Latest update on 1.2 patch from Sega/CA

[TinCow]

IMO its still kind of easy in 1.2 to cripple the AI early on by offering them: Alliance, trade rights, map information + 1-3k florins for 1-2 of their cities/castles.

Uh... then don't do that? What you're describing is essentially power-gaming; you're exploiting the weakness of the AI to beat it down as hard and as fast as possible.

You want a harder game, but you don't want to impose more limits on yourself. It would certainly be nice if CA developed a harder AI, but as I said before, the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI. That's more convenient than doing it manually, but in the absence of an automatic system made by CA, it seems like the logical alternative.

[hrvojej]

... the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI.

I don't think that's the only way to do it, and I for one would not like to see that made too obvious. Custom battles with comparable armies on VH can be challenging. Though I still win almost all of them, I have to work for that and, most importantly, I have fun while I play them. The problem with sucky battles in SP is mostly tied to the campaign AI flops - poor recruitment decisions, not using generals to lead the armies, and having a dozen 2-unit stacks instead of a single powerful one. Some of these things can be made better with modding, but, other than the passive tactical AI, this is where the focus should be IMO to improve the game and the level of challenge. Giving AI unfair bonuses is a much poorer choice than improving its strategic decisions.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Keep in mind that 90% of the ppl who bought the game never visit these forums.
Example how to lose a campaign:
in one turn i lost 3 out of 4 remaining family members: one to a scottish assasin, one when the 5 ship flotilla he was travelling back from the crusade got pwnd by pirates and one when i forgot about the general chasing routers(to free them of course later) and he accidentally run through his own longbow poles
Now if you reload this is not an issue but if you don't this is a real disaster. The guy i have left is 61 so the game can be over next turn for me...

[sapi]

Okay, you've convinced me to download the leaked 1.2 patch

[SoxSexSax]

Wow. So many points I feel I must respond to. This could take a while...

Playing england VH/VH By turn 20 attacked by: France, Scotland HRE Portugal, Spain and Danmark and I just spotted a Moor ship off the Irish coast with a full stack on it (wander whar they want). I am getting murdered here. BUT...
I don't use my general to melee and always release prisoners (need the chivalry to compete with the AI pop growth bonus). I don't ally with anyone exceprt the pope never accept huge amounts of cash for ceasefire every 2 turns and I don't sally and use missile troops on passive foe. In other words i don't use cheesy tactics to win then complain about how easy it is. Oh yeah the AI sucks but i do not see it getting better anytime soon. I have never completed the long campaign either cos it gets soo tedious managing 30+ regions. I still think the game is great compared to RTW and much better after the "patch".

I don't use any tactic I consider cheesy. I NEVER sally (do I sound like someone who WANTS an easy game???), I don't use Merchant Forts, I don't use my general to lead attacks as you imply (although I do chase routers and sell prisoners, which I would say is nowhere near cheesy, frankly). If you haven't even completed a campaign, I question your experience to make these claims and I certainly don't know why you subtly implied that I only think the game is too easy because I 'cheese' it up...

Not reloading after unsuccessfull takeover/assasination/spying attempt or losing a general in battle also helps IMHO.

I never reload. Why would I? I hardly ever use assasins (no need when you're 90% to kill the enemy general in every battle), I hardly ever lose a battle and diplomacy on VH is still a joke in 1.2...again, I am disappointed to find you implying that those who find it easy are resorting to tricks to do so...I WANT a hard game!!! I don't enjoy steamrolling a "helpless kitten" AI. I am not going out of my way to make things easy...they just are!

in one turn i lost 3 out of 4 remaining family members: one to a scottish assasin, one when the 5 ship flotilla he was travelling back from the crusade got pwnd by pirates and one when i forgot about the general chasing routers(to free them of course later) and he accidentally run through his own longbow poles

And? That's not good AI, it's terrible, mind-numbingly silly play. My wife knows better than to do that and she's no gamer...

It would certainly be nice if CA developed a harder AI, but as I said before, the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI.

That is so untrue it's almost not worth responding. For that statement to be true ("the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI") then it is logical that M2TW has the absolute best AI scripts humanly possible. And I don't believe anyone who has any gaming experience would say that is so. Compare Civ 4 Warlords AI (which is more complex at the strategic level without a shadow of doubt) to M2 and then tell me M2 can't be improved. Completely incorrect statement IMO.

@econ:

As England, give up your french holdings, secure Britain, secure all Scandinavia. Continue until both Scotland and Denmark are eliminated. Once Scotland and Denmark are gone, play as you like. I promise that if you are competent (and I believe you to be) you will win the campaign from this start. If your AAR isn't using this start, well, you're using a rather suboptimal strategy (in my humble opinion) and perhaps it is why you may find the game more challenging? Using the above outlined start, losing as England is next to impossible...and this is (IMO) in no way a cheesy start either, it's one of the just two possible strategically sound starts England have (other one being take Britain then France).

@Nobody in particular

The major killer issue with the AI is an inability to conduct a siege. I just never lose any siege defence battle where I had even a 1% chance of winnng. If I have 37 peasants and 3 town militia against a stack of 1000+, well even the M2 AI can't screw that up. But if I have 2 dismounted polish knights, 2 dismounted polish nobles and 2 lithuanian archers (units of, not just 2 men, obviously!) against 1500+ then...bring it on AI. You're going down and you know it! And that's why the campaign is too easy. Once a province is mine, I'm not losing it to anything bar rebellion. The AI has no hope at all of ever taking back a city from me. And that's why the game is far too easy.

I'm still waiting for the AI defenders to post a replay from a custom battle of the AI doing something impressive. I'm not holding my breath though. And I'm yet to see anyone challenge my description of how the AI fights its field battles either. Maybe that's because it's pretty much right?

[sapi]

Don't get your hopes up too high, Sapi: I suspect you'll still beat the game by turn 50. The main value of the patch, IMO, is fixing the spear and 2H bug. This is very worthwhile (they became game killers for me). But I don't see why they should affect the difficulty of the game.

No, I won't - but I haven't played M2TW in a good while and am getting bored with every other game that I've got installed

I might even play with house rules this time

Pity bittorrent + no tracker + australian time = practically no seeds

[Budwise]

Its not that I feel the game isn't challenging, I just never felt that - I better win this battle or my empire is gone - type of moment. I just feel that the AI doesn't hit you strategically enough to warrent more attention to detail and planned out thought. What I guess I am getting at is that when you play England and your at war with both France and Spain and Scotland is long since dead, you never have to worry about Edinburge or Nottingham getting hit. It would be kinda nice for the Danes to hit you on a second front and then SUPPORT THEIR UNITS VIA REENFORCEMENTS at least every other turn.

I have lost a campaign due to lack of heirs, even in M2TW. But I have never lost my entire empire in M2TW. Has anyone else?

[TinCow]

That is so untrue it's almost not worth responding. For that statement to be true ("the only way to do that is to make difficulty levels which handicap the player and boost the AI") then it is logical that M2TW has the absolute best AI scripts humanly possible. And I don't believe anyone who has any gaming experience would say that is so. Compare Civ 4 Warlords AI (which is more complex at the strategic level without a shadow of doubt) to M2 and then tell me M2 can't be improved. Completely incorrect statement IMO.

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was wrong, but I stand by general point of my statement. As I see it, even if the bugs in the AI's battle and strategic AI were fixed, it would still be beaten regularly by humans. It might take a game or two for people to adapt to the new AI, but the most basic flaw with the AI is that it is predictable. In certain situations, it will use certain styles. All AIs are like this. It may get better (and it should, I'm not saying CA should stop working on it) but in order for it to be truly challenging, something more is required.

You mentioned the Civ 4 Warlords AI and I think that is the perfect illustration of my point. It is a very good AI, but on Noble level (AI has no bonuses or penalties) it is still very, very easy to beat. Few people regularly lose to it unless they are new players who haven't spent much time with the game. The levels of difficulty above Noble quickly become VERY difficult to beat, and that is entirely due to the bonuses given to the AI. The Civ AI systems have always relied on giving the AI bonuses at higher levels, and that is one reason why they have always been extremely challenging for most people at the higher difficulties.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Even in the so called pure AI program like chess the AI cheats. It uses a database( a book?) with different openings/variations and is the eqvivalent of playing against a human opponent thumbing through chess books between moves it just that the computer does it very fast. While the true skilled chess player has memorized those strategies so it actually is cheating.

[SoxSexSax]

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was wrong, but I stand by general point of my statement. As I see it, even if the bugs in the AI's battle and strategic AI were fixed, it would still be beaten regularly by humans. It might take a game or two for people to adapt to the new AI, but the most basic flaw with the AI is that it is predictable. In certain situations, it will use certain styles. All AIs are like this. It may get better (and it should, I'm not saying CA should stop working on it) but in order for it to be truly challenging, something more is required.

You mentioned the Civ 4 Warlords AI and I think that is the perfect illustration of my point. It is a very good AI, but on Noble level (AI has no bonuses or penalties) it is still very, very easy to beat. Few people regularly lose to it unless they are new players who haven't spent much time with the game. The levels of difficulty above Noble quickly become VERY difficult to beat, and that is entirely due to the bonuses given to the AI. The Civ AI systems have always relied on giving the AI bonuses at higher levels, and that is one reason why they have always been extremely challenging for most people at the higher difficulties.

The Civ 4 Warlords 2.61 patch AI on Noble is MUCH better than the M2TW AI on Normal. And when I say much, I mean so much it's not even comparable. And it's not a lack of bonuses causing the issue for the M2 AI...it's an inability to perform on the tactical map and it's inability to produce high-tech armies when it has the funds and facilities available that screws it, both of which are script issues not lack of resource issues.