Has anything really changed from CA?

**loony** · 05-20-2009, 08:36

Originally Posted by GFX707

I don't remember having any real problems with the tactical AI in the game, apart from how it always sneaks around and attacks your general or blows them up with artillery (hey, I'm the only one that gets to do that), it's never really seemed broken to me.

What I mention in my first post is the strategic AI. That is, the AI on the campaign map.

I agree that the strategic AI is sometimes plain stupid, mostly due to poor economy/recruitment management. I think the AI does not understand what a "useless" unit is and where to find the "disband" button.

Im my late French campaign I keep giving conquered regions to Luisiana and giving them cash in addition to that. My "protectorate" owned Netherlands, Flanders, Genoa and Savoy in europe as well as 4 or 5 regions in NA. They get cash infusions and I have MY ARMIES keeping the stupid indians, austrians and other bad guys at bay; my protectorate cleans up the raiding parties.

They should have become a powerhouse in sth like 15 turns. However, they werefeeble and destitute; recently, I figured out why. I completed the mission (it was 1750 and I need to annex them to win) and saw they never bothered to upgrade their industry. Even the developed regions like Netherlands had apparently seen no iprovements.... OK, maybe they built armies? - NO!
They built navies, brigs and sixth rates, I found several stacks of those sitting in awkward spaces on the map (like a little west of Iceland?!)

Had the AI ignored the navies, it would have had a decent econ and at least 2 stacks of troops in NA (where we were constatnly at war with the indians). It could have also joined my conquests in Europe; it did have all the prerequisities to become a powerhouse and maybe even challenge me, but it did not.

**GFX707** · 05-23-2009, 20:44

Originally Posted by loony

Had the AI ignored the navies, it would have had a decent econ and at least 2 stacks of troops in NA (where we were constatnly at war with the indians). It could have also joined my conquests in Europe; it did have all the prerequisities to become a powerhouse and maybe even challenge me, but it did not.

The AI wasting all its money on building immense navies for no reason has been a problem on and off since RTW.

**antisocialmunky** · 05-23-2009, 21:49

Anyone make a money script for the AI yet? It would seem like a nice bandage until the next patch.

**Dayve** · 05-24-2009, 09:14

Whew, I've been waiting a week for my ban to be lifted so i could post this.

No. Nothing from CA has changed. I haven't played Empire for more than 20 minutes per session in about a month now. I see my neighbours declaring war on me simply because we share a border, and i see them sending army after army, despite them being thoroughly destroyed each time. I see enemies accepting peace and trade, only to declare war by occupying one of my towns or farms with a unit of militia the very next turn. I see allies, who my nation has been the best of friends with, has given gifts to, has helped them in their time of need (which is always, because the AI is dumb, and when they're your allies it seems to be even dumber), declare war on me for no apparent reason, and absolutely refuse peace, no matter what.

I see my enemy throwing its cavalry at the front of my line, or sacrificing every single unit of cavalry it has, including its general, trying to take out a single unit of useless Sakers or Demi-Cannons that don't even have canister shot, i see my enemies sending single units of infantry at my line to be ripped to shreds from a volley from 4 units, then sending another single unit when that one runs away decimated, i see it wasting all its money on gigantic navies of trash ships like sloops and building high level shipyards but never having the money to build decent ships because it doesn't know how disband the crap ones now it no longer needs them, good heavens, i could sit here all day and whine.

Honeymoon period with this game has well and truly wore off for me, and I'm 100% dissatisfied. I'm absolutely convinced they have ported the abysmal AI over from Rome and Medieval II and thrown it into this games code, because it's absolutely no improvement whatsoever over those games, and in many cases mimics the AI of those games, as even you die hard fans of this game will have to admit.

I honest to god hope that 6 months, or 10 months, or 1 year from now, this game will be patched and will resemble what we were promised we would be given, but I'm going to say it won't. And now they're trying to buy people off with adding new units. There are more pressing issues than new units. At this point i wouldn't give a damn if each faction had totally identical units wearing the same colour uniforms and speaking in the same accent if CA would just fix the ******* game!

**AussieGiant** · 05-24-2009, 10:33

Thanks for sharing Dayve.

**Didz** · 05-24-2009, 10:46

I have to agree with Dayve here, as far as I can see very little has improved other than the graphic's and a lot of things have actually got worse such as the 'fire at will' not working, the random declarations of war, and more recently I notice the fog effects are actually less convincing in this game than they were is Shogun.

I'm still playing it and looking for work arounds but it needs a lot of work from CA to bring it up to a decent standard as a stategy game.

**Dayve** · 05-24-2009, 19:17

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Thanks for sharing Dayve.

I don't hang around your diehard fanboy posts that defend every aspect of the game and make sarcastic comments about them, so i would be grateful if you returned that favour.

I wonder if i would have the right to sue CA for my money back on the grounds of advertisement fraud, and me not receiving the product that was advertised. I'll have to look into this.

**Didz** · 05-24-2009, 21:47

Originally Posted by Dayve

I wonder if i would have the right to sue CA for my money back on the grounds of advertisement fraud, and me not receiving the product that was advertised. I'll have to look into this.

You're welcome to try but I attempted something similar against Blizzard over the misrepresentation of the World of Warcraft European Collectors Edition and didn't get very far. Both the UK and European trading standards departments agreed that the product was faulty and that Blizzard had deliberately sold me the product knowing it didn't work and were therefore guilty of fraud. Even HMV who I bought the game from agreed that it was a faulty product and offered me my money back. But nobody would take any action against Blizzard and doing so alone would have cost too much money. In the end I left it with the consumer protection agencies and never heard a thing back.

**AussieGiant** · 05-24-2009, 23:00

Originally Posted by Dayve

I don't hang around your diehard fanboy posts that defend every aspect of the game and make sarcastic comments about them, so i would be grateful if you returned that favour.

I wonder if i would have the right to sue CA for my money back on the grounds of advertisement fraud, and me not receiving the product that was advertised. I'll have to look into this.

Me, a diehard fanboy, defending every aspect of the game??

Get of the grass Dayve.

You went on a rant and I chose to bait you a bit, which you took, so sorry for that.

To sue CA will not do much, I'd recommend simply not purchasing their next product or any of their products. That's the best solution.

They've certainly not delivered on one major point, and that was the AI's ability to fight retreats and correlate the strategic situation with the tactical situation which they said they were going to deliver.

As for the rest, they've given it a fairly good shake and are currently still working on it. I'll wait to deliver final verdict until the last patch is out. Seems only fair to me.

However, I just can't see certain people here ever being satisfied with the game no matter what happens.

**Beskar** · 07-09-2009, 21:51

Guys don't be so critical, as they said, they worked a full two years on the AI, to make it the perfect experience for us.

The problem is, the definition of what the customers wanted and what they thought we wanted.

**Didz** · 07-09-2009, 22:54

As in we wanted an AI that worked, and they thought we wanted a 'rabid lemming'. I can see how that might cause a problem.

**GFX707** · 07-09-2009, 23:33

Yes, clearly what they thought we wanted was an AI with the relentlessness of the terminator coupled with the logic and planning skills of a recently trampled broccoli.