Well, the general consensus as far as I can tell is that the various patches have massively, massively improved RTW2.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I hope for proper unit collision and physics in Rome 2, but their engine is not suited for so.
Some TW games do have a great AI, for example Shogun 1, Medieval 1, Shogun 2 and for the most part Napoleon Total War. But apart from that, TW's AI needs to be tweaked for an year by both CA and modders before it is considered good. Meanwhile although Civilization 5 is great, it lacks many features from previous games and I think Civ 4 is the best.
I too think they all have declared war on each other. PDS is fabricating claims while using spies and attrition-free troops, Firaxis is denouncing both of the others while proposing resolutions against them in a virtual United Nations that their faction dominates, and CA might've simply sent a diplomat with written demands to hand over their cities and castles to CA or face four crazily huge angry Imperial doomstacks that tear walls like paper and troops like wheat.
Shogun 2 was the only game I was able to complete on legendary mode, it's AI sucked utterly.
Mmm, seeing 40,000 Lollards rampaging around England in EU4 chucks me out of immersion as hard as anything in Rome 2.
I tried to play Empire recently. The enemy troops just sat there and let me kill them, occasionally wandering around the field.
I am on Paradox's side here
I also recently tried playing Empire. Although I like much of the game, the AI literally cannot respond to cannon fire. I don't have to express how silly that is for a game in this period. The AI just sits around hoping you run out of ammunition - which you don't. The battle ends when you decide you're bored and charge your cavalry into artillery-decimated stacks.
As far as I could tell, Shogun 2 after FotS had the best AI of any of the newer games, and I was shocked and horrified that Rome 2 didn't just copy the Shogun 2 AI.
I played Rome 2 recently, and the AI seems to have been improved, but the game is pretty frustrating to me. I can't play in Ironman without the legendary difficulty setting, which I just am not ready for. But the second hardest setting is trivial. Frankly, I think the game has gotten over many of its bugs, but the game doesn't seem to be balanced in any sense I can understand. In EU4, everything makes sense. You understand pretty much why things happen and thus you get to prepare for it. And the interplay between strong and weak powers is much more sensible. Because diplomacy.
Edit: Essentially a similar criticism of Civ5. I liked the game, but diplomacy was just not as big a part of it. I wonder if part of these games' problem is that the diplomacy systems were just not fleshed out, or whether it's the massive number of playable entities in EU4 and CK2 that makes diplomacy work much better. You get these webs of relations that makes the game interesting, as opposed to the TW and Civ paradigm where you're only interacting with a few nations at a time.
Last edited:
The Shogun 2 AI charged wildly at the player with no regard for period (or any) formations or tactics. Everyone behaved like Genpei or even earlier warriors, before the Japanese had a word for "tactics" (or likely stole the Chinese one) when this is the 1500s and everyone is fighting pike and shot in lines as in Europe, though the formations were generally less dense - the same cannot be said for CA, who are more dense than a hoplite phalanx.
- 1
That is a good avatar suggestion.
Paradox games are often utterly immersion breaking - the whole of India and most of Europe ruled by single men with 1 son in 769 (CK2), most of Europe delcaring punitive war on the UK for attacking 2 nations in South Africa (Victoria 2), Frenchmen walking across the English Channel (Victoria 2 again - the best Paradox game in a way, but really just the least silly...)
Paradox games are often utterly immersion breaking - the whole of India and most of Europe ruled by single men with 1 son in 769 (CK2), most of Europe delcaring punitive war on the UK for attacking 2 nations in South Africa (Victoria 2), Frenchmen walking across the English Channel (Victoria 2 again - the best Paradox game in a way, but really just the least silly...)
I'm not sure what's about the rant of Empire AI. It's not awesome, but definately way better than Medeval/Rome attitude of "charge with general first and then let's charge with the rest". I only bought it after the last patch, so I assume release AI was terrible, but now tactical AI is fine really. Empire mods are told to have awesome AI, but I felt in the other hand it was simply terrible, with the AI just sitting idle until I grow bored of shooting at it with artillery and charge at it (even if it's the AI that attacked in the first hand). Empire clearly has flaws, but I personnaly felt in love of playing the Ottomans; early game playstyle mixes both melee units and gunpowder for an unique feel. Had some epic battles where lame Musellims / Bashi-Bazouk proved of some use in the end.
I've never got into Shogun because the map is just a straight line; I ended up loving fighting on every border of my nation (although it's the direct consequence of the absence of the mere concept of diplomacy) that Shogun's map simply can't replicate. Then, sieges just lacked the epic feel of Medieval/Empire.
I've never got into Shogun because the map is just a straight line; I ended up loving fighting on every border of my nation (although it's the direct consequence of the absence of the mere concept of diplomacy) that Shogun's map simply can't replicate. Then, sieges just lacked the epic feel of Medieval/Empire.
Lol at "Quaker uprising" and other EUIV foibles. Yeah, no-one who worships the company that released HOI3 has any right to sneer at Creative Assembly.
all 3 are terrible companies. They share many common traits. Poor support, terrible releases, destroying their franchises.
I used to think Paradox was different, I know better now...
I used to think Paradox was different, I know better now...
Paradox will never be able to have releases as utterly disasterous as Rome II was. And Firaxis has set a new level of franchise destrouction with Civ 5. I have lost parts of my faith in Paradox, but to "citate" Churchill: Paradox is the worst gaming company, except for all others.
They really are still an acceptable company. And i think they never actually destroyed a franchise.
If I were to add up all the hours spent gaming, the 2 games I'm sure I've spent the most time playing are EU1 and Civ2.
It makes me sad beyond words that Sid Meiers never just set up his own studio and instead passed his franchise around from developer to developer like a 5 dollar whore. Whereas each new Civ game is a crap shoot (or a $10 DLC disguised as a $50 game... looking at you Beyond Earth), I know what I'll get from PDS: An imminently complex and immersive game that will be initially bug filled but gets patched up to snuff within a few months and eventually becomes incredibly fun as long as you have the patience to ride out the rough patches that usually come at release.
It makes me sad beyond words that Sid Meiers never just set up his own studio and instead passed his franchise around from developer to developer like a 5 dollar whore. Whereas each new Civ game is a crap shoot (or a $10 DLC disguised as a $50 game... looking at you Beyond Earth), I know what I'll get from PDS: An imminently complex and immersive game that will be initially bug filled but gets patched up to snuff within a few months and eventually becomes incredibly fun as long as you have the patience to ride out the rough patches that usually come at release.
TBH, no game in the world has anything nearly comparable to an AI, in its strong or semi-strong definition. Some give a better illusion of intelligence, or grant a better challenge overall, but its more a matter of clever design than of AI programming technology. You know, the games were a CPU can realiably beat a human are the most clear-cut, feature-light, mathematical ones: see chess. So, as much as I appreciate Paradox, I think Johan's remark was uncalled for.
Oh man... I'm inclined to say that HoI3 at release was bugged as Rome II: i.e., not nearly as unplayable as some folks make it sound, but still not very polished. And buggyness (is that a word?) it's not a matter of being a terrible company, it's just that complex games tend to be bugged. It's been the same since the dawn of gaming: someone remembers Battlecruiser 3000 A.D.? So ambitious for the time, so deeply flawed... And Space Empires V? The whole X series? You know, I'm all for consumer's rights, but people need to cut software companies making deep, feature-heavy games some slack... it's not like putting together a Farmville clone or the next dumb shooter.
Last edited:
The AI in Stardock games can beat me easily - and it's not cheating.
Whenever we meet people from Firaxis or Creative Assembly at conventions or the like, it's always a lot like this.
I think people have forgotten how bad TW games AI have been since the shift from M1 to Rome 1. The moment they went from boardgame map and 2d+sprites to full 3d the game went from being challenging at times to an utter joke at all times.
Where to begin?
Rome 1, passive ranged AI. I'll define this here, because it has been in almost every game in the series since. Passive ranged AI = The AI will not react to being shot when it is on the defensive, nor will it react to being massively out gunned in the skirmish phase when on the attack. If you attacked an AI army and brought 100% ranged units, you could safely walk to within 20 feet of the enemy army use all your ammo and then walk away.
Incapable Campaign AI (armies getting lost in the middle of nowhere and constantly moving back and forth aimlessly)
Medieval 2.
Passive ranged AI.
Passive siege AI (couldn't figure out how to siege castles, a large % of the time AI just sat outside deployed doing nothing)
Incapable Campaign AI (nothing like conquering entire empires without a single field battle fought!)
Empire
Game didn't even work on my bleeding edge system, would crash after 10-50min of play.
What I saw in the bit of time I could play.
Passive range AI regarding cannons.
Siege AI fixed (by removing actual siege elements and letting you climb anywhere, hi shogun 2!)
Passive campaign AI.
Shogun 2.
AI actually reacted to range (wtf is going on here!)
Siege fixed ala Empire (let the AI climb anywhere)
Passive Campaign AI bandaided. (AI still was useless, but the uselessness the AI was partially hidden by making the map almost entirely linear, the AI couldn't lose its armies in BFE).Difficulty hidden by letting AI spawn godtier stacks for free.
Rome 2.
BAI worked much like Shoguns. Reacted on defense appropriately.
Campaign AI fixed ala Shogun 2, yet the AI was still very passive rarely leaving its cities.
Siege system broken again once they couldn't use the Empire/Shogun climb anywhere method. Gamey mechanics introduced to work around.
Shogun 2 and Rome 2 have been the most playable at launch. If you disagree I humbly suggest you reload R1 or M1 without any patches. For me, I still played all of them way way way too much despite the issues. I just wish they would go back to the boardgame campaign of S1 and M1. Why? The game could actually beat you. The BAI was always horrible, but when the Almohads sent 80 stacks against you in one turn, ya you could lose through attrition then it was game over! ;p
Now, after TLC
Empire is IMO the best game they've made.
Shogun 2 was strong from the get go and enjoyable.
Rome 2 has become pretty fun.
M2 is possibly the best of the rest next to Empire.
R1 became the standard by which the rest are judged by.
The biggest problem right now with the series is the engine they are using is absolutely terrible and not suited to these melee combat style games. It also presents huge issues for sieging, which is why the only games from the new engine Empire/Nappy/S2 and R2 sieging that have a sort of decent sieging system are the ones that game the system by letting troops scale anywhere.
I love the TW games, don't get me wrong, have done a lot of modding work with them and play them a heck of a lot but it doesn't blind me from their flaws!
Where to begin?
Rome 1, passive ranged AI. I'll define this here, because it has been in almost every game in the series since. Passive ranged AI = The AI will not react to being shot when it is on the defensive, nor will it react to being massively out gunned in the skirmish phase when on the attack. If you attacked an AI army and brought 100% ranged units, you could safely walk to within 20 feet of the enemy army use all your ammo and then walk away.
Incapable Campaign AI (armies getting lost in the middle of nowhere and constantly moving back and forth aimlessly)
Medieval 2.
Passive ranged AI.
Passive siege AI (couldn't figure out how to siege castles, a large % of the time AI just sat outside deployed doing nothing)
Incapable Campaign AI (nothing like conquering entire empires without a single field battle fought!)
Empire
Game didn't even work on my bleeding edge system, would crash after 10-50min of play.
What I saw in the bit of time I could play.
Passive range AI regarding cannons.
Siege AI fixed (by removing actual siege elements and letting you climb anywhere, hi shogun 2!)
Passive campaign AI.
Shogun 2.
AI actually reacted to range (wtf is going on here!)
Siege fixed ala Empire (let the AI climb anywhere)
Passive Campaign AI bandaided. (AI still was useless, but the uselessness the AI was partially hidden by making the map almost entirely linear, the AI couldn't lose its armies in BFE).Difficulty hidden by letting AI spawn godtier stacks for free.
Rome 2.
BAI worked much like Shoguns. Reacted on defense appropriately.
Campaign AI fixed ala Shogun 2, yet the AI was still very passive rarely leaving its cities.
Siege system broken again once they couldn't use the Empire/Shogun climb anywhere method. Gamey mechanics introduced to work around.
Shogun 2 and Rome 2 have been the most playable at launch. If you disagree I humbly suggest you reload R1 or M1 without any patches. For me, I still played all of them way way way too much despite the issues. I just wish they would go back to the boardgame campaign of S1 and M1. Why? The game could actually beat you. The BAI was always horrible, but when the Almohads sent 80 stacks against you in one turn, ya you could lose through attrition then it was game over! ;p
Now, after TLC
Empire is IMO the best game they've made.
Shogun 2 was strong from the get go and enjoyable.
Rome 2 has become pretty fun.
M2 is possibly the best of the rest next to Empire.
R1 became the standard by which the rest are judged by.
The biggest problem right now with the series is the engine they are using is absolutely terrible and not suited to these melee combat style games. It also presents huge issues for sieging, which is why the only games from the new engine Empire/Nappy/S2 and R2 sieging that have a sort of decent sieging system are the ones that game the system by letting troops scale anywhere.
I love the TW games, don't get me wrong, have done a lot of modding work with them and play them a heck of a lot but it doesn't blind me from their flaws!
- 1
Is there any dev here excited for Total War Attila?
I think they learned their lesson from Rome 2. A lot of cool new features.
Too bad there is still no unit mass and weight for better melee clash, like the guy above has said.
I think they learned their lesson from Rome 2. A lot of cool new features.
Too bad there is still no unit mass and weight for better melee clash, like the guy above has said.