If_I_Had_A_Boat
Here's looking at you, kid!
For the most part, I have been patient. I understand there is a new engine. I understand there are issues especially with naval invasions. At the end of the day, the problems (minus new ones in empire's new additions) are the same.
Siege - The most expensive thing in the world. You are in hostile territory with long supply lines. There is no reason that there is no attrition on the attacker's part. They are far from home, open to the elements, disease, have to forage, etc. I am not saying the defender isn't having problems either. I am saying the attacker is MORE subject. There needs to be a reason the attacker attacks forts and towns. I see no reason to build forts or city defenses, because the ai will fall on its sword anyway.
No reason to attack - this game is all about making the opponent attack you. That plays into Sun Zu, always pick the ground, never fight on death ground. The AI doesn't get it. For all the talk of RTW/MTW2 - the AI was similar. the only challenge I had was when I played Hungary and fought off Poland, Holy Roman Empire, Russia (well, pre-Russia), and Venice, then the Mongols. I still managed to carve out a large section of eastern europe. I see nothing different now than it was then. I can kick the AI's butt down 1-2 in battle and out manuever it in campaign.
This is the problem with realtime battles. HOI and CIV IV present a real challenge because the computer doesn't have to fight the battle in real time. The AI and human have the same odds (changed by difficulty level) but the ai cannot be outsmarted in the battle, because there is no human factor in the battle. Any comparisons of battle ai are unfair between these games.
At this point, I am done. I respect what CA has done up to now, but it really hasn't progressed in all iterations. Shogun was probably the hardest, just because the island of Japan was so narrow, there were only so many choices. They have added units, features, etc. All it is at this point is live past the initial ai push, then mop up. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Disappointingly disappointed,
John
Siege - The most expensive thing in the world. You are in hostile territory with long supply lines. There is no reason that there is no attrition on the attacker's part. They are far from home, open to the elements, disease, have to forage, etc. I am not saying the defender isn't having problems either. I am saying the attacker is MORE subject. There needs to be a reason the attacker attacks forts and towns. I see no reason to build forts or city defenses, because the ai will fall on its sword anyway.
No reason to attack - this game is all about making the opponent attack you. That plays into Sun Zu, always pick the ground, never fight on death ground. The AI doesn't get it. For all the talk of RTW/MTW2 - the AI was similar. the only challenge I had was when I played Hungary and fought off Poland, Holy Roman Empire, Russia (well, pre-Russia), and Venice, then the Mongols. I still managed to carve out a large section of eastern europe. I see nothing different now than it was then. I can kick the AI's butt down 1-2 in battle and out manuever it in campaign.
This is the problem with realtime battles. HOI and CIV IV present a real challenge because the computer doesn't have to fight the battle in real time. The AI and human have the same odds (changed by difficulty level) but the ai cannot be outsmarted in the battle, because there is no human factor in the battle. Any comparisons of battle ai are unfair between these games.
At this point, I am done. I respect what CA has done up to now, but it really hasn't progressed in all iterations. Shogun was probably the hardest, just because the island of Japan was so narrow, there were only so many choices. They have added units, features, etc. All it is at this point is live past the initial ai push, then mop up. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Disappointingly disappointed,
John
