What should be fixed first above alll others?

[Budwise]

Which is the #1 improvement that you are looking for in a future patch/expansion/new TW game? I hear so many and I hope CA pays Attention. I am now going to make a different pool asking which IS NOT A CONCERN FOR YOU.

[Budwise]

Oh, I also voted for the Diplomacy because thats the heart of the game. The battles are a great addition and the reason why I picked TW over other Civ like games but sometimes, I feel I would have more fun if the Diplomacy was more "Well to do" in the head.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Better campaign AI.

[phonicsmonkey]

agreed, I think better campaign AI would have a flow-on effect to improve some of the other problems like diplomacy (better sense of strategic position and goals would make for more consistent negotiation from AI-controlled factions) and battle AI (because it's hard to judge at the moment when the AI so often fields desperately inferior stacks)

[FactionHeir]

I don't think such a poll is necessary as the buglist already categorizes by priority as agreed upon by TWC and ORG communities.
Also, there are several more that could be included in such a poll, which currently is very subjective in what the OP feels is more important (as seen by putting almost everything else as minor for instance)

[Zoring]

Definitly AI, but having more variety between each unit, so it's not just generic chainmail men in every nation with the only difference being colours

[Budwise]

I don't think such a poll is necessary as the buglist already categorizes by priority as agreed upon by TWC and ORG communities.
Also, there are several more that could be included in such a poll, which currently is very subjective in what the OP feels is more important (as seen by putting almost everything else as minor for instance)

I couldn't disagree more. I haven't seen a poll yet that I could respond too so I thought others haven't seen one yet either. Second, every TW game gets prettier but the AI stays the same or gets more retarded in some way, I feel if more time was being developed fixing various glitches and less time on eyecandy, people would be happier. And lastly, CA will probably use this in some way because its exactly in the right format and directly to the point in the future. So yes, I feel it was needed enough to learn how to make a poll in the first place to post.

[PseRamesses]

Voted for an improved battle-AI although a sane campmap-AI is second on my list.
The whole reason I play this game, and has since Shogun was released, is the battles. In S I thought WoW! this is great, the AI is acting almost human and is making pretty sane strategical decisions on the battlefield. Through MTW, RTW and M2 this has deterioated to a fragment of its former glory, sad to say.
In S it was easier: take it all! Maybee that´s why its so good and easy. The AI is more in sync with a conquer all mentality. In M2 nowdays there is so many ways I can play this game and still win but the AI is just making worse decisions than ever:
Why send one ship to attack my empire and not have the troops or even the intentions to follow up with some attempt of an invasion or landwarfare?
Why send priest/ imams to foreign lands when your own provinces is howering between 30-70%?
Why send spies abroad when his own cities are littered with foreign spies that incites one rebellion after another?
Why declare war on an empire that outnumbers you, by any criteria, by 10:1?
Why do the AI expand in a stright line rather spiraling outwards from its centre?
Why do the AI cross a bridge when I´m attacking them?
Why does he move down from a hilltop just because I cirled around his flanks?
etc etc etc

PS. I´m actually afraid what CA is going to come up with for the next title.

[Odin]

Why send one ship to attack my empire and not have the troops or even the intentions to follow up with some attempt of an invasion or landwarfare?

Hahahaha, the bloody portugese, it never fails as sicily, england, scotland basically any faction with a costal province east of budapest and the Portugese seem to love to DOW, blockade my port.

Then come to find out there armies are busy trapsing around Rennes wondering if they should attack it, or march to me.



Nice post mate.

[Doug-Thompson]

Campaign AI. I'm tired of clobbering a stack of Mongols outside Antioch every turn on the same battlefield.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Campaign AI!

By now, my destruction of the AI in campaign mode is notorious. I agree that the game needs to have the units retooled so that they function as expected in battle, but of even greater concern is the fact that the campaign AI is predictable, stupid, illogical, and sooooooooooo easy to destroy.

Give pizza guy something more meaty to chew on, and build a better campaign AI. Different maps and different units may add to the challenge, but if the campaign AI is still stupid, it won't matter.

Great game though. Any criticism is out of love.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

I voted for a better Campaign AI. Here are two examples of my Milan campaign.
I had wiped Venice out of Italy and out of the Balkans. All they had left Iraklion and Rhodes. We made peace and next I captured Egypt. At that time the Venetians attacked me at Alexandria. They were so desperate to capture Alexandria that they left Iraklion undefended. All I had to do was to send a small task force and capture Iraklion. I left a small garrison and attacked Rhodes that was defended by the faction leader, while the Venetian fleet with two stacks was still at sea heading to wards Iraklion. Next turn Venice was out of the game.
A couple of turns later I captured Cordoba from the Moors. Next I attacked Lisbon (held by the Moors). I left Cordoba defended by a couple of militia units because I thought that the Spanish wouldn't risk their last remaining stack to attack me. Nobody could be that stupid especially as we were at peace at that moment. How wrong was I. The Spanish send a very strong stack to capture Cordoba (DFKs, FKs, Pavise crossbows). After a heroic defense of my outnumbered militia units they captured the city. The attack had severely weakened the Spanish so I could recapture Cordoba the next turn. Two turns later Toledo (weakly defended) was in Milan's hands. All that was left of Spain ware Leon and Zaragossa and hardly defended.

The AI which programmed to attack the human player at all costs is actually weakening the AI itself, making the game easier.

[Budwise]

Since nobody has commented on this poll in a while, I consider it closed. CA, please take note of this on the next staff meeting on what to do or not do on future products/patches/ect.

[Zenicetus]

Campaign AI here too. It was close between that and better tactical AI, but as others mentioned, the follow-on improvements would fix some of the things I find annoying about tactical battles. Better campaign AI would keep me from steamrolling the map with huge overpowering armies, and I'd be facing fewer half-stack enemy armies with bizarre unit composition. That's really one of the big flaws in the game right now... how the AI factions put together their armies before they even reach the tactical combat phase.

[trickydicky]

Campaign AI.

Although this made me chuckle.
Updated Graphics Engine and Special Effects

The graphics aren't good enough already then

[Bob the Insane]

hmmm...

I have to disagree with the group here and say Battle AI...

I think it harks back to the roots of the game, and so much more would be forgiven if the battles where genuinely challenging more of the time... Sure decent campaign AI is necessary to ensure that the AI is chosing to fight at appropriate times and sending appropriate forces but the enjoyment of the battles are the key I think (IMO of course)...

To expand on the point, when I give up playing after a long session, it is not because I am in horror of the next silly thing the campaign AI mmight do, it is because I can't stand another large cookie cutter battle today. Build a solid defensive (or offensive it does nto really matter), trade missile fire, attack the main line, flank with cavalry, win... It is not a matter of worrying about losing, just about how bad your casulaties will be....

[trickydicky]

hmmm...

I have to disagree with the group here and say Battle AI...

I think it harks back to the roots of the game, and so much more would be forgiven if the battles where genuinely challenging more of the time... Sure decent campaign AI is necessary to ensure that the AI is chosing to fight at appropriate times and sending appropriate forces but the enjoyment of the battles are the key I think (IMO of course)...

To expand on the point, when I give up playing after a long session, it is not because I am in horror of the next silly thing the campaign AI mmight do, it is because I can't stand another large cookie cutter battle today. Build a solid defensive (or offensive it does nto really matter), trade missile fire, attack the main line, flank with cavalry, win... It is not a matter of worrying about losing, just about how bad your casulaties will be....

Good point Bob, but surely having a smarter campaign AI would automatically help improve the battles. The AI would field better armies, and would attack at much more appropriate times. This may not "fix" the battlefield AI, but it would at least improve the game, and I imagine it woul be easier to implement.

I agree however that the Battlefield AI does need some serious reworking, epecially on the VH setting. Very Hard is after all suppose to be hard

[Zenicetus]

Well, one thing the battles need very badly are different AI "personalities" for the enemy general, so we aren't facing the same cookie cutter battles BobtheInsane mentioned.

Imagine how nice it would be, if sometimes you'd face an enemy general who feinted and flanked, another time the general would pour all his resources into a wedge drive towards your center. Some generals would be cautious, others would be maniacs, constantly on the offensive. And the passive/aggresive thing wouldn't necessarily be tied to who had attacked whom on the campaign map, the way it works now (that's another thing that makes these battles too predictable). Ideally you wouldn't know which style and tactics you'd be facing with each battle, unless you had already fought that particular general before, and he had survived.

We do need better generic battle AI overall, but I don't think we'll ever avoid that "cookie cutter" feeling until there's some randomness and variation in combat styles for the enemy generals.

I voted for campaign AI first, mainly because I think it's probably an easier area to improve than the tactical side, being turn-based instead of realtime AI. But obviously we need better AI in both areas.

[Budwise]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well, one thing the battles need very badly are different AI "personalities" for the enemy general, so we aren't facing the same cookie cutter battles BobtheInsane mentioned.

Imagine how nice it would be, if sometimes you'd face an enemy general who feinted and flanked, another time the general would pour all his resources into a wedge drive towards your center. Some generals would be cautious, others would be maniacs, constantly on the offensive. And the passive/aggresive thing wouldn't necessarily be tied to who had attacked whom on the campaign map, the way it works now (that's another thing that makes these battles too predictable). Ideally you wouldn't know which style and tactics you'd be facing with each battle, unless you had already fought that particular general before, and he had survived.

We do need better generic battle AI overall, but I don't think we'll ever avoid that "cookie cutter" feeling until there's some randomness and variation in combat styles for the enemy generals.

I voted for campaign AI first, mainly because I think it's probably an easier area to improve than the tactical side, being turn-based instead of realtime AI. But obviously we need better AI in both areas.

Yes, I totally agree with that and that would be a top pick for me too. However, I couldn't have put every option possible to fix so I just kinda figured I would generalize it the way that I did.