I count it that means the proposed release day patch, a promise that suckered me into purchasing the game, has now become at best a 4 week patch, possibly longer, since in true CA form nothing concrete has been stated. In fact, it's entirely possible that the patch won't even be out next week... most likely it'll just be more "news"...

I've played the game only 4 days before the niggles bothered me enough to shelve the game. The passive AI, the inability of the some units to actually inflict damage on cavalry, the buggy siege AI, the massive lag during certain sieges, the pathfinding frustrations, etc, etc.

**Grifman** · 12-01-2006, 00:21

Originally Posted by absents

Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.
Good for you, I guess. There's a saying in my country; if one is given with a spoon, can't demand with a scoop.

To say CA hasn't improved the game from the original Shogun is patently absurd.

**Sir SillyDuck** · 11-30-2006, 10:33

Everything you say you mean? w/e..

I played them all, all the TW releases, from the moment they came out, except BI. I liked them all, for what they were worth, and I liked the improvements some mods did for RTW. MTW2 is pretty, PRETTY good. I just wish there was an UH (ultra-hard) setting for the battles.. Or a setting in which the AI comes to battle with advanced troops, earlier in the game. If u dont *&^% up, you can win most if not all battles with a few less units than the AI.. I like the AI in MTW2, except for that it is a bit inactive at times (patch please), but I do miss the setting in which you could make it really really hard on yourself as u could in RTW. RTW I liked the least of all TW games, but the VH setting meant a proper disadvantage in the battles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody should like this, but the difficulty setting is changable, so..