What should be fixed first above alll others?

[Lusted]

Meh.

I politely disagree with you folks. I don't think it is necessary to shout.
You can accomplish more with a polite word than you can with an insulting one. Shouting can rub someone the wrong way who might have otherwise been open to listening to your point of view. I don't know of a single case in my entire life where if someone shouted at me it made me more open to their point of view.

I'd even go as far as to say that I'd ignore even a reasonable request made of me if it was delivered in a shouting tone. Maybe that's just me, but in my experience it is not. Almost everyone reacts this way.

I even agree with you guys about the issues you are discussing. But if I were CA and I read such shouting I'd deliberately ignore it. That's human nature.

I honestly don't mean to be so picky or disagreeable, but I have to differ with you guys on this one, respectfully. Diplomacy is always the best first step towards achieving your goals.

If you're looking for cooperation from someone, it rarely hurts your position to ask for something before you demand it.

Well said.

[Didz]

Gotta love the dismounted English chefs.

If they've been trained by Gordon Ramsey their bound to be scary.
Lanugage/content warning ~sapi

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYd...elated&search=

[Warning: Not suitable for viewing by children]

[Kadagar_AV]

I also 100% agree that shouting is the first step, and second and third.

But we're not at step one, or two.... This is the fourth TW title and counting the patches, they should have had plenty of responce to help them design the game, I know I contributed with a lot through the years.

So yeah a lil' bit of shouting should be tested, to show them that the consumer base is unhappy with the bugged up game of today that doesnt deliver what's promised.

And on a sidenote, I dont even think the example was as much shouting as a way to highlight the main issue, as the OP posted.

[phonicsmonkey]

Diplomacy is always the best first step towards achieving your goals.

hey, who are you and what have you done with the pizzaguy?

[Askthepizzaguy]

hey, who are you and what have you done with the pizzaguy?

Oh dear lord, I've upset my followers!

As stated previously on my merciless conqueror thread, who I am in real life is the polar opposite of my in-game persona. What you've just read is a rare example of the real me addressing another poster.

You can get mister nice guy to rear his ugly head by swearing extensively without the usual self-censoring gobbletygook ($#!^), insulting or defaming another member (even those you think had it coming), angry shouting (typing in all caps not intended for comic effect), or misspelling weltanschauung.

Don't worry. The brutal dictator you all know and fear will return shortly.

[Budwise]

What the hell is a weltanschauung.???

[Budwise]

Not strictly true; but also not your fault

It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll not restricted by the vB board features (ie one in which members could rank their wants).

It's not so much that we don't care about graphics, but that there are other priorities.

I doubt the special effects are everyone's lowest priority (the general public, that is)...

Its funny that you said that because my opposite poll, which is the option everyone wants to see fixed the least. Graphics and Special Effects are at the top of the list by a landslide victory. Yeah, they are nice but I would rather be challenged.

[Budwise]

I don't want to keep talking and talking but I wish CA would make a comment so I know someone read this. That way, I felt like it was appreciated.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What the hell is a weltanschauung.???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltanschauung
"World view".

[Budwise]

Not strictly true; but also not your fault

It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll not restricted by the vB board features (ie one in which members could rank their wants).

It's not so much that we don't care about graphics, but that there are other priorities.

I doubt the special effects are everyone's lowest priority (the general public, that is)...

Yeah, I kinda hit this on the head on the parrallel thread, I don't feel like posting it again here. On second though, I will post it as a spoiler just so people will know what I am talking about with graphics. To simplify, graphics are very important but CA did that job VERY WELL, few complain about it. I just feel other things are more important now, thats all.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I understand and kinda agree. We are no longer in the 8bit Nintendo range anymore. The graphics are actually appleasing and very entertaining to watch. Although I would like to see improvements, there are so many other ideas I like more.

But with a graphical update (Which I voted Least Important out of all updates), I would appreciate seeing some of the following: the grass on fire when flaming arrows being used, bodies in the water on a bridge fight, Mud on the uniforms (I read it on the PCgamer article but I haven't really seen it yet.), destructible buildings, blood, civilians helping or running in a seige battle, or even more camera options. I think that those would be great improvements but if I had development time restraints, I would have to cut them to make the features (as advertised) that make the game enjoyable were at least installed or enhanced to be "Better than expected" if not Legendary. I would like people to look back 20 years from now and say that M2TW is the "Legend of Zelda" or "Final Fantasy 1" of the computer age. No one I have ever heard sticks with a game just because it looks cool, I understand people BUY games for that reason but to stick with it you need more. Its like Lust vs Love. Sure, everyone wants to bang a hot girl but if shes dumb in the head and you can't stand how she is but just love the "private time" or looking at her, the relationship won't last. But, if you marry an ugly girl that treats you good and cares about you and you care about her, it doesn't matter that others thinks shes ugly, (If you would care, perhaps M2TW is too advanced for your mind and you should go back to Counter-Strike) odds are you would marry her or at least stay with her for the long run.

In conclusion, Please CA - treat the followers of your games with the joy of what we are begging you to fix, word of mouth always gets more sales than a good advertisement (especially on a back of a box.) or someone hard up on graphics would enjoy. As my conclusion, the people begging for graphics and really nothing else are the type of people who play simplistic games are busy playing NON STRATEGY or even Console games. People who play this like the graphics but want so much more in a relationship with a game.

Can someone give me an email for CA so I can email these two polls for them to read.

[Lusted]

Can someone give me an email for CA so I can email these two polls for them to read.

We do read the forums you know.

[Budwise]

Although programming a decent AI is a hellava lot harder than figuring the tragectory of a bullet or programming a splashdamage effect toward a cannonball but this is a strategy game and the AI is VERY important to making this game more enjoyable.

Yes, the votes were more scattered on this poll compared to the poll about what not to fix but it seems that the AI should be the dominate thing that your group at CA headquarters works on.

Thank you all for posting, I believe that this poll as well as the other one is dead because I found this on page 2 as well.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although programming a decent AI is a hellava lot harder than figuring the tragectory of a bullet or programming a splashdamage effect toward a cannonball but this is a strategy game and the AI is VERY important to making this game more enjoyable.

Yes, the votes were more scattered on this poll compared to the poll about what not to fix but it seems that the AI should be the dominate thing that your group at CA headquarters works on.

Thank you all for posting, I believe that this poll as well as the other one is dead because I found this on page 2 as well.

It is always sad when a thread dies. At least people responded. I've seen some threads just sit there with a bunch of views and no responses.

Wait... were those my threads?

The internet forum kind, not the slang for clothing. I felt it necessary to clarify, just in case of confusion.

___________________
Blatant plug: None at present.

[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.

[The Stranger]

where is the everything option?

[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.

[Freedom Onanist]

Although I am with Bob in seeing the battles as the core of the game I voted for better campaing AI. As someone mentioned, if the campaign AI was a bit better I wouldn't be fighting battles against hordes of peasants.

That whole post about

Why does the AI:

• send priests to my territories when his are on the verge of heresy
• send spies to my territories when his are virtually inopen rebellion
• keep moving insignificant armies back and forwards on the raod to nowhere
• send useless armies to invade. Either too small or ineffective troops.
• invade when clearly outnumbered
• not accept ceasefires when they have been consistently beaten and are now facing complete disaster
• bother to attack over bridges
• move from a tactically useful position (high ground / bridge) for no apparent reason when threatened

Things that are broke or don't really work:

Merchants get my goat. The AI obviously has the bandwidth to train every single one of his, I don't since I am playing total WAR, not total market.
Princesses - more micro management. I just kill all foreign ones I can see as they slow the game down during the AI turn (all that standing around and bowing...)
Diplomats - in that they rarely seem to achieve a coherent result
Diplomacy - when was the last time you saw an "ally" come to your aid?
Assassins - his work, yours don't. Just make them much, much, much more expensive but get hem to work

To be fair though I think a lot of the later are the result of the "community" requesting some of these features. The whole Campaign side of the game has got overblown and the elements now don't interact properly anymore in my view. Forget anbout half the campaign distractions and concentrate on getting it right so that we cna enjoy the battles. Less borked strategy and more sorted tactics.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Budwise]

The basic mechanics of combat (charge, hit, miss, pursue, etc), are the core of the game. If the fundamentals aren't working, there's no sense slapping lipstick on that bimbo and sending her onto the street with a fancy campaign map and a bejillion unit types.

I guess you could put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig. Would explain how I was conceived though.

[Akka]

The number one problem for me is still the lethargic fighting and bogus unit cohesion in the battle map. As it's not a problem from your list, well I'd like more moddability to be able to correct this myself, as it's for now hardcoded.

All the rest is faaaar below this one on my list.

[Budwise]

The number one problem for me is still the lethargic fighting and bogus unit cohesion in the battle map. As it's not a problem from your list, well I'd like more moddability to be able to correct this myself, as it's for now hardcoded.

All the rest is faaaar below this one on my list.

I would say that that could either be

More Units to Choose From (More Variety Between Factions)

or

Easier Modability (Less Options Hard Coded, Maybe a Mod Kit Relieased to Assist)

[Akka]

Not the former, because the beef isn't against units themselves, but the mechanics of battle.

I obviously chose the latter ^^