Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: An interesting opinion.

  1. #1
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,046

    Default An interesting opinion.

    Damn I hate the fact that I am not "the only one" that has complains about Rome II.
    The same time that few people arround are trying to convince us that Rome II is one of the best TW games comes this article:
    Total War still Kinda Sucks .
    It seams Aussies are in the front line of negative comments for this game. Why is that?
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  2. #2

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Kotaku is and has been hot garbage for a long time.

  3. #3

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Kotaku is like the bastard child of Buzzfeed and Dorkly.

    Total War has changed, and definitely went through a rough patch, but CA is finding their ground and actually making the efforts to correct their mistakes. They could have just rushed WarHammer 3 and left Rome 2 in the dust, but they didn't. I'm hopeful for Total War games improving in the future.

  4. #4

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Wow! Journalist gives opinion piece shocker...

  5. #5
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Yup, Kotaku and some other game servers are lately really garbage pushing strange agendas and being too friendly with some publishers...

    What is best TW? Each person has different list of priorities...R2 is not the best TW in all areas but it has the best setting for many people. That´s difference and that´s why it is still the most popular history TW according to steam numbers.

    In my opinion negativity is connected with unrealistic expectations. Look at ToB. People were expecting flashy things like with Warhammer yet reality is simply not so colorful. Time and geographical setting and unit diversity in that period cannot compete with Tomb Kings and Skavens...The same here, massive portion of content is free Ancestral update which many discarded as "free" but it was paid by those buying RotR DLC. You cannot get massive update to the core game without selling enough new content. Core question should be, is R2 in better shape than it was a year ago? It is, nobody can deny it. However you are free to think R2 is still not in good shape.

    Yes, there are still issues, RotR will get at least one major patch in like month.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  6. #6
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,046

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Define "unrealistic expectations" please.
    Because every feature people like me , asked for ALREADY EXIST in Total War games. So what are those "unrealistic expectations"?
    Have you ever play MTW-1, Both Shogun TWs , RTW and M2TW/Kingdoms , ETW to spesify those "unrealistic expectations"?
    So PLEASE be more spesific.
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  7. #7

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.


  8. #8
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    I have all TW so far and every DLC ;-) It is not just about features but about scale of game as well and interaction between features. Your idea to put everything in is not the best strategy. You need balanced approach. Multiple similar features are for nothing. And why having religion oriented characters, buildings, effects or even mechnics like Pope in Med if in particular time frame/location it was not issue. Like American Civil War.

    Now look at ToB, it is good game but many people were expecting something flashy, grandious ala another Rome 3, Med 3, Warhammer. Similar with RotR DLC. Many complains in past about new R2 DLCs were that comparison with Tomb Kings and similar WH content the new R2 content is weak. But TK are Warhammer,fantasy and like top cool faction. You can easily advertise and sell dinosaurs fighting dragons but try hype people about Viking Age England or such specific period in time like RotR.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  9. #9

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Well, frustration with R2TW mostly comes down to fans trying to make TW something that it is not: a thoughtful strategy game. When you look into it, a lot of the issues with the game does not stem from CA's inability to fix them. CA has a brilliant team of developers, a sizable budget and they certainly know their game better than angry forumites or reviewers. It's simply that CA's design decisions make the game this way. R2TW is not really different than casual mobile "strategy" games, even cookie clickers. You don't have to make the hardest decisions, the game doesn't ask for strategic depth, there is no real competition. You just build stuff until you stream-roll, and what you build doesn't really matter. And believe me, 90% players are perfectly happy with that. There is no need to create an intelligent AI to challenge the player, since most of their fan-base doesn't even need that. So for the minority that actually want a challenging gameplay, CA has chosen the most cost-efficient way, which is insanely buffing up the AI bonuses -rather than creating an AI that actually uses the in-game systems against the player. Some like this, I don't. CA has a near-monopoly in this subgenre, so doesn't really face competition, so I don't see them acting differently in the near-future. I think improvements in the series, or even in the mainstream strategy titles in general, were made as a result of Paradox' success.

  10. #10
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,242

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by balparmak View Post
    R2TW is not really different than casual mobile "strategy" games, even cookie clickers. You don't have to make the hardest decisions, the game doesn't ask for strategic depth, there is no real competition. You just build stuff until you stream-roll, and what you build doesn't really matter.
    Yes, 'you just build stuff until you steam-roll' could be a fair comment about some campaigns, especially with powerful factions. However, my experience is often different from that. (Maybe part of the explanation for different players having different experiences is that some people prefer to play with powerful factions, or use mods which give all factions more money, so that decisions about what to build matter less?). What I build and how my provinces develop usually does matter. Provinces need enough military buildings to recruit decent units, but I can't build a top-tier barracks everywhere - I need to make choices. I need to balance buildings for training soldiers with construction for food production, public order and the economy. Making our provinces very specialised can be helpful, but risks making our empire vulnerable if we experience a surprise attack or secession. There's strategic decision-making involving several kinds of balancing - upgrading buildings (for better units and other bonuses) versus keeping them at lower levels (for a more resilient empire, with plenty of food and public order in reserve), developing military buildings versus improving the economy (and food production and research) and choosing between specialised provinces or a more decentralised economy and military.

    Quote Originally Posted by balparmak View Post
    So for the minority that actually want a challenging gameplay, CA has chosen the most cost-efficient way, which is insanely buffing up the AI bonuses -rather than creating an AI that actually uses the in-game systems against the player. Some like this, I don't. CA has a near-monopoly in this subgenre, so doesn't really face competition, so I don't see them acting differently in the near-future. I think improvements in the series, or even in the mainstream strategy titles in general, were made as a result of Paradox' success.
    Yes, if we increase the difficulty levels AI factions get bonuses. I agree that this is an artificial challenge. I'd prefer a smarter AI at higher difficulty to an AI with bonuses, perhaps we agree on this? However, as I see it, Rome II does include other ways to have a more challenging campaign. In Empire Total War, mods of unlocking smaller factions are popular. It seems that some players prefer the challenge of playing a less powerful nation instead of playing on a higher difficulty level. Rome II offers different ways to do that, such as:

    A faction with a large but scattered and vulnerable empire and a limited range of units in the early campaign, facing a powerful opponent relatively early (Carthage)
    A faction with just one region at the start and a fairly all-round roster, but no exceptional units (Getae)
    Factions with only cavalry (Nomads)
    A faction with just one region and a very limited roster (Colchis)
    Factions with a very unbalanced roster, such as the Odrysian Kingdom (units which are very capable of attacking but no units for holding a line)

    As I see it, playing these kinds of factions is a more interesting challenge than simply giving the AI artificial bonuses. I also like the way that the game offers (through faction rosters, starting positions and other factors) the option to 'fine-tune' your difficulty level and the strengths and weakeness of your faction. For example, if you're tempted by the challenge of a Nomad campaign but are a new player, you could start with Cimmeria - giving you a strong start (three regions at the beginning), with access to similar horse archers to the ones which the nomads use and also strong defensive infantry (hoplites) from early on. If Cimmeria gets too easy, you could move on to Armenia (with less powerful infantry and more of a cavalry focus, but controlling several regions at the start like Cimmeria) or Parthia (a similar roster to Armenia, but only one region at the start).
    Last edited by Alwyn; August 24, 2018 at 06:32 AM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Damn I hate the fact that I am not "the only one" that has complains about Rome II.
    The same time that few people arround are trying to convince us that Rome II is one of the best TW games comes this article:
    Total War still Kinda Sucks .
    It seams Aussies are in the front line of negative comments for this game. Why is that?
    Whats interesting about that opinion?
    Who is trying to convince you that Rome II is one of the best TW games?
    The Armenian Issue

  12. #12
    eXistenZ's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    7,939

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    The article is badly written, as it doesn't always provide additional reasoning behind his views. But in the core he is right: A lot of issues that were present at the start havent been fixed, which makes you wonder why they came back to the game, aside for the cashgrab.


    I've started up a Grand campaign (H/H) as the Averni (with only mods being TTT and 4t/y), and I stopped 80 turns in (as an achievement hunter thats extremely rare for me), because I was bored and frustrated and didn't see myself going for another 50 regions

    -The AI didnt put up a decent fight anymore past turn 20 and actually didn't do much. The british isles for example still had 6 factions. Even factions that expanded (like Celtici and Lusitani) were mopped up in 4 turns. And all without a single evenmatched field battle. All just autoresolved sieges, or ambushes because they love forced march. AI didn't bother to upgrade its units either

    -What it did do, was constantly bombard me with stupid diplomatic requests aka factions from across the map like Rhodes and Tylis asking me to pay them for a non-aggression pact, almost every turn. At one point, Sparta (who I wasn't even close to) declared war on me, only to pay me for peace the next turn. This is basicly the TW version of spam

    -Politics are still not interesting and loyalty is a stupid mechanic. There needs to be an incentive to raise loyalty (just like you want to optimize your provinces for maximum income). I just spend my time sending people on missions to keep their loyalty just above 1, which feels like a boring chore instead of an actually interesting mechanic. Using the "gather support", I quickly rose to 90% nobles held, at which point the opposition's opinion should have basicly become irrelevant. Offcours it didn't and I still had to deal with a party that hates barbarians (makes sense as the Averni...), is powerhungry (I can't counter that), and likes Easterners (totally irrelevant).

    And despite the 90%, my heir thought it wise to make his own, 4% party... I didn't have a civil war, but I know that it would have changed anything, and you go right back to the status quo, which is not only unhistorical, but also lazy game design. As for government, it was waiting untill I could become an empire, it wasn't even a choice you have to think about.

    -Political events werent very interesting either and didn't feel like they had much relevance. Just random popups. Characters lack personallity, the family tree doesn't fix that. I did like the agent rebalance, as it was definintly needed.


    All in all, I think that people who claim Rome 2 is good at this point, never played other strategy games like Endless Space 2 (where the politics and diplomacy part is really well done), Civ VI (where you have interesting and different ways to govern and the faction variety is also good), Xcom 2 (where the challenge and difficulty persists throughout almost the whole game) and other games like Paradox (their DLC model aside, their expansions are well done and deep).


    If you do something, do it properly, or don't do it at all. CA came back to Rome 2, but failed to fix it even on a basic level. It's either incompetence, or unwillingness

  13. #13
    Semisalis
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    407

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    True Rome 2 still has a lot of flaws, some of them were resolved in past titles but appeared again. This is a shame. But poor AI and easy late game have always plagued TW titles since shogun 1, so there's nothing new here. Besides you cannot compare civ like games to TW titles as they are a totally different kind of game. TW titles have even put a lot of effort to implement elements from such games inside the campaing part, but this just started with empire. That being said we will never get the same amount of depth in this field as civ like games as TW titles are a bit of strategy and a bit of rts, but neither of those. They lack the depth of strategic titles and "tacticness" of some rts. In my country we have a saying: "it isn't meat nor fish".

  14. #14
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    You know I observed the RII forums and the excitement for it and then came the threads of how it was bad.

    If RII had been released with the NEW FEATURES ON RELEASE DAY. Then this game would have been a success.

    Now - it's pretty much everything they said it would be.





















































  15. #15
    eXistenZ's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    7,939

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goffredo85 View Post
    True Rome 2 still has a lot of flaws, some of them were resolved in past titles but appeared again. This is a shame. But poor AI and easy late game have always plagued TW titles since shogun 1, so there's nothing new here. Besides you cannot compare civ like games to TW titles as they are a totally different kind of game. TW titles have even put a lot of effort to implement elements from such games inside the campaing part, but this just started with empire. That being said we will never get the same amount of depth in this field as civ like games as TW titles are a bit of strategy and a bit of rts, but neither of those. They lack the depth of strategic titles and "tacticness" of some rts. In my country we have a saying: "it isn't meat nor fish".
    Lack of lategame challenge is something that happens in a lot of strategy games, I agree there. However, I didn't encounter any meaningfull opposition anymore past turn 20. That is not late game. That not even middle game yet. And they require you to conquer 80 regions (because alliances don't count with barbarian factions). Im pretty sure I would have died of boredom. Thats just poor design and playtesting, if any playtesting went in at all.
    And yes the AI hasn't always been great in TW. However I've never known it to be so bad that factions leave their last settlement when you invade their land, so you can just walk in and they starve. I don't remember being spammed by stupid diplomatic requests in Shogun 2. I do remember the AI putting up an actual fight. and so on...

    I don't expect the same amount of depth we get from other strategy games, but for the few mechanics they do implement, they could at least but the effort in to make them work: diplomacy is a joke, party politics is a drag rather than interesting where you need to keep everybody happy like some sort of delivery boy, character management (which worked really well in previous TW's) is boring. Then you combine that with a terrible AI and questionable design.

    I don't see how people can claim the game is good now. Yes, it's better than at release. Only because the only way was up.... To be blunt, a polished turd is still a turd. We are 5 years further and I have the feeling we went more back than forwards...

  16. #16
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,242

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by eXistenZ View Post
    Lack of lategame challenge is something that happens in a lot of strategy games, I agree there. However, I didn't encounter any meaningfull opposition anymore past turn 20. That is not late game. That not even middle game yet. And they require you to conquer 80 regions (because alliances don't count with barbarian factions). Im pretty sure I would have died of boredom. Thats just poor design and playtesting, if any playtesting went in at all.
    And yes the AI hasn't always been great in TW. However I've never known it to be so bad that factions leave their last settlement when you invade their land, so you can just walk in and they starve. I don't remember being spammed by stupid diplomatic requests in Shogun 2. I do remember the AI putting up an actual fight. and so on...

    I don't expect the same amount of depth we get from other strategy games, but for the few mechanics they do implement, they could at least but the effort in to make them work: diplomacy is a joke, party politics is a drag rather than interesting where you need to keep everybody happy like some sort of delivery boy, character management (which worked really well in previous TW's) is boring. Then you combine that with a terrible AI and questionable design.

    I don't see how people can claim the game is good now. Yes, it's better than at release. Only because the only way was up.... To be blunt, a polished turd is still a turd. We are 5 years further and I have the feeling we went more back than forwards...
    It sounds like you had a really disappointing Arverni campaign. I'm surprised that you didn't see upgraded enemy units. In my late-stage Carthage campaign (in the 1st century BC), I'm fighting the Iceni. Not all of their armies include Heroic Nobles (in addition to the general) but I've seen an army with several of them, showing that they've upgraded an artisan (infantry recruitment) building to the highest level (Bronze Furnace).

    I'm surprised, too, that you didn't experience meaningful opposition after turn 20. Yesterday, I started a new Carthage campaign, to compare the game play to the Carthage campaign which my AAR is based on (which began before Empire Divided, Desert Kingdoms and Rise of the Republic were released, with their associated patches). In the new campaign, I face challenges to the north, the west and the south-east.

    To my north, Rome and Syracuse declared war and allied against me. Syracuse took Lilybaeum. Rome sent a full-stack Second Legion by sea towards Karalis. I sent my half-stack fleet to intercept them. My warships were almost all lost, but they inflicted heavy losses and the Second Legion turned back. Syracuse landed a large army at Thapsus. I sacrificed an army to inflict heavy losses on them, retreating into the desert so that the Syracusans would suffer attrition when they pursued me. The Syracusan army was reduced from a full stack to a half stack and it's now marching towards the city of Carthage.

    In the west, the Gaetuli took all the African lands which used to belong to Nova Carthago, one of my client states. I fought back, taking Dimmidi and the port of Iol, but the Gaetuli sent a large army to retake them and my western army is still replenishing and replacing lost units. A last stronghold of Nova Carthage remains in Iberia, they're protecting my Iberian lands for now.

    In the south-east, Garamantia, the Nasamones and Cyrenaica captured most of the cities belonging to Libya, my other client state. Libya was almost destroyed.

    Carthage faces a war on three fronts. The AI is putting up an "actual fight" - on all three fronts, enemies are attacking. I sacrified my fleet and one of my two major armies to inflict losses on invading armies so that major cities could be held. In my previous Carthage campaign, I was using A More Aggressive AI mod - now I'm playing unmodified Rome II, yet I'm seeing similar levels of AI aggression in the new campaign. This new campaign is challenging and enjoyable - and I'm playing on Normal.

    Yes, the AI can make bad decisions and yes, it's annoying when AI factions keep asking for something which we don't want to give them. Even so, I don't see diplomacy as a "joke". For example, there are consequences to weigh up when considering a non-aggression pact. It could lead to trade and perhaps a military access agreement, which would give my faction wealth and access to mercenaries. It could also help me to make treaties with friends of this faction. However, it would prevent me from expanding into their territory and enemies of this faction could become hostile. Also, I like the way that AI factions use diplomacy when they're losing a war - asking for a peace, joining a confederation with another faction or being a client state/satrapy of another enemy (or a friend) of the player's nation.

    Yes, the political system has shortcomings. There are lots of options in the intrigues system, but I'm not using many of them (perhaps I will when I understand it better). I like the risk of secession as a balancing mechanic. I don't need to "keep everybody happy like some sort of delivery boy" and I'm not "spend my time sending people on missions to keep their loyalty just above 1". Maintaining loyalty can be done in different ways, such as winning battles with commanders belonging to rival parties and promoting their commanders. Rome II rewards players who recruit the best commanders and reward them based on their skill and success in command, as opposed to promoting generals and admirals based on the family they were born into. As in the real world, appointments and promotion based on achievements earn loyalty; appointments and promotion based on nepotism cause resentment. When that's not enough to maintain loyalty, we can use loyalty edicts, a change of government (if we're a republic), or attaching a dignitary to an army commanded by a rival party general (and giving that dignitary the skill which increases the general's loyalty). Alternatively, we can go through the secession, if a rival party's attributes all impose loyalty penalties so that it's too much work to keep their loyalty. Another rival party will appear sooner or later - but the new party could have better attributes.

    While it's not perfect, I see it as a flawed gem, not a "polished turd".
    Last edited by Alwyn; August 28, 2018 at 03:44 AM.

  17. #17
    Skotos of Sinope's Avatar Macstre Gaposal
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    The Republic of Letters
    Posts
    789

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    In my previous Carthage campaign, I was using A More Aggressive AI mod - now I'm playing unmodified Rome II, yet I'm seeing similar levels of AI aggression in the new campaign. This new campaign is challenging and enjoyable - and I'm playing on Normal.
    .
    Just out of curiosity, have you or anyone else played with a more aggressive AI mod WITH the latest patch and its changes to the AI? It would be interesting to see what that's like. I'd imagine that it's not for the faint of heart...

  18. #18

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Thanks for your well-written reply, I thought I could've explained some things better. I almost never pick strong factions (last time was as Brutii in RTW) and I admit that this makes you think a bit further ahead at the start. That said, I believe that for people with previous TW experience, even weak factions play very similarly. I still find this strategically lacking, mainly because your choices for earlier development matters only until you get a few provinces. After that, the player just steam-rolls and it doesn't really matter whether they have tier 3 or 4 barracks. A well developed AI with the ability of long-term planning could make a difference there, but that's not a priority for the CA. I think there is a clear case to illuminate the CA's approach to game-design. You probably have also witnessed the AI's inability to develop balanced and upgraded stacks, this especially gets more pronounced at the late game. Modders have found that just by making more units available at the start, e.g. by making all units available at a tier below, the AI was able to train better armies, you didn't even had to mod the AI for this. So why hasn't the CA tried this? There was certainly no historical reason against that, on the contrary, people have always complained that the CA was locking away the units that should've been available according to historical sources. Yet, people delight in the felling of "getting better" even if it's an illusion. That's also why we have a totally non-sensical system of technology, as if dedicated research via state funding was a thing back then. So in essence, almost all the systems are designed from the player's perspective, and the AI isn't able to utilize them properly. This makes it hard for the player to fail, and practically impossible after the player's faction establishes itself. There is a mod for CivV, Vox Populi, while I'm not a big fan of it, it clearly shows how you can design a game with an AI that understands and benefit from the mechanics, and can remain competitive until the end.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    Yes, 'you just build stuff until you steam-roll' could be a fair comment about some campaigns, especially with powerful factions. However, my experience is often different from that. (Maybe part of the explanation for different players having different experiences is that some people prefer to play with powerful factions, or use mods which give all factions more money, so that decisions about what to build matter less?). What I build and how my provinces develop usually does matter. Provinces need enough military buildings to recruit decent units, but I can't build a top-tier barracks everywhere - I need to make choices. I need to balance buildings for training soldiers with construction for food production, public order and the economy. Making our provinces very specialised can be helpful, but risks making our empire vulnerable if we experience a surprise attack or secession. There's strategic decision-making involving several kinds of balancing - upgrading buildings (for better units and other bonuses) versus keeping them at lower levels (for a more resilient empire, with plenty of food and public order in reserve), developing military buildings versus improving the economy (and food production and research) and choosing between specialised provinces or a more decentralised economy and military.

  19. #19
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by balparmak View Post
    Thanks for your well-written reply, I thought I could've explained some things better. I almost never pick strong factions (last time was as Brutii in RTW) and I admit that this makes you think a bit further ahead at the start. That said, I believe that for people with previous TW experience, even weak factions play very similarly. I still find this strategically lacking, mainly because your choices for earlier development matters only until you get a few provinces. After that, the player just steam-rolls and it doesn't really matter whether they have tier 3 or 4 barracks. A well developed AI with the ability of long-term planning could make a difference there, but that's not a priority for the CA. I think there is a clear case to illuminate the CA's approach to game-design. You probably have also witnessed the AI's inability to develop balanced and upgraded stacks, this especially gets more pronounced at the late game. Modders have found that just by making more units available at the start, e.g. by making all units available at a tier below, the AI was able to train better armies, you didn't even had to mod the AI for this. So why hasn't the CA tried this? There was certainly no historical reason against that, on the contrary, people have always complained that the CA was locking away the units that should've been available according to historical sources. Yet, people delight in the felling of "getting better" even if it's an illusion. That's also why we have a totally non-sensical system of technology, as if dedicated research via state funding was a thing back then. So in essence, almost all the systems are designed from the player's perspective, and the AI isn't able to utilize them properly. This makes it hard for the player to fail, and practically impossible after the player's faction establishes itself. There is a mod for CivV, Vox Populi, while I'm not a big fan of it, it clearly shows how you can design a game with an AI that understands and benefit from the mechanics, and can remain competitive until the end.
    see the problem is, human player especially gamers are quick to learn even very complex system. But AI for every game si different. Player can easily understand that he needs to save resourcer for certain building,technoloy, resources in order to unlock something in 5 turn for example. Like advance unit. AI cannot. AI can plan a few turns ahead but in this kind of games you either have quick end turns or better AI. So one option is to make system easy for AI..like tie unit recruitment via main building in each reagion, because each region has such building.... or second option is to give AI hidden bonus. Money, resources....basically this can offset players advantage but players want AI without cheating....

    For me, the best option is to understand where could lie potential bottleneck for AI and try to prevent them. Like if advance unit needs combination of 2-3 building in provinc, certain tech and certain resource....that is very likely to fail...

    EDIT: every turn ahead you can play means a lot lot lot possible things to cumpute, plan, estimate. Because AI have to evaluate a lot more possibilities to get better result. The curve is of math is rising like exponential for additional every turn...
    Last edited by Daruwind; August 28, 2018 at 03:16 PM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  20. #20
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: An interesting opinion.

    Between them Alwyn and Daruwind have covered most of what I have to say on this.

    I'm finding Rise of the Republic to be particularly challenging, even on my usual difficulty level (Hard/Hard,) and it's taken several restarts before I've really made any progress with the factions I've tried (Brennus's Senones, Samnites and Syracuse... All the S's basically) because of the increased difficulty. Changes like beefed up garrisons and a tight economy have a quite considerable effect, as does the improved Battle AI. Those AI changes also effect my other campaigns, as I'm now sometimes losing battles I would have previously won, and even lost a campaign with the Ancestral Beta.

    While I appreciate that some aren't happy (and may never be happy) with the game, I am. Many of the criticisms levelled just don't seem to match up with my own experiences, or are clearly much bigger issues for some than others. The new patch has introduced some issues, which I hope to see addressed in the second hotfix when it comes. But even with those, I feel it's a great game and a lot of fun. Heck, I'm even finding I enjoy the Family Tree, and that's a feature I didn't even want added.

    I think Alwyn summed it up very well. Rome 2 is to me also a gem (if a sometimes flawed one.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Skotos of Sinope View Post
    Just out of curiosity, have you or anyone else played with a more aggressive AI mod WITH the latest patch and its changes to the AI? It would be interesting to see what that's like. I'd imagine that it's not for the faint of heart...
    I haven't tried it myself, but judging by comments on the mod page it's possible that the A More Aggressive AI mod is now having the opposite effect, as CA made changes to the AI in Patch 20/Ancestral and so the mod may not be working as intended. Of course it might not be that. Hopefully once the hotfix is out and things settle down a bit, Falcon can look into it more.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.
    Last edited by Welsh Dragon; August 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •