CA blog from Mike Simpson

[antisocialmunky]

If you're playing as the natives, back stabbing, and constant DOWs aren't that unrealistic...

[Monk]

If you're playing as the natives, back stabbing, and constant DOWs aren't that unrealistic...

Unfortunately that's not good enough for me. This game might be called "Total War" but that doesn't put it above logic or the need for sensible diplomacy.

[Komutan]

I don't agree the AI problems started with Rome. I think some of you simply forgot how it was.

Some AI problems I recall from MTW1:

- AI building masses of low tech units like peasants and archers and almost never building higher tech units.

- AI sending its units one by one when assulting castles. Each time a unit gets annihilated the next one is sent.

- At the start of France campaign, England sends an army consisting of only the king and all his heirs. They would bravely attack the French spearmen/militia waiting in the woods. I remember England losing all its heirs and as a result being defeated at the very start of the game.

- Vikings never attacking England in Viking Invasion.

People did not complain much then, because CA was not a big name yet and expectations were not as high as today.

Of course I am talking about just the AI. None of the former TW games (including Rome and Medieval2) had so many crash issues. All of them at least ran more or less smoothly from the first day I bought them.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Hmmm, I seem to have lost a fairly big post in reply. You will now get my redux version.

Sure, STW and MTW had their faults too. But we are nearly a decade on, and the AI is less capable on all levels.

Also, we weren't complaininmg as much back then? Are you kidding?! The .org used to populated almost exclusively by wargamers and boy, they did their nickname of Grognard credit.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't agree the AI problems started with Rome. I think some of you simply forgot how it was.

Some AI problems I recall from MTW1:

- AI building masses of low tech units like peasants and archers and almost never building higher tech units.

- AI sending its units one by one when assulting castles. Each time a unit gets annihilated the next one is sent.

- At the start of France campaign, England sends an army consisting of only the king and all his heirs. They would bravely attack the French spearmen/militia waiting in the woods. I remember England losing all its heirs and as a result being defeated at the very start of the game.

- Vikings never attacking England in Viking Invasion.

People did not complain much then, because CA was not a big name yet and expectations were not as high as today.

Of course I am talking about just the AI. None of the former TW games (including Rome and Medieval2) had so many crash issues. All of them at least ran more or less smoothly from the first day I bought them.

Well, MTW massively improved on STW. You had castle sieges, 100 or so units, general portraits, the trait system, more religions, the pope, crusades etc, glorious achievements.

That's reasonable and it didn't have suicide FMs quite as much, armies that didn't devolve into a massive ball of units like MIITW and RTW, (ETW has fixed some of this actually), the diplo AI was atleast somewhat reasonable. It generally stuck to treaties and would all-in weaker guys.... etc.

RTW was to a lesser degree similar upon release. It was friggin 3D and added the new campaign map and converted everything to 3D. However, RTW also saw the rise of the suicide general charge head-long into phalanxes, and other bad things like poor diplomacy and multiple personality diplo/warfare AIs. Where as the MTW AI actually effectively flanked sometimes and did some other clever-clever things... RTW's AI never did too much. Interestingly enough the strategic AI got a nice upgrade in Alexander where diplomacy became quite better and the AI learned how to properly invade and reinforce invasions as much as an AI can be expected to.

MIITW was a trainwreck plain and simple. The AI was nuts:
-The diplo/warfare problems were still present.
-The idiotic BI naval invasions came back with a vengence.
-Units balled up instead of come at you with any decent formation most of the time.
-We had passive AI if the player fielded too many missiles.
-There were much more errors with unit cohesion and getting units to actually fight.
-Castle pathfinding was and still is borked.
-The AI kept spamming uber peasants.

Also, just incase anyone cares here's my personal play time on each of the games:
-I played about 12 campaigns in STW and finished 3.
-I played about 15 campaigns in MTW and finished 2 due to memory leaks.
-I played about 4 campaigns in Vanilla RTW and finished 1. Found CIV3 for $5 and played a ton of games. Then I discovered EB, XGM, and other things of which I played several campaigns though finished none.
-I played about 9 campaigns in MIITW and finished 2(Milan and Jerusalem in Kingdoms).
-I played 3 campaigns in ETW, got bored with the silly AI and went back to CIV4 and then EB and then Third Age: Total War for MIITW, then I found XCOM.

[Yun Dog]

Well, MTW massively improved on STW. You had castle sieges, 100 or so units, general portraits, the trait system, more religions, the pope, crusades etc, glorious achievements.

That's reasonable and it didn't have suicide FMs quite as much, armies that didn't devolve into a massive ball of units like MIITW and RTW, (ETW has fixed some of this actually), the diplo AI was atleast somewhat reasonable. It generally stuck to treaties and would all-in weaker guys.... etc.

RTW was to a lesser degree similar upon release. It was friggin 3D and added the new campaign map and converted everything to 3D. However, RTW also saw the rise of the suicide general charge head-long into phalanxes, and other bad things like poor diplomacy and multiple personality diplo/warfare AIs. Where as the MTW AI actually effectively flanked sometimes and did some other clever-clever things... RTW's AI never did too much. Interestingly enough the strategic AI got a nice upgrade in Alexander where diplomacy became quite better and the AI learned how to properly invade and reinforce invasions as much as an AI can be expected to.

MIITW was a trainwreck plain and simple. The AI was nuts:
-The diplo/warfare problems were still present.
-The idiotic BI naval invasions came back with a vengence.
-Units balled up instead of come at you with any decent formation most of the time.
-We had passive AI if the player fielded too many missiles.
-There were much more errors with unit cohesion and getting units to actually fight.
-Castle pathfinding was and still is borked.
-The AI kept spamming uber peasants.

Also, just incase anyone cares here's my personal play time on each of the games:
-I played about 12 campaigns in STW and finished 3.
-I played about 15 campaigns in MTW and finished 2 due to memory leaks.
-I played about 4 campaigns in Vanilla RTW and finished 1. Found CIV3 for $5 and played a ton of games. Then I discovered EB, XGM, and other things of which I played several campaigns though finished none.
-I played about 9 campaigns in MIITW and finished 2(Milan and Jerusalem in Kingdoms).
-I played 3 campaigns in ETW, got bored with the silly AI and went back to CIV4 and then EB and then Third Age: Total War for MIITW, then I found XCOM.

I think this is a fairly accurate assesment
I finished and played alot more MTW campaigns
Likewise with RTW I played most of the factions and finished quite a few, and then EB goodness but like you due to the Massive Awsomeness of it, actually finished few if any
gees you managed to finish 2 M2TW camps - I did 1 so that I could be massively let down by the ending - and after all these titles would it kill them to have some end-game stats a score sheet and a ladder.

Really this game is begging to be taken by 2k games and have the battle engine merged with the Civ4 campaign engine - Oh my GOD I think I just made a mess in my pants

[TinCow]

Really this game is begging to be taken by 2k games and have the battle engine merged with the Civ4 campaign engine - Oh my GOD I think I just made a mess in my pants

Make it Paradox and EU3 instead. That's pretty much my dream game right there.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

...then I found XCOM.

Eh?
XCOM Enemy Unknown, the old fashioned alien hunting and king of all great games? Or is it something new/different?

[hoom]

Regarding the Battle AI having gotten worse post STW/MTW, I used to think this too.
I did sometimes see glimpses of STW/MTW AI in RTW & RTR 6.0/EB brought it out more often.

Play at least the first battle of RTR VII:TIC.
That is a tough battle.
Its got a big thread about how hard it is & various strategies for getting through it with enough army to not destroy your chances at success for the rest of the campaign. (reminds me of the glory days of the .org)

The AI storms up to you in double line formation, engages across a broad front, feeds in reserves as needed & even double-flanks!

Does much the same in other battles too :)
Its positively frightening to see when you've been so used to seeing AI armies just milling around, not engaging.

The RTR guys swear black & blue that while the Campaign circumstances that give rise to that battle are scripted, the actual battle itself isn't, just good balancing bringing out AI routines that never get triggered normally.

The one time I have beaten that first battle with most of my army intact would be definitely in my top 10 most epic TW battles, quite possibly top 5 & I have played a lot of TW.

It was all I played, many hours every day/evening from Mongol Invasion through MTW & VI until RTW release.
Since RTW came out I've been increasingly playing other games but have still put in probably the majority of time on various iterations of RTR & EB mods.
Haven't played a single turn of Retail version of BI.
Have probably played about 40 turns of M2TW/Kingdoms (mainly waiting on EB2)
Empire, I nearly finished a Maratha campaign but am mostly waiting for patches/mods to mature & make the thing work properly.
(also hoping that RTR team will be able to migrate to E:TW engine within a reasonable time because there are heaps of features that could be awesome for the Rome period)

[antisocialmunky]

That sounds fun :). I'm aware that the RTW AI guys have worked some miracles with formations and other things so that's pretty epic.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if CA finally ups the AI for the next installment of TW whenever it takes place(WWI? with air combat engine XD') now that either they themselves or Sega feels that the second major mainstream release is getting beat on so hard for bugs and poor AI. However, the campaign AI is the only thing completely now lackluster. The BAI's problems mainly came from bugs and bad unit mission assignments(READ: Cavalry attacking cannons it cannot kill and hiding in every single house) but alot of those have been fixed.

A detailed strategic component is and always has been the biggest hole in TW.
STW - Plot out the most efficient Risk rout to kill everyone. Allies were actually useful in battle so don't kill everyone straight away.
MTW - STW except you need to figure out how to fake out the pope. You also have to worry about crusades and Jihads alienating everyone.
RTW - Make big stacks of units.... ROME SMASH!!!!
MIITW - Make big stacks of units and tech.... then everyone will eventually all in due to your ports. Murder everyone with uber Knights while they only have spearmans and peasants.
ETW - Play as Prussia or make a ridiculous amount of trade money.

A problem also as big is the context of your battles. Post-RTW is basically wading into a river of spam with battles not having any significance other than taking out the generic faceless AI. While not every battle can be the biggest and the one battle to decide the campaign, it would be nice if we decreased the frequency of battle and the importance of each battle.

It would be nice if they did it in time for NTW and added that module onto vanilla like the graphics package they talked about.

And yes: XCOM Enemy Unknown - it is awesome until you get psi-amps so I never get psi-amps. :)

[caravel]

I don't agree the AI problems started with Rome. I think some of you simply forgot how it was.

Some AI problems I recall from MTW1:

- AI building masses of low tech units like peasants and archers and almost never building higher tech units.

Not an AI problem. This was caused by poorly balanced unit rosters that were introduced in MTW and have continued to this day. STW did not have this problem as it had the ideal setting, conflict, era and unit rosters for a TW game. RTW also had this problem, for example you often find yourself fighting hordes of crap eastern infantry, hillmen etc. It tends to be a faction/roster specific issue.

- AI sending its units one by one when assulting castles. Each time a unit gets annihilated the next one is sent.

True and this has not improved. The AI has never been competent at handling a siege - either in defence or offence. This is why I autocalced everything to do with sieges in MTW.

This was less of an issue in STW as the castles had an open breach instead of a gate and no siege engines or towers. It suited the simple AI better.

Sieges in MTW are still more difficult than those in RTW however. I have won most siege defences in RTW even when outnumbered ten to one - they are stupidly easy and the AI is hopelessly inept. For offences a ladder rush works in most cases with siege towers being best for the larger walls. The AI on the other hand assaults in the most idiotic fashion, shooting at a single tower for ages before attacking and sometimes hanging back whiloe being shot to pieces. The general often remains ouitside until all his troops are dead before getting involved.

- At the start of France campaign, England sends an army consisting of only the king and all his heirs. They would bravely attack the French spearmen/militia waiting in the woods. I remember England losing all its heirs and as a result being defeated at the very start of the game.

That's just a particular example. I've not often seen the AI sending cavalry to attack infantry in woods but it can happen in certain circumstances. The reason it sends it's royalty in to attack is due to unit rosters and placement. The French attack the province that contains the faction leader and thus the faction leader gets into battle. Not a lot can be done about this. I liken it to the RTW AI sending it's family members out alone, while the armies they should be leading are led by captains.

- Vikings never attacking England in Viking Invasion.

Not entirely true but yes, the Viking Invasion campaign was badly flawed. The Vikings fielded "uber units" (like the Romans in RTW) and in order to rein them in somewhat they were given a poor economy. In essence CA introduced imbalances in an attempt at recreating an historical scenario and this is what ruined the game. They did the same thing with Rome in giving the Romans a huge range of overpowered units that come in two phases and neutering the "barbarian" factions' tech tree.

People did not complain much then, because CA was not a big name yet and expectations were not as high as today.

People did complain then in fact and expectations are always high when it comes to something you actually pay good money for. All I expect from TW is good game play and decent AI - anything else is a bonus. Graphics should not be the focus in a game like ETW, the main focus should be in simulating the warfare of the period accuractely - not just visually but physically.

Of course I am talking about just the AI. None of the former TW games (including Rome and Medieval2) had so many crash issues. All of them at least ran more or less smoothly from the first day I bought them.

STW/MTW never crashed for me until I upgraded my PC. The game does not run well on new hardware. There is only one group of people that can fix this problem - yet they choose to ignore it. As far as CA are concerned when the new title is released the old title simply ceases to exist.

As to general crashes and bugginess. From RTW onwards this got steadily worse. RTW still crashes quite often when you exterminate the populace in a captured settlement. RTW is also prone to crashes and horrific bugs during sieges. M2TW's bugs are well known, ETW's seem endless from what I've read so far. It seems to me that the developer is not interested in releasing a fairly stable product from day one. This may be one of the main reasons as to why the Steam platform was introduced.