Thinking of uninstalling the patch!

[Cras]

well you guys are LUCKY!!

after installing the patch, my game now stops in every battle

locks up :( I have to physically turn of the PC to get things going)

[Spark]

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.

[Satyr]

Because the developers aren't Blake. Blake plays Civ 4 with a skill I can barely conceive. I hang around on Noble and Prince, while Blake routinely wins on Deity. Top off his play skill with strategic skill and programming skill, and Blake (and others like him) can take the game places the developers couldn't. They come up with the ideas, and give them a direction, but the players take that to places they never imagined. How many times have games been patched for exploits that seem obvious in hindsight but nobody ever considered in advance?

When I played AOK seriously, the devs actually hired the best players to help develop and play test the game. While I agree that Blake and others like Vel play at a level that most of us can only dream of, the devs ought to take advantage of people with the fortitude, brains, and stamina to learn a game inside out and hire them to help create a better game. The budgets for a major game like MTW are huge and a couple more people working on the AI is not going to have a serious impact on the bottom line. If you really care about your product you do what is required to make it as good as it can be. I have seen several companies do this and am always disappointed that CA doesn't. It is my firm belief that the only reason CA has been as sucessful as they have been is because they have a monopoly on this type of game. The first time a serious competitor comes along that actually tries to create a great game, CA are in trouble.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I agree that CA seem to have it all to themselves..there is no real competition as such...

Imperial glory was a sort of competitor...kind of...though that was a flawed game in itself...(though not bad if you overlooked some areas)

Rest of the bunch are more specialist wargames..much more serious such as Take Command 2nd Manassas...etc etc...but they are really not mainstream appeal..and are for the more heavy wargamer..strategy player.

Competition is good..CA has little almost..and this doesnt help drive them to improve games as much as they could. Most of the criticism of the latest game..leaving aside issues as such is that it does not push the genre....

I still think CA are afraid to get down 'n dirty with a more intensive or advanced game...fearing that the casual gamer may be put off...games like Civ 4 show that you can have great depth..but also newer players need not be put off by it..or bogged down in micro management..

In many ways it is easy to spice up the eye candy...a lot of games do this...few deliver..maybe ones like Oblivion do...most great games I have played are so so on the graphics..gameplay is really what counts..

[Ars Moriendi]

Games are complex, and get more complex every generation. Bugs are going to slip through, and there are a lot more people playing after release to find those than in any beta test period.

I'm not sure I read this correctly, but if you're suggesting that something like unit cohesion just "slipped through" than I must say I have troubles swallowing it. I noticed the damn thing the very first battle I ever played in M2, and became seriously annoyed by it quite soon afterwards. I'm sure CA knew about it, it was just too difficult to fix before release and they gave us (again) only 75% or so of the game, with the rest of it coming, hopefully, next year, in small installments dubbed "patches".

The more tools we have at our disposal, the more obvious stuff we can fix.

True. This isn't however an excuse for the sorry state this game was released in (and still is, one patch later). I don't play it now, no time with the holidays and all, but I plan to start again in Jan.'07. My big problem is - I'm contemplating a large amount of modding, bugfixing, rebalancing, tweaking etc. that needs to be done before starting a new campaign. It'll probably take me 1-2 weeks to cover all the holes that can be covered. And then, in Feb. after the patch, I'll probably have to do it all over again.
It's so very true (and thanks to CA for this) that this game offers a lot in the way of modding and customizing your playing experience. Modding in itself can be quite fun, too. It should be optional though, not mandatory as it stands now - having to fix it before you play it sounds like a DYI project. Too much like work, and I didn't pay 50$ to work on the game, but to play it.

Phew, there it is...
Sorry for the slightly OT rant, but I needed to vent some steam about my love-hate relationship with TW.

[Fisherking]

well you guys are LUCKY!!

after installing the patch, my game now stops in every battle

locks up :( I have to physically turn of the PC to get things going)

I had a bit of trouble with that too... I had to set graphics to minimal and then it seemed to work. Never mind that the system should be more than capable of running this program!

[Quillan]

I agree with you Ars. But a lot of things do slip through the cracks, because not enough people were playtesting seriously. And those who do playtest aren't the same quality players some of you are. Personally, I detest the way games come out now: "Oh, that's good enough. Go ahead and release it, and we'll just patch it later." I'd much rather wait for a finished, polished product than get a buggy early release, but that's the way things are and I can't really change it.

Blakes AI changes in Civ 4 came because Blake is a superlative player, and has enough programming skill to be able to rewrite the AI code to do things the way he would. Now, perhaps if we had the code for this game, and some of the best players of Medieval 2 combined their playing skill with the same ability to rewrite the code, improvements could be made. However, how do they hire the best players before the game is released? Those improvements have to be done after the fact. I have a feeling the AI code is more complex in this game than in Civ 4 also, though it probably does have two different sets of codes: one for the campaign map and one for the battles.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I have no idea how complex the AI code is in MTW2....none.

What I do know is that it in general is not working very well. Aka not providing enough of a challenge, or variety. AI is very predictable...very..

It shouldn't be like that.

I loaded up the original MTW..and whilst it looks pretty ropey by today's standards..the AI on the campaign map was a lot better..and the battle AI is in a different league'

I played the english v french in a custom battle..and had one of the most thrilling down to the wire fights ever. The AI was smart enough not to stand about and let me rain arrows on him for ages..smart enough not to charge my spear units with its cavalry..and smart enought to push an attack on my weak flank..and do so with guts and vigour..it really went for the win..I won the battle...but barely...it drew me into the game as a whole....

And the most important part is that it varies its strategy...so you don't get bored.

IN short a gripping battle with a game that is 5 years old+...

Now why is it with such a huge game such as MTW2 cannot deliver the goods? Excuses...there are none from where I stand....

[Ars Moriendi]

However, how do they hire the best players before the game is released? Those improvements have to be done after the fact.

Hmmm. While what you say is mostly true, I still can't reasonably find an excuse for some of the problems. See, for example, the previous posts about suicidal generals. It made me cringe, because it brought back memories of long threads about it in the times of the first MedievalTW game. That was, what, 4-5 years ago ? That's long enough "after the fact" for it not to be an issue anymore. Also, the best players would have been quite easy to find even before M2TW was released - they're the same as the best STW, MTW, RTW players, and quite abundant on these forums (and other places).

NOTE : I haven't experienced the suicidals myself in M2TW, or at least not very obviously.

I have a feeling the AI code is more complex in this game than in Civ 4 also, though it probably does have two different sets of codes: one for the campaign map and one for the battles.

I never played Civ, but I know that there are no real time battles in it, so I think that however complex its strategical AI might be, it pales in comparison with the difficulty of coding a working battlefield AI as in TW.

Your assumption about there being two different "AI brains" for campaign/battles is most certainly true.

[BDC]

I don't think it's a bad game by any means. It's fun, but that doesn't negate the fact that CA should be embarassed for being okay to release this game in the state it was/is in. It shows a major drop in quality and care in their products that is easily visible to the customer.

They need a bigger team in future me thinks.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I never played Civ, but I know that there are no real time battles in it, so I think that however complex its strategical AI might be, it pales in comparison with the difficulty of coding a working battlefield AI as in TW.

Your assumption about there being two different "AI brains" for campaign/battles is most certainly true.

As far as I can see campaign wise civ is far superior to the TW games..it uses some logic most of the time..and varies what it does.

As for the battle AI...the original MTW was far from perfect..but really I don't see how hard it would be to keep it for this version....it did give a good challenge on a tactical level...least to me...

Really not sure what has changed..after all the basics behind it must be very similar...as for the snazzy graphics..well that won't make any difference IMO to how units move on the battlefield..and how/why/where they engage.

[Spark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

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.

I think both games suffered from having been released too early. Civ 4 had some notable bugs..and some serious performance issues even on high end machines (lag/slowdowns..memory leaks etc), and got some serious criticisms from users too. Though...and it took a while..the developers did address the issues..and made significant changes to the game, including the AI and balance issues too...they also took the time to add extra bits to it...kind of a sorry we messed up thing. Though it shouldnt be like that in an ideal world.

We can only hope that CA take note of this and not only fix the issues, but enhance the gameplay..to me at present exploration of diplomatic and economic areas are not deep enough..and the game is pretty much flawed by having a tight time limit..and only one way to win (mass conquering of lands)

But whilst MTW2 shines on that battlefield (when it works right)..and it is fun..it pales next to civ 4 on the tactical map and strategic/diplomacy level..badly. Not that CA ever intended to compete with civ 4..but why make a what if game..if you only have one way of winning?

One of 2006's big titles that has been a huge let down....

I really dont mind modders playing about..and they do some good work..but really, it is not good enough to have the current retail release in such poor shape...you don't get paid for your work..the CA team do...

All this talk of not enough cpu power for AI is really smoke and mirrors...this simply isnt the truth at all

[Bijo]

Barry, I know exactly what you mean and I agree.

Though I was more talking about the general gameplay of both. TW's poor strategy map could be improved by Civ's, and Civ's team could in return learn from TW's battles.
They should simply team up to make the ultimate (PC) strategy game.

Been trying to mod some things myself, learning about those files and their contents, but it's a pain in the ass, takes time: I also want M2 to be in good shape, and I wouldn't have minded if they released it far later than planned - like next year.

I think good production quality in games should be standard nowadays, in terms of code, presentation, etc. Civ4 had that rubbish as you say, and M2 has it too.

I ain't no programmer (though I've been at it many times throughout the years), but I wonder: is it possible for TW's next installment to take an existing superior engine of which we know it works (almost) perfectly - Source comes first to mind now - and adapt it somehow to be a good perfect optimal TW engine?

All this talk of not enough cpu power for AI is really smoke and mirrors...this simply isnt the truth at all

Dunno. Seems to me it should be possible to program good A.I., but I really don't know.


I do know the standard of many games today has become to quickly finish the job, have good PR to work people up to a certain point they want to get your product, and then to take their money, hah hah!

[CptPicard]

TW's poor strategy map could be improved by Civ's, and Civ's team could in return learn from TW's battles.
They should simply team up to make the ultimate (PC) strategy game.

I've been a Civilization fan ever since version 1 in the early 90s, and I really wouldn't want to see the TW style tactical battle map in Civilization... it simply doesn't fit the spirit of the game, which is supposed to be more of a high-level nation leadership simulation than a plain war game, although of course war factors into it a great deal, as it has in real history. Civ is more of a builder's game, and your army's generals are really below you in rank...

It wouldn't be practical to pour resources into developing two decent games in one... for TW, the strategic map is more or less there to eventually get to what that game is supposed to do well, and that is the tactical battles, while it would be completely unwieldy to do that well within the through the ages scope of Civilization... you'd get two crippled games instead of one great one.

[Bartix]

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]

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.

[Satyr]

Haha, could you imagine if M2TW had personalities and they gave the Mongols a Monty like personality? Wow, he would sweep over the world in no time! That would be great. Make the Spanish and the English aggressive while the French would obviously be quite whiny and defensive but terrible in actual battle. I guess they would have the worst moral of any faction in the game.

[katank]

In that case, I'd be trying to kill Spain all the time. Isabella is such a b***h in Civ.

If you bring traits into TW, then valor bonus on units from aggressive trait would just be too sweet to pass up.

[Satyr]

Hmmmm, what we really need is to see Katherine on the battlefield giving speeches to the troops! Hahaha, can you imagine the promises she would make to insure victory?

[Geezer57]

TAs to the Benny Hill them song, I know the title, but if I just asked where I could download Yakety Sax I don't think many people would understand the reference. Everyone who's ever seen an episode knows exactly what I'm talking about at the end credits.

Try here: http://melaman2.com/tvshows/B1.html