1.3.1. Ridiculous "gameplay" adjustments by CA

[antisocialmunky]

Georgia is rabid in all my games...

[Sheogorath]

Georgia is rabid in all my games...

They seem quite passive until the player shares a border with them...that's when they start foaming at the mouth.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

They seem quite passive until the player shares a border with them...that's when they start foaming at the mouth.

That's the matter with all minor factions. Actually that is the matter with all factions. The share border and attack diplomacy has been the standard diplomatic model since RTW. In RTW a diplomat will pass by and ask for something like maps, alliance and a trade treaty. That faction will attack then in a couple of turns. In M2TW and ETW sharing borders is the number one reason for a declaration of war. The diplomatic screen is only useful during the first few turns. After that all diplomats are shot and the blitz yourself out of trouble starts.

The problem is that CA raised the expectations too high. They promised diplomacy that would feel like it was conducted by a human player. CA delivered a campaign with only one strategy: fight your way out of trouble like you had to do with the Teutonic order in Kingdoms.

Trying to turtle, building an alliance against a strong opponent, signing a peace treaty which gives the spoils of war to the victors: Ooh what a wishful thinking.

I am quite positive that if CA doesn't get ETW playable again, which means that it is fun to play, NTW won't be a success. Unless all the things we want are put in NTW. Which is not very likely.

[Peasant Phill]

They said that 1.4 would contain better CAI and diplomacy. So I'm at least somewhat hopeful but as they didn't mention anything about the Black knight syndrom it's only a fragile hope.

[Slaists]

They said that 1.4 would contain better CAI and diplomacy. So I'm at least somewhat hopeful but as they didn't mention anything about the Black knight syndrom it's only a fragile hope.

Well, in my TW experience, CA promises "significant improvements, better CAI and diplomacy" for almost all the patches they make. However, the resulting improvements are mostly cosmetic and surgical. Take MTW2: the diplomacy and CAI is complete c-p still in the very latest version of the game!... Same story with RTW and MTW1. Note, those games, did not use the ETW "open map" concept, which greatly complicates AI's decision making. So, sorry, I do not have much hope for the upcoming ETW 1.4.

Though, what a game it would be if CA delivered what they promised BEFORE the release...

Even one thing (from the promised arsenal) would make quite some difference: the AI being able to judge the importance of the battle and RETREATING if faced with bad odds or low expected payoff for high expected costs. Yeah, right... that feature never made it further than the pre-release announcement. Wishful thinking (for that coldly calculating and optimizing AI) aside, I'm still puzzled, why did CA remove AI's ability to retreat. In all previous titles it was able to do so on the battlefield and the campaign map. In ETW, it's always pulling some kamikaze suicide stuff like "bravely" facing a full-stack army with a unit of peasants...

[Tsavong]

Is it even possible to code a AI that can play the game as good as a human as last time I checked computers could not think for them selves.

I know its probably possible to improve the AI in TW but computers are fundamentally not intelligent so there must be limits.

[Peasant Phill]

Sure, there are limits but ETW's AI is far from them. Other games could do it a lot better.

[A1_Unit]

Is it even possible to code a AI that can play the game as good as a human as last time I checked computers could not think for them selves.

I know its probably possible to improve the AI in TW but computers are fundamentally not intelligent so there must be limits.

There is technology available that allows the AI to mimic a human after playing them.