Gamespot Preview

[USMCNJ]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...=picks;title;3

[Sheogorath]

Not to be too much of a cynic, but where have we heard that 'none of the AI's actions are scripted' thing before?

Oh. Right. Oblivion >_>

[Jack Lusted]

Not to be too much of a cynic, but where have we heard that 'none of the AI's actions are scripted' thing before?

Oh. Right. Oblivion >_>

Well you can rest assured that non of the AI's actions in the demo were scripted. It was entirely controlled by the battle AI.

[Motep]

sounds like much fun! maybe theses armies can provide a tactical challenge?

[Warmaster Horus]

just two of the 12 playable nations

I thought there were only 10?

Other than that, the battle report was rather interesting. If the AI can do stuff like that unscripted, and other tactics as well, then STW and MTW fans will have a reason to come back to the TW series.
A question for the devs: the preview said the Brits retreated because they thought it wasn't worth it in the long run. Can we really expect the battle AI to take into consideration the strategic situation?

[Martok]

I thought there were only 10?

CA has been saying for the last month or two that there *may* be as many as 12 playable factions now, but haven't yet committed to saying how many exactly there will be. I may be reading too much into what has (and has not) been said, but I get the impression that perhaps they're waiting to announce the exact number of playable factions until they have a better idea of how many they'll be able to fully flesh out in time for Empire's release date. CA's indicated that they aren't going to want to announce 12 playable faction if 1-2 are going to look and/or feel generic -- better to just have 10 playable factions that look and feel unique.

Other than that, the battle report was rather interesting. If the AI can do stuff like that unscripted, and other tactics as well, then STW and MTW fans will have a reason to come back to the TW series.

Indeed. ETW's much-vaunted AI is the single biggest reason the game has managed to peak my interest thus far. If it manages to equal or pass the Shogun/MTW AI's competence in battle, and/or manages to actually behave rationally on the campaign map -- i.e., it can develop a halfway-decent economy and avoid stupid strategic decisions such as breaking a century-old alliance with its more powerful neighbor for no good reason -- then that alone will be reason enough for me to hail this as one of the greatest games ever.

If it fails, however -- if the AI's ability (or lack thereof) is more reminiscent of Rome or Medieval 2 -- then this truly will be the last Total War game I ever purchase. I very much hope that doesn't happen, though. For as disappointing as the last two TW titles were for me, I still want Empire to be the game so many of us long-suffering "old-timers" have been waiting for. While I admittedly remain somewhat skeptical that CA can pull off this mighty feat, what I've read thus far does give me more cause for hope than I've felt in a long time. For the first time in over three years, I'm once again looking forward to the release of a Total War game.

question for the devs: the preview said the Brits retreated because they thought it wasn't worth it in the long run. Can we really expect the battle AI to take into consideration the strategic situation?

It sounds as if the AI will do exactly that, but I too wouldn't mind a little clarification on this subject.

Exactly what factors does the AI take into consideration when fighting a battle? I presume it will definitely matter if a specific location (city, port, mine, etc.) is being attacked/defended, but what about other stuff like relative strength, position, the quality of the commanders involved, etc? Will an army withdraw to protect a valuable general, or at least do so if it's clearly losing? Is the AI capable of risking more veteran/valuable troops in order to capture a particularly important objective? When determining its chances of winning, does it now evaluate the *quality* of the army (instead of only quantity/number of troops) -- i.e., looking at what type of units the enemy is fielding and/or how good the enemy commander is?

And what about naval battles? Will admirals have this same "situational awareness" that generals do?

[hoom]

When determining its chances of winning, does it now evaluate the *quality* of the army (instead of only quantity/number of troops) -- i.e., looking at what type of units the enemy is fielding and/or how good the enemy commander is?

Its always done this to a certain extent but only once in battle.

Its much more rare in RTW that an enemy army withdraws but it does happen.
Normally with a group of units making a feint attack to cover & using a strong rear-guard unit to ward off light cav chasers.

Whatever the RTR team did in their TIC campaign, the AI in that is scary coordinated & agressive, so a bunch of that stuff from Shogun/MTW is still in there, just fairly hard to 'bring to the fore'.

[Discoman]

These reports are getting monotonous. I hope we get a video because I would really like to see it for myself.