Has anything really changed from CA?

[resonantblue]

The sense of entitlement is obscene. You bought the game. You were not forced to buy the game. You bought the game knowing full well that in every TW game they promise the AI will be better (which it is), but fails to meet your expectations.

Seriously, if you take one step back and look at what you're doing it's a self-written comedy.

[nafod]

The sense of entitlement is obscene. You bought the game. You were not forced to buy the game. You bought the game knowing full well that in every TW game they promise the AI will be better (which it is), but fails to meet your expectations.

Seriously, if you take one step back and look at what you're doing it's a self-written comedy.

Yep I agree. It's funny that I bought ETW expecting it to be somewhat challenging and enthralling and ended up with a nicely decorated toybox.

I guess what isn't funny is I've told everyone of my friends (with much smaller gaming budgets than me) who have inquired to pass on this one despite the media generated hype.

[Didz]

Likewise, we usually buy three copies in our family. But only one this time.

[GFX707]

The sense of entitlement is obscene. You bought the game. You were not forced to buy the game. You bought the game knowing full well that in every TW game they promise the AI will be better (which it is), but fails to meet your expectations.

Seriously, if you take one step back and look at what you're doing it's a self-written comedy.

You might be right, but there are laws against describing a product incorrectly.

Plus, they had FOUR YEARS to fix the AI. Four entire years. At the end of that four year period we have worse campaign AI than RTW. At least in RTW the AI would frequently invade by sea. In 1.3 every single thing that was bad about the AI in RTW is present in the ETW AI. Stupid suicidal war declarations (actually much worse than RTW because the AI is usually feeble and in about 5 wars already when it declares war on you) and never accepting peace.

So I shall ask you: Do you think it was unreasonable or stupid for us, the TW fan, to expect CA, in a period of four years, to make *some* improvements to the campaign AI in their game?

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm afraid the bottom line for CA is summarized here:

"Week one sales of the title were nearly double those of both Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War, and is the first in the series’ to claim the Top 40 top spot. It also becomes the first PC exclusive title to reach the top since Football Manager 2008 in October 2007 – another Sega PC title."

[from a March report posted at IGN.com]

"If you make a hit game, you make good money out of it. But you only need to fail once or twice in a row and you're dead."

[a quote from Mike Simpson, the creative director for CA as quoted by the BBC in a March interview]

Obviously, with sales at the top of the charts, I don't expect anything will change anytime soon.....

[Didz]

That doesn't surprise me, because unlike their previous titles they are finally tapping the Napoleonic Wargame market, the single biggest area of historical interest in the world with millions of potential customers, who like me have been waiting for a decent historical computer wargame for decades.

Problem is, if your going to tap that market and keep it then your game better damned well be historically accurate, because these guys are going to rip it to shreds if its not, and once the word is out that your a bunch of ignorant idiots who can't be bothered to do your research then you won't get a second bite of the cherry.

[ReluctantSamurai]

and once the word is out that your a bunch of ignorant idiots who can't be bothered to do your research then you won't get a second bite of the cherry.

Judging from the increase in sales of ETW over the previous two releases, a lot of folks disagree with that. Don't get me wrong.......I'm of the same sentiment as you. I just think it's going to take a competitor to step in and do something better for people to compare to.

While I fully appreciate that CA is in the business to make money (and oh, btw, here's a game for you folks to play), and that it is impossible to please everyone, one would think that after all this time, and with the experienced garnered from previous releases, that a more flexible game could have been produced.

By that I mean more option settings that actually determine gameplay. I design campaigns and scenarios for an old WWII game that has a much less complex game engine, and far fewer resources available for a modder to work with. Yet I, and others like me can create scenarios and campaigns that are fulfilling to all players both n00b's and veterans.

I just can't understand why CA cannot do something similar with a much more advanced game engine and a horde of experience from previous releases

[Didz]

Judging from the increase in sales of ETW over the previous two releases, a lot of folks disagree with that. Don't get me wrong.......

Well I bought it because I believed the sales spin that it was a historical strategy game. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else with an interest in wargaming or history, and the only reason I'm still playing it is because I found some mods to correct most of the errors, and managed to work out how to switch off all the fantasy units.

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

[Fisherking]

Well I bought it because I believed the sales spin that it was a historical strategy game. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else with an interest in wargaming or history, and the only reason I'm still playing it is because I found some mods to correct most of the errors, and managed to work out how to switch off all the fantasy units.

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

Which are you calling fantasy units?

There are things they have done in the game that disturb me and from a decent beginning, less the crashes and bugs of course, I see it getting farther and farther away.

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

Why do the French lack light dragoons but have rifles. Why does Austria lack rifles other than the air rifles and that is only two units. They also lack regular dragoons, at least in Europe.

Some of the things just seem totally subjective and I can’t see any reason for it, game play or anything else.

It would seem they are searching for their audience but only see the three hecklers in the back row and are trying to please all the wrong people.

[Didz]

Which are you calling fantasy units?

Basically, any unit which would not have been available to the faction in question at the time depicted, or which would not be capable of being used in the role that the game allows it to be used in.

So, for example I have currently turned off. Native America Artillery, Native American Lancers, Bomb-Ketches and Rocket Ships. The main things I wanted to be rid of were the bomb-ketches and rocket ships, which are basically only in the game as a sop to the American flag and could never have been used in the way depicted by the game.

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

I know what you mean. The sad fact is that if they just stuck to the historical theme the results would be far more playable and interesting. For example: Why depict the Royal Ecossais in kilts when their real uniform was just as distinctive and interesting?

To me such things are insulting, its basically the game company saying we think that your all too stupid to cope with a game that's historically accurate so to make it easier for you to understand and play we are going to give you the 'dumbed-down' version. Its terribly demeaning to be treated like an idiot, and as a customer I object to it, but its a common trait when producing products for the American market particularly when the supplier is an American company, and you get it a lot in film and entertainment industry. For example the title of the film 'Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone' had to be changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' and the entire film re-dubbed for American audiences just because the American distributors thought their audiences would be confused, and yet a Frenchman, German or Dutchman who did not even speak the language managed to understand it.

The other driving force behind a lot of these changes is of course the multi-player sub-game. Something that I don't have the slightest interest in and will never play but seems to be 'the tail thats wagging the dog' on a lot of these ridiculous 'play-balancing' idea's. Personally, I have nothing against the multi-player sub-game as long as it doesn't have any impact on the actual game itself. So, if they want to stick fantasy units and over-powered rowing boats in the MP game, I have no problems with that as long as they don't appear in the campaign. Just give the MP community their own version of the unit tables or something, then you can stick whatever you like in there and I don't give a monkey's.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've bought every TW titles so far, but this will probably be the last one, you can only get treated like a idiot so often.

I reached that point with M2 and gave it away to a friend...........RTW only gets played because of all the mods, and the only one that gets played with any regularity is Samurai Warlords...........

I have tried to figure out why some things are ignored or even changes from the historical without much reason behind it.

I do not mind ahistorical units or situations that may be placed in a game. They can make for fun diversions when you get tired of the same old, same old. But there should be in-game functions to turn them off when you don't want them.

The other driving force behind a lot of these changes is of course the multi-player sub-game. Something that I don't have the slightest interest in and will never play but seems to be 'the tail thats wagging the dog' on a lot of these ridiculous 'play-balancing' idea's.

I might agree with that, but........that's where the money is and, whether one likes it or not, that is the bottom line.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Well, I steadfastly refused to buy the game, given what happened with M2TW (I loved RTW, though--still play it regularly). I must say that I'm very glad that I did: from what I see posted on these boards every few months, little has changed. The game still came out half-finished, and that's unacceptable. The only question that I have left, really, is if they'll pull another M2TW and stop fixing it so that they can release their next titles instead. Honestly, I kind of hope they do, so that more of us will learn our lesson for the next time.

[econ21]

I might agree with that, but........that's where the money is and, whether one likes it or not, that is the bottom line.

I don't think the TW money is in the multi-player scene - I suspect only a small minority of TW players do MP.

But in a more general sense, I agree with you - the money is not in a historically realistic game. Rather, CA, particularly Lusted, see better "balancing" as improving the historically flavoured game (both SP and MP) that most customers want to buy.

Ditto putting Scots in kilts, including rocket ships, mortars and other anachronistic battlegear, RTW Egyptians in Moses era outfits, geishas in STW etc - it's what is thought will most appeal to the mass market audience.

Personally, I am probably not in that target market but I can live and let live, so long as realism mods are possible. I still find TW a much more engaging platform for historical wargaming than most of the more drab hardcore games.

I loved RTW, though--still play it regularly

Um, if you loved RTW, not buying M2TW and may be ETW could be your loss. M2TW is very similar to RTW, but with better AI. I can't see why anyone would love RTW and not like M2TW, unless it was due to lack of interest in the period.

ETW is a more revolutionary change and only time will tell if the AI has kept up with the change in the game engine. At the moment, it reminds me of RTW in that the AI has so far not kept up with the changes (in RTW, the changes were the move from the Risk style map and the change in the battlefield engine; in ETW, the changes include the reduced number of provinces per faction, trading theatres and the greater importance of naval operations).

[Slaists]

Basically, any unit which would not have been available to the faction in question at the time depicted, or which would not be capable of being used in the role that the game allows it to be used in.

So, for example I have currently turned off. Native America Artillery, Native American Lancers, Bomb-Ketches and Rocket Ships. The main things I wanted to be rid of were the bomb-ketches and rocket ships, which are basically only in the game as a sop to the American flag and could never have been used in the way depicted by the game.

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Um, if you loved RTW, not buying M2TW and may be ETW could be your loss. M2TW is very similar to RTW, but with better AI. I can't see why anyone would love RTW and not like M2TW, unless it was due to lack of interest in the period.

ETW is a more revolutionary change and only time will tell if the AI has kept up with the change in the game engine. At the moment, it reminds me of RTW in that the AI has so far not kept up with the changes (in RTW, the changes were the move from the Risk style map and the change in the battlefield engine; in ETW, the changes include the reduced number of provinces per faction, trading theatres and the greater importance of naval operations).

You misread my post. I did buy M2TW (not Kingdoms), and was sorely disappointed by the quality of the game. The most egregious of my problems was that I could not control battles myself for the first six months, until a patch was released to fix the specific problem I was having (one frame per minute or so due to bugs with the animation). I was even more disappointed in the decision to stop fixing M2TW so as to release Kingdoms, and the subsequent decision to stop fixing Kingdoms so as to release ETW. These decisions have resulted in three unfinished games with serious bugs and promised but non-existent features, and that's just not acceptable to me.

Again, you did not read my post properly. My reasons for not purchasing ETW have nothing to do with the style of the game, or with its perceived dissimilarity to RTW: they have to do with the quality of the products which I purchased after RTW, which seems to have been in steady decline. Reading these boards since ETW's release, I find few indications to the contrary. I mentioned RTW because I considered its engine and concept to be significant improvements over MTW's, and not just mere graphics-glitz. RTW certainly had a number of problems, yes, but in my estimation they were fairly minor and were largely fixed before M2TW was released. This was not at all my experience with M2TW.

I would love to play ETW, or to properly enjoy M2TW--but that's extremely hard to do when I am forced into the role of an un-consenting beta tester, and when the efforts to complete the game and streamline the product are half-assed at best, and quickly abandoned for the empty promises that come with a new release. Many people have enjoyed M2TW, Kingdoms, and ETW, and that's great. Nonetheless, I stand by my decision and refuse to purchase any more half-finished products from the TW line.

[Fisherking]

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

I think what he means is that they were never used in sea battles. They were for shore bombardment.

They had to be anchored on springs to swing and adjust to the target. That wouldn't work at sea.

[Didz]

Hmm, the first "bomb vessel" (aka bomb ketch) "Bombarde" was built by the French in 1681. So why would you say bomb-ketches were ahistorical (in terms of availability) in the game period of ETW?

Never said they were, seems that Fisherking understood the point.

[Slaists]

I think what he means is that they were never used in sea battles. They were for shore bombardment.

They had to be anchored on springs to swing and adjust to the target. That wouldn't work at sea.

That's true. I misread Didz's point.

[Didz]

That's true. I misread Didz's point.

The problem is that whilst as a player you can avoid using these ships (they actually have no legitimate purpose in the game, as CA failed to include any land in the naval battle game) you cannot stop the AI recruiting them, so the best idea is just to remove them until CA get round to finishing the naval battle engine.

[AussieGiant]

It become pretty clear to me that while graphics, game development, map development and economic models have greatly increased over time, the AI team can simply not keep up with the ever increasing level of resource and relational management.

Essentially they have gotten to a point where they have over-engineered these aspects and this has left the AI team producing an under developed AI as they have simply not been able to keep up.

I don't want to overstate this because producing an AI that can handle all this would be an incredible acheivement, but that is the situation they face.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Essentially they have gotten to a point where they have over-engineered these aspects and this has left the AI team producing an under developed AI as they have simply not been able to keep up.

I don't want to overstate this because producing an AI that can handle all this would be an incredible acheivement

And therein lies the problem, I think. It's much easier (read as, less time consuming) to create & implement various aspects to the game (new units, trade routes, naval warfare, etc) than to create an AI that can handle all of it. IMHO, this is a$$-backwards if you wish to create a game that will challenge and hold the interest of 'serious' gamers.

However, given the timeframe and economic restraints that CA must be under, it's perfectly understandable (although I don't agree with it). Rather than gripe about it, I've exercised my rights and simply refuse to buy their games anymore unless they develop one that I can enjoy. That other folks here can spend hours cursing at their 'puter screen (and CA) and continue to play this game simply amazes me (and I tip my hat to your patience).

When I sit down for a round of gaming at my 'puter, I want to relax and enjoy myself to the point where I lose track of time, not the other way around

[AussieGiant]

Exactly ReluctantSamurai.

I find it rather amusing, that as a glass half full person who can appreciate CA's situation from a "in industry" position, some of the most vehement critics are playing this game ALL the time and seem to be in some masochistic surreal experience.

I on the other hand just completed a GB, h/m Prestige campaign which was thoroughly enjoyable and ate time incredibly fast.

Your analysis is right on the money. They have limited resources, including time and must produce "something". They simply can't sit in a room, perfecting AI for their games and "wait" until they have that "bullet proof" before release.

In the mean time graphic technology is jumping ahead in leaps and bounds and is being pushed primarily by the gaming industry which they are competing in.

They can't afford to fall behind too far...

...hence the situation they find themselves in.

[resonantblue]

Uh, the campaign AI is better. There is no doubt. It may not meet your expectations, but this is the first TW game I can remember when the AI consistently merges smaller units built all over its empire into larger armies and maneuvers those armies about to give you _good_ battles (from a campaign point of view, I'm still not a fan of the battle AI).

I do remember the good old days of MTW when the only good stack vs stack battles you usually had were either when the Mongols invaded or when you sieged enemy cities at the start of a campaign.

This is the best campaign AI yet and diplomacy _has_ improved. Granted, there are annoying idiosyncracies.

But really, the self-entitlement of many of the posters in this thread is not normal. Talking about taking legal action? Taking your ball and going home (ie "not buying another CA product ever" - yeah right, you said that about M2TW, RTW and MTW I'm 99% certain)? Assuming you did follow through (yeah right), let me just suggest that I'm thrilled I won't have to read another unreasonable, petulant rant about whatever TW game CA does next.

[resonantblue]

I alluded to this in another post, but I don't think the AI stupid DoWs are actually that bad. If you have Good or Very Good relations with an AI nation it's very unlikely that they will DoW you unless they really badly want one of the provinces you occupy. On VH I've never been at war with everyone.

Here's how I imagine most of the people complaining a lot about this "problem" are going about their games:

Turn 1-10 blitz enemy nations, breaking alliances and getting negative relations with everyone else as being untrustworthy.

Turn 10 - 20 consolidate and revolt to Republic to boost productivity, forgetting that this is like -140 relations for a long time with everyone who isn't also a Republic - which is 95% of the world.

Turn 20+ - relations with most majors is "hostile" without even being at war. Consequently AI nations DoW constantly. Player starts taking enemy territory resulting in even worse relations (territorial expansion hit) which means peace is very difficult to come by.

Turn X - Player Quits to Windows, logs onto the Parliment and complains about how the AI is totally irrational for declaring war on a nation they are hostile against.

For merely becoming a Republic in the late 18th century France found itself at war with all of Europe. Despite repeated beatdowns and general understanding that France was the single strongest power most of Europe was either at war with France or plotting to start a war with France for the better part of 2 decades.

Is it really so unrealistic what you're seeing?

Like I've said, I've had many VH games where I am barely ever at war with anyone but the barbary states. Maintain good relations with the AI states and they rarely DoW me.

[GFX707]

Uh, the campaign AI is better. There is no doubt. It may not meet your expectations, but this is the first TW game I can remember when the AI consistently merges smaller units built all over its empire into larger armies and maneuvers those armies about to give you _good_ battles (from a campaign point of view, I'm still not a fan of the battle AI).

Are we playing the same game? The AI in my game prefers to send small stacks en masse to raid ad nauseum rather than merges its units where it might actually present a challenge. This is well reported behaviour. I have barely encountered a full stack doing anything other than standing around outside a city.

This is the best campaign AI yet and diplomacy _has_ improved. Granted, there are annoying idiosyncracies.

The problem is that these are the SAME "idiosyncrasies" we have faced time and time again since RTW. The AI declaring war on anything that moves and refusing to make peace. Diplomacy being (still) completely worthless other than "trade rights/map information" despite promises of improvement.

Assuming you did follow through (yeah right), let me just suggest that I'm thrilled I won't have to read another unreasonable, petulant rant about whatever TW game CA does next.

Equally if there will always be people who refuse to acknowledge that a game is flawed, flawed games will keep being released.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I do remember the good old days of MTW when the only good stack vs stack battles you usually had were either when the Mongols invaded or when you sieged enemy cities at the start of a campaign.

Have you ever played STW and the modded Samurai Warlords? From mid-campaign onwards you will have nothing but stack vs. stack battles some of which may take several hours to resolve And the best part is..........the AI can, and will kick your butt if you don't play well

But really, the self-entitlement of many of the posters in this thread is not normal. Talking about taking legal action? Taking your ball and going home (ie "not buying another CA product ever" - yeah right, you said that about M2TW, RTW and MTW I'm 99% certain)? Assuming you did follow through (yeah right), let me just suggest that I'm thrilled I won't have to read another unreasonable, petulant rant about whatever TW game CA does next.

I said nothing about legal action. In fact I understand the position CA is in......it is a business, afterall, and they must make a profit for their efforts. And I said nothing of the sort for other TW games up to RTW (which I still play). I said that after M2TW (which I ended up giving away) and indeed, after seeing the problems and frustrations other good players are having with ETW, I have not purchased the game.

I do not think my comments are a 'petulant rant'. I am a reasonably experienced TW player with an opinion. I do not push my views on others with continuous rants, I've just exercised my rights as a consumer to not buy a product I feel I won't enjoy.............key word here......"enjoy."

As I said...I play PC games to relax and forget about my worries and problems for a few hours.......not endure more of the same

[resonantblue]

Of course the game has flaws. I've never claimed otherwise (in fact claimed th eopposite in the post you quoted).

But there are way too many posters in this thread who are being way too dramatic about what their rights are and how CA has destroyed their innocence and touched them in naughty places.

There was definitely talk of legal action by someone (can't be bothered to keep track of who there were so many take my ball and go home posts in this thread) and of course the _only_ thing holding him back was that he couldn't afford a lawyer (lol. right. get real. you're upset that you invested $60 and feel like it was wasted so you're going to spend thousands of dollars taking a company to court on something that the judge will dismiss with an out loud laugh. yeah, we believe you. we really do!)

I remember back when M2TW came out there was some poster, I think his name was Puzz3D, who spent all his time on these forums complaining about how bad CA was and would tell anyone who would listen (including those who didn't care) about how he didn't buy M2TW and wouldn't until CA restored his trust and confidence.

Some of you (not naming any names) need to get a grip. If you want to complain about aspects of the game that are deficient, by all means do so - that's one of the things forums are for. But let's not get carried away about how we should sue CA for false advertising, how they've ruined your summer and otherwise are the cause of AIDS, tsunamis and everything evil in this world. Especially don't do that when saying it was the same in MTW, RTW, M2TW and now ETW. You just look foolish being "fooled" by CA 4 times in a row (more if you count expansions). As the illustrious former president of the world, George W. Bush once said:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[mkeogh]

Uh, the campaign AI is better. There is no doubt. It may not meet your expectations, but this is the first TW game I can remember when the AI consistently merges smaller units built all over its empire into larger armies and maneuvers those armies about to give you _good_ battles (from a campaign point of view, I'm still not a fan of the battle AI).

I do remember the good old days of MTW when the only good stack vs stack battles you usually had were either when the Mongols invaded or when you sieged enemy cities at the start of a campaign.

This is the best campaign AI yet and diplomacy _has_ improved. Granted, there are annoying idiosyncracies.

Wow! Did we get the same game?

I personally think the CAI and diplomatic engine in ETW are beyond question the worst of any TW game, and I've been playing them since Shogun.

As others have stated, ETW's CAI simply cannot handle this complex new map. It's really struggling with it.

It can't manage the economy so it's often bankrupt or on the point of bankruptcy. (By early mid-game in almost all of my campaigns my nation is terrifying and spectacular while the AI nations are meagre and destititute.)

Diplomacy is completely broken. The AI nations don't use it amongst themselves: they don't declare peace, they don't make new alliances or protectorates, and they don't max out their trade routes. Instead they declare wars on their friends, on their sole trading partners, and regardless of how many other wars they're currently fighting. And they will stay at war until one nation is eliminated or the game ends. I don't think 90+ and 80+ year wars were common in the 18th century. They also declare wars that they can't even fight, let alone win!

The result of the AI continually shooting itself in the leg due to its inability to handle or use the economic and diplomatic engines is that the AI nations are turned into easily conquered weaklings. Eventually, I'm the only one doing anything on the campaign map while the AI nations are struggling just to survive.

The overall campaign AI is dismal. It's completely confused by what it should put into garrison and what it should put into field armies. Thus, it often puts too many troops into garrison or none at all. And it fails to build proper field armies that can actually threaten the player. As a result on the battlefield the player almost always has more and better troops, and a player with more and better troops on the battlefield simply cannot lose!

Further, the AI is completely inept on the strategic offensive. It often resorts to raids which is a completely pointless feature: doesn't hurt a region's economy, does minimal damage to the town, and provides no benefit to the raider. A human player won't waste his time on it. Instead the human player builds up a large army and either attacks the region capital or uses the nice exploit of sitting in an outlying town to let the town's garrison come to him. The result is that player gets bigger and stronger with an accumulation of provinces and wealth. Meanwhile the CAI is sending pathetic little stacks (often consisting solely of artillery units) to raid outlying towns and where they are quickly stomped out by an annoyed human player. Oh, the AI doesn't know how to retreat so it fights every battle no matter what the odds resulting in tiresome "whack-a-mole" battles. Basically, no AI nation can win this game! So the player is in a non-competitive environment- it's just a matter of WHEN the player will either win or quit out of boredom.

The pathfinding is atrocious. AI armies and navies routinely get stuck on the campaign map. (I quit my last campaign when I realized that I could easily crush Russia because most of its army was stuck in West Prussia alongside that bridge. The AI also struggles with landbridges.

Then you got the problems of the AI treating each individual province as a seperate fiefdom. It won't move armies from one friendly province to assist another friendly province. I don't know how may times I've witnessed a tiny AI raiding army burn down a province while in an adjacent province a full stack army does NOTHING to assist one of its OWN beleaguered provinces. Nor will the AI move an army from a neighboring province to relieve a siege.

Then you got all the new features that CA introduced with ETW that its AI simply cannot handle. My "favorite" is the hostile fleets entering a port: AI army ejects hostile fleet from port, AI moves its army out of the port, and hostile fleet immediately moves back into the port. And this process repeats the next turn and the next and the next.... I've seen the above scenario in almost every campaign I've played. Oh, sometimes the AI won't even bother ejecting a hostile fleet from one of its ports so that a single ship will stay in a port for decades stopping trade and prohibiting shipbuilding.

Then you have naval transport. ETW wasn't released with an AI capable of using naval transport. It was only AFTER the game was released that CA started programming AI naval transport, but then discovered it was tougher than they anticipated. So we have a game where AI use of naval transportation is rare to non-existent. Thus, playing the British or the Marathas is a complete joke (even more so than the other factions). Further, AI controlled Britian is completely neutered due to it being stuck in its homelands. The AI also doesn't know how to use the "theater" feature so that the Carribean is the personal playground of the human player and India the Maratha's little sandbox.

I don't think the above issues are "annoying idiosyncracies," but serious CAI issues that almost completely ruin the game. I want to fight big, important battles against powerful opponents, not stomp-out pathetic little stacks from bankrupt nations in repetitive, cakewalk battles. Unfortunately, the later situation has been my experience with ETW. I started campaigns as France and Sweden under the 1.3 patch and have shelved both of them because the CAI is so abysmal that completely ruined any immersion.

I do dream of how much better ETW would be with a much more simplified map. ETW with its breathtaking battles and improved BAI (I think its better than RTW's and M2TW's) might have been a classic with a "Risk-Style" map- no more whack-a-mole battles, no more pointless raids, no more pathfinding issues, no more problems with the CAI having to choose between units in garrison or in field armies, but lot's of big battles (which the AI could sometimes win just on sheer strength of numbers) that emphasize ETW's biggest strength- it's battle engine!! However, that's just wishful thinking and I have to hope that future patches will alleviate some of the above issues, but that's probably just wishful thinking too. And that's saddest thing about ETW.

[paramedicguyer]

I played the demo today, I had bought the game on amazon today too...b4 i got the demo...crap. I can;t believe that EB (running on a 2004 game engine, and basically designed by a non profit group) is superior to ETW. WHat the hell is CA doing. the EB team has made CA look so bad, CA should either really get their shit straight or just call it quits. They are getting paid for designing this game and they still manage to drop the ball. I hate M2TW its just a remaping and reskinning really of RTW, they didnt even write a new script they only modified RTW (they were so lazy they just disabled the Marian reforms), CA also made it far too difficult to mad M2TW initially, I bet it had something to do with how many of the mods for RTW turned out to be superior to the vanilla game. I am sick of all these game reviews giving CA great reviews. These games starting with RTW (which I only like for EB) seem to be catered to idiot short attention spanned gamers who really don't have a terrible interest in deep emmersive strategy, and are more interested in action (I mean no offense to anyone). I honestly am more interested in the straregy map and diplomacy, battles are last on my list. When it comes down to it ETW in my opinion is the retarded silver spooned cousin to europa universalis III.



Peace

[paramedicguyer]

I have to post again, I am so pissed. I played just the demo, and I can tell this game is terrible. I loved the naval battle but the land battle sucked, it seems that a great deal of micro management is necessary, tho I have been playin RTW for so long I am not used to this type of warfare. I really am dissapointed with CA, They only reason they are the best at what they do, is because they are the only ones that do wat they do. They have the market cornered really, so they don't care how crappy their games are. Did anyone notice the great amount of emhpasis was placed on special units, whether it be the special forces edition, or that stupid elit addon. but no diplomacy addons no strategy map addons, no gameplay addons. No just units. I can go an entire campaign autoresoloving crap and not even see units (although I have to admit the ships look great). ANother thing the skins on the units look bad. EB skins are superior to ETW skins and I play both on max.

Some studio just needs to comeout wth their own rival. So finally CA will be forced to make a good game.



NO peace