Contradictions from players in forum and my trusted friend

So i have a friend who bought it and played it. He doesn't live nearby, actually he lives in a different country, but i've known him for years and we keep in touch through messenger. I've told him how i think NTW is sadly going to be a dissapointment yesterday and he told me he has it. However people have been posting how the BAI is actually good in their game so i got good impressions.

He however just told me via messenger that he loves it but hates the battles so much that he autoresolves. Basically i was surprised but he said the AI simply moves forward in a mess (not line) leaving some units completely behind so the main force becomes weaker and he can simply kill them. He said he was superior to the enemy in artillery but they take some time to realize that they shouldn't be standing getting killed to bits.
Then they advance getting shot at by all their men (because he says they come by one and not together so he can focus all his men on one unit, destroy that unit and then focus on the next which is advancing slower than the other.
He said he barely had to move his men from their original position and cavalry attacked by themselves without support and moving through the whole shoot out so they get absolutely destroyed.
The AI also never knows when to quit. Some units regroup from routing but instead of retreating for another day they charge again when he has 12 units to 2 of the enemy.

Now i truely trust him A LOT. He has never lied and i don't see why he should lie now. But i am puzzled because many people say they get brilliant AI. I told him that and he didn't believe me. Are people playing different versions of the game or what?

However, he still recommends me to get it. Its great, just not amazing.

He was playing the italian campaign with france. He also said most of the battles until he got to Turin or Milan were basically small skirmishes and the Austrians and Piedemont-Sardinia forces are seperated (unlike historically that they outnumbered Napoleon and he had to devise a strategy to divide them and beat them one by one). He said he easy subdued the Piedemont-Sardinia faction because there were seperated from the Austrian allies. He said that after the Milan battle which was his biggest and he lost some men but still won even though outnumbered (first time he was outnumbered) and was annoyed at how easy it was that he now autorsolves like he did with ETW. He said he blitz just like in all games and the AI seems to be more fond of capturing undefended supply depots than grouping together and actually standing a chance. The AI does not retreat, even if outnumbered and if you outnumber them by a little bit they will still attack you in a battle.

Overall, he said it was fun playing once but doubts he will do it again because the map is so small that he will get bored cause there aren't much different things you can do in the italian campaign and its too easy to win.

Oh, and he said any previous total war player will find the italian campaign take only a few hours not days if you autoresolve the small skirmishes, unlike what CA seemed to have proposed.

i would really like to know your opinion if you have played the game, in fact, i think i will start a poll on whether the BAI actually is good or not .

Well, I guess I would have to say that I am one of the people who thought that the battle AI was indeed better. However, I agree, the Italian campaign will only take you hours, in fact it has to only take you hours because there is a turn limit

I have not had any battle so far where my opponent has sent units one by one. Unsupported cavalry? Yes, but they don't always attack supported, but rather move into a flanking position and wait for support.

Strangly enough autoresolves are incredibly easy, easier than another TW game IMO.

Is he playing easy mode? Most people play V.Hard or Hard for battles.

Originally Posted by ststew

Is he playing easy mode? Most people play V.Hard or Hard for battles.

The level of difficutly doesn't make the AI do smarter things, so this should make no difference.

@spanish_emperor: What your friend says is what I expected from NTW, an ok game overall but only an marginal improvement from ETW when it comes to the non eye candy things. Which is why I won't get it until it is for sale.

you will have to play it yourself if you really want to know what its like

Originally Posted by GTFO. Jamie

you will have to play it yourself if you really want to know what its like

Good idea. I'll just go download the demo and try it for myself. Well, I would if there ws a demo to download.....

Originally Posted by Abspara

Good idea. I'll just go download the demo and try it for myself. Well, I would if there ws a demo to download.....

was aimed at the Opening Post, if he has conflicting information from two sources and he cant decide which to believe, he needs to test things for himself.

Originally Posted by GTFO. Jamie

was aimed at the Opening Post, if he has conflicting information from two sources and he cant decide which to believe, he needs to test things for himself.

I agree that you should always test things for yourself, but in this case you need to pay a handsome sum of money to even begin testing, and if your conclusion is that the game isn't for you, you'll be wishing you hadn't spent all that money on it!

You just have to read around and search for stuff about the game that could interest/annoy you, and play the demo (if there was one in this case), to determine if you want to buy it.

Originally Posted by spanish_emperor

He also said most of the battles until he got to Turin or Milan were basically small skirmishes and the Austrians and Piedemont-Sardinia forces are seperated (unlike historically that they outnumbered Napoleon ..... He said he easy subdued the Piedemont-Sardinia faction because there were seperated from the Austrian allies.

I hate to condradict you, but Napoleon's strategy most definitely focused on defeating the two enemies in detail....

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...taly_1796.html

the most certainly do line up and fire in my game....not like it helps the when NAPOLEON enters the field

ok, he tells me that he sometimes gets good battles but sometimes gets stupidity and it seems it has to do with the fact of there being a general in the AI army. If there is one there is greater probability of there being good AI if there isn't then there is greater probability of there being real big stupid AI. I doubt there is a corrolation and he even doubts it himself but he is just trying to find a reason because he can't explain it. he will try to test more.

I am pretty sure it used to be the same way in older TW games, stacks with generals fought way cleverer than those without, the latter just being cannon fodder.

Stacks without generals do not get any of the bonuses to moral... So yes a General Army will fight better then one without.

And by the way the same is true for your armies.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Opinions are like...well...you know how it goes. Anyway, the point is, everyone has a different view of the game, don't do anything based on the say-so of someone else.