Thinking of uninstalling the patch!

**Spark** · 12-23-2006, 06:52

I haven't loaded up the patch yet due to a present campaign which I don't want to tinker with, as well as all the complaints I've been hearing.

I'm really curious, though, to what extent does the patch fix/break things? I'm big on heavy cavalry usage, and people are saying cavalry behave worse than before? This would really put me off, especially since I've gotten used to working with the current cavalry system.

Also, what is the current state of the passive AI bug? For a quick recap, pre-patch AI pretty much doesn't do jack when you attack, when you sally out, when you siege. In fact, the only time it actually makes the first move is when it attacks and during sieges after all its artillery has expended its ammunition. And then, it's usually a nice long wait until all its archers have expended all their ammunition. Really it's like practicing on a punching bag, nothing ever happens on the other end. Terribly boring :(
Has this been improved upon significantly in the patch? Is it still painfully slow and one-sided?

Thanks in advance.

**Spark** · 12-24-2006, 19:06

I haven't loaded up the patch yet due to a present campaign which I don't want to tinker with, as well as all the complaints I've been hearing.

I'm really curious, though, to what extent does the patch fix/break things? I'm big on heavy cavalry usage, and people are saying cavalry behave worse than before? This would really put me off, especially since I've gotten used to working with the current cavalry system.

Also, what is the current state of the passive AI bug? For a quick recap, pre-patch AI pretty much doesn't do jack when you attack, when you sally out, when you siege. In fact, the only time it actually makes the first move is when it attacks and during sieges after all its artillery has expended its ammunition. And then, it's usually a nice long wait until all its archers have expended all their ammunition. Really it's like practicing on a punching bag, nothing ever happens on the other end. Terribly boring :(
Has this been improved upon significantly in the patch? Is it still painfully slow and one-sided?

Thanks in advance.

Anybody have an answer to this question please?

**Satyr** · 12-24-2006, 19:49

Spark, with a little reading you could have all those answers, but here is my take. Cav is worse. In some ways it is better but it just seems harder to get the cav to work the way you would expect most of the time. I knew how to get a good charge before the patch but now I can get no consistent results. The AI is less passive unless you are breaking a siege then they just stand there and get shot to pieces. Unit cohesion seems worse most of the time with only a few men engaging the enemy while the rest sit back and do nothing. And then because of this cav can't catch routers. CA really needs to start beta testing their stuff with at least a select group of regulars before they embarrass themselves by releasing another crappy patch.

As to M2 vs Civ4, one of the things I really like about Civ4 is that the different AIs have different personalities. I mean Montazuma is quite psychotic, Tokagawa is very defensive, Ghandi is pretty nice, etc. I doubt that is very hard to program, it just takes a desire to offer the best to your customers.

**Bijo** · 12-25-2006, 00:35

What I'm gonna do is, I'm gonna uninstall the whole damn game, and wait for Shogun to be delivered into my mailbox. In the meanwhile I'll enjoy Counterstrike Source, or Sniper Elite.

One time the performance is top-notch, the other time it's messed up. Whatever the case.... I'll put it away and wait until it is totally patched in a couple months, half a year or so, or a year? Then it'll be fresh again to enjoy.

**Barry Fitzgerald** · 12-25-2006, 02:46

Originally Posted by Satyr

Spark, with a little reading you could have all those answers, but here is my take. Cav is worse. In some ways it is better but it just seems harder to get the cav to work the way you would expect most of the time. I knew how to get a good charge before the patch but now I can get no consistent results. The AI is less passive unless you are breaking a siege then they just stand there and get shot to pieces. Unit cohesion seems worse most of the time with only a few men engaging the enemy while the rest sit back and do nothing. And then because of this cav can't catch routers. CA really needs to start beta testing their stuff with at least a select group of regulars before they embarrass themselves by releasing another crappy patch.

As to M2 vs Civ4, one of the things I really like about Civ4 is that the different AIs have different personalities. I mean Montazuma is quite psychotic, Tokagawa is very defensive, Ghandi is pretty nice, etc. I doubt that is very hard to program, it just takes a desire to offer the best to your customers.

I have cavalry problems more now post patch...not sure why that should be.

I agree with the sentiments regarding a Civ 4 personality...back to that though..Civ 4 got a lot of stick for being released too early (and it was really)...but fireaxis did bother to patch it properly...over time. And the AI is pretty good in civ...it doesn't seem to cheat..

I am getting a bit tired of this leave stuff out put it in the expansion pack mentality that seems oh so common nowadays..this appies to civ 4 also..warlords was ok..but really should have been in the original game.

I have a feeling MTW2 will follow this trend...aka the gameplay parts removed from MTW1, faction heir, titles, regional units...glorious achievements...may appear in the new expansion pack sure to turn up sometime next year....

But hey..it isnt as bad as the Sims 2...that really is taking the mick!

**dopp** · 12-25-2006, 03:34

Erm the AI does have distinct personalities (priorities really). Crack open the descr_strat file and you'll see stuff like "expansionist mao" or "trader henry" under each AI faction.

**Satyr** · 12-25-2006, 03:46

dopp, it may say that in the config files, but in reality they all just attack with little clue how and no chance of success. The fact that one AI may build his markets up a little more while the other is building stables up doesn't have a sufficient impact on the game due to the other inherent difficiencies.

**Bijo** · 12-26-2006, 16:27

What I'm gonna do is, I'm gonna uninstall the whole damn game, and wait for Shogun to be delivered into my mailbox.

Ahhhh! I reinstalled again today! My poor heart, lol.

I think CA could learn some things from Civ4. And the makers of Civ could learn some things from CA.

**Bartix** · 01-03-2007, 10:40

Originally Posted by dopp

Erm the AI does have distinct personalities (priorities really). Crack open the descr_strat file and you'll see stuff like "expansionist mao" or "trader henry" under each AI faction.

But none of them can resist tempting ports of long time ally...
must....blockade....

This is more annoying to me than silly acting when chasing routers.

**dopp** · 01-03-2007, 11:33

No the 'personalities' are merely build orders, not true differences in AI. So an expansionist might build more roads, or a trader more ports. Mao might build large armies of peasants, while Henry will be missile-heavy. Henry is possibly the reason why we see so many stacks with like 10 catapults, 5 pavise crossbows and 1 token unit of spearmen.