No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms (update: Kingdoms patch announced)

[Jambo]

Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.

Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI. What I would like to see CA do, is bring strategy back to TW games. They've become a little too formulaic for my liking.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.

On the other hand, there's a direct link between the money spent on graphics development and the money available for testing, patching, and AI improvement. Some areas of a game naturally have to be prioritized, and unfortunately I think that a great many of us feel that the wrong area has been given priority.

[Puzz3D]

Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI.

You see the graphics immediately when you create them, but the strength of the AI isn't apparent until it's been extensively tested. One problem in the new engine is that the unit speeds are being determined by skeletons that CA is loath to change later due to the amount of work involved, but the unit's speeds directly affect playbalance on the battlefield. You can't possible get the tactical playbalance optimized if you aren't willing to go back later and adjust the unit speeds. CA has apparently concluded that the phantom majority doesn't care if the playbalance is not optimized.

They had a highly effective AI in the MTW/VI engine. You can prove it by playing the Samurai Warlords campaign on the normal difficulty setting. The strategic AI almost always attacks a province with enough force to win the battle. The tactical AI does a few things very well such as: it chooses advantageous matchups in melee with the combat situational factors properly taken into consideration, it only attacks when it has an advantage, it uses archers to shoot low armored units, it responds to ranged attack, it flanks with cavalry, it holds back its general. it does not attack piecemeal, it coordinates allied armies on the battlefield and in seige attacks it keeps the bulk of its army out of range until a breach is made in the castle wall. In Samurai Wars, the RPS system is strong like it was in STW. This is great for the AI since the AI is designed for such a system. There is no artillery which is good because the AI doesn't know enough to protect its artillery. The tactical AI is capable of handing your head to you in an even contest.

Contrast this with the RTW AI which intentionally underestimates the strength of the player's armies on the strategic map, charges weaker units into stronger units on the tactical map, suicides it's general, thinks it has all day to set up flanking maneuvers with infantry, attacks with units in piecemeal fashion, doesn't respond to ranged attack, doesn't know its units have shields, doesn't coordinate allied armies and places its army inside the range of castles. This is what Creative Assembly claimed was an improved AI. I don't see how the developer can really improve the AI when they are in a state of denial about the quality of the AI they are now producing. When you try to help them improve the game, the way you did in previous years, they turn around and tell you that the game is not intended for hardcore players. End of story. So you now have a game where all you have to do is make a very large number of mouse clicks and you win. Yay!

[alpaca]

Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.

Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI. What I would like to see CA do, is bring strategy back to TW games. They've become a little too formulaic for my liking.

Not quite because the same codemonkeys who would create the AI will have to work on that new feature in the graphics engine that allows real bowstrings or whatever the artists come up with next. The problem is simple: SEGA/CA does not make gameplay a priority. It obviously ranks fairly low in the company's considerations for what their games should be nowadays. The same goes for quality of work and in general "finishing the job".

Note that this is not about the individual developers/employees who may or may not support their management's policy. Since I can't discern whether or not they do, this is merely a statement of my impression about the company's decision-making processes.

[Lusted]

Not quite because the same codemonkeys who would create the AI will have to work on that new feature in the graphics engine that allows real bowstrings or whatever the artists come up with next.

No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for graphics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.

[Cheetah]

No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for grpahics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.

Is there a team for Kingdoms patch too?

[Zoring]

"Under Consideration" is just business speak for 'No, but it will stop them complaining for a little while'.

[icek]

Is there a team for Kingdoms patch too?

yeah, the team with theme " hi guys we are working on smh so stay pacent because youll never see it ".

[hrvojej]

It's interesting that there won't be a team for quality assessment and/or playtesting, which is something that is sorely needed.

[Lusted]

I was talking about programming teams, of course there's a QA team. And i didn't mention design or art teams either.

[alpaca]

No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for graphics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.

Will be?

A team for AI sounds promising though, I hope that all of these different teams which probably consist of one to three persons each will interact on a regular basis.

[Lusted]

Will be?

As in on a project there will be, it's how it works on Empire as well.

[Zenicetus]

As in on a project there will be, it's how it works on Empire as well.

See what I mean? CA reps will talk about anything, except removing invasive software left behind, after you've uninstalled the game. That sends a clear message, and we get the message.

[Lusted]

Unless i'm posting under the CA badge, i'm not a CA rep.

[lancelot]

...As far as I can make out, the issue is still under consideration.

Well, given the response below that open this thread-

Originally Posted by Caliban (CA)
There are no plans for a patch at the moment.

- I dont really think CA's 'response' to this issue can be considered as under consideration...

Granted, CA was smart enough to add the caveat at the moment but when a game has a laundry list of known issues, for the developers to say 'no plans for a patch' at this relatively early stage, the writing seems to be on the wall- for me at least anyway.

[econ21]

Well, given the response below that open this thread-
I dont really think CA's 'response' to this issue can be considered as under consideration

I was referring to the CA response to this thread, which is in this post:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=31

I would summarise that post as "no plans but under consideration".

[Zenicetus]

I was referring to the CA response to this thread, which is in this post:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=31

I would summarise that post as "no plans but under consideration".

They have said nothing at all about addressing the SecureRom issues in Kingdoms, either in that thread or anywhere else. And they've been asked directly about it, multiple times.