Annoying game play issues

[Captain Adverse]

There are several things which I find annoying in the basic game system and wonder why no one has been able to address them as of yet. I can’t believe I am the only one who has had problems with the following but maybe I am wrong? Let’s see.

1. Incongruous Battle Terrain: A major factor in the art of war is maneuver, picking your battlefield, then getting there first and occupying the best terrain. In these games one of the major factors in determining who gets the best terrain is supposed to be the general’s rank (i.e. a 10 star general should usually get a better battle position than a 2 star opponent). Sometimes, but this should be very rare, “luck” favors the weaker general and he gets the better terrain. However, this factor of luck should also be modified by player movement, so that if the main map terrain selected to attack from seems to indicate a terrain advantage it should go to the player. So how come at least 50% of the time the AI starts the battle defending on better terrain despite the player general’s rank and main map maneuvering?

2. AI “ESP”: Anyone else ever notice that the AI “knows” what you are doing the moment you give a unit an order? Example: You order a unit of archers to fire on an AI unit and even before the archers shoot, the AI unit selected has already spread out. So you pick another AI unit, and that AI unit spreads out while the one you originally picked moves back into regular unit formation. Your archers haven’t fired a single arrow yet! Or you order some cavalry to charge an AI unit and before they start moving the AI has already begun maneuvers to counter the charge.

3. Crazy Artillery Movements: Artillery is not supposed to move when the “hold position” icon is selected unless ordered to do so (i.e. player sets a new firing position). Yet catapults, ballista, etc. will move out of position in order to follow the movement of the target they were assigned. The AI knows this, and using “ESP” will begin to move the selected unit out of artillery range (often the artillery hasn’t started firing yet) drawing the artillery forward to be attacked by some other AI unit. If the HOLD POSITION button is selected, artillery is supposed to simply STOP FIRING at the selected unit and hold position allowing the player to pick a new target.

4. Crazy Unit Movements: When the AI orders an attack, its units will charge the selected player unit, and maneuver on the battle map to avoid any unit that tries to get in the way. Furthermore, if the AI unit is partly intercepted by a player unit, most of its troops will ignore the interception and keep going until they reach the unit they were assigned to attack. Not so for player units, who will charge using the most direct route possible, regardless of if the AI sends units to intercept. Then, if intercepted by even one single AI unit member, the player unit will stop and fight the intercepting AI unit. Note however, when a player unit is ordered to destroy a routing AI unit it will literally avoid going head-on, instead maneuvering completely around until it is directly behind the routing unit, then try to catch up. Most times this means the routing AI unit escapes unless the player unit is cavalry (and the AI unit isn’t cavalry).

5. Three-Second Delay: There is a 2 – 3 second delay between the time an order is given to a player unit and the unit carries it out. (Ex. 1: A cavalry unit is being charged by some AI spearmen. Player orders the cavalry to move away. The cavalry sits there, one-thousand one; still sits there, one-thousand two; cavalry starts to move, one-thousand three…..but the AI spearman have caught one or two of them. Instead of following orders to move away the cavalry turns and fights back, gets slaughtered.) (Ex. 2: A unit of spears is set up just behind some artillery when the player sees an AI unit charging the artillery and orders the spears forward to block. One-thousand one, no movement. One-thousand two, a ripple of movement but still stationary. One-thousand three, the spears rush forward to engage but the AI units are fighting the artillery by the time the spears get there.)

Anyone else notice these problems? Anyone able to program fixes?

[ElvenKind]

Well, there is a simple explanation for AI being too damn smart as you say it is, and that explanation is that
you don`t know that one of the TATW DEVELOPER team members is actually

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

SKYNET itself ????!!!

[Emperor Hantscher]

1. Incongruous Battle Terrain: A major factor in the art of war is maneuver, picking your battlefield, then getting there first and occupying the best terrain. In these games one of the major factors in determining who gets the best terrain is supposed to be the general’s rank (i.e. a 10 star general should usually get a better battle position than a 2 star opponent). Sometimes, but this should be very rare, “luck” favors the weaker general and he gets the better terrain. However, this factor of luck should also be modified by player movement, so that if the main map terrain selected to attack from seems to indicate a terrain advantage it should go to the player. So how come at least 50% of the time the AI starts the battle defending on better terrain despite the player general’s rank and main map maneuvering?

1. Never noticed this one, never cared. When I'm defending from an enemy attack I use my deployment phase to deploy my army in the best possible position given the area I am allowed to deploy in, sit back and wait for them to attack me. When i attack I just deploy wherever and go about destroying my enemy.

2. AI “ESP”: Anyone else ever notice that the AI “knows” what you are doing the moment you give a unit an order? Example: You order a unit of archers to fire on an AI unit and even before the archers shoot, the AI unit selected has already spread out. So you pick another AI unit, and that AI unit spreads out while the one you originally picked moves back into regular unit formation. Your archers haven’t fired a single arrow yet! Or you order some cavalry to charge an AI unit and before they start moving the AI has already begun maneuvers to counter the charge.

2. Also never noticed this. To me the AI normally goes into loose formation after the first volley or two, never right when I click on them like you say. Unfortunately in any game I have ever played this is always a "problem". The AI unlike a human player can do multiple things at once and doesn't get distracted by an enemy unit or get caught watching the battle animations as I often do.

3. Crazy Artillery Movements: Artillery is not supposed to move when the “hold position” icon is selected unless ordered to do so (i.e. player sets a new firing position). Yet catapults, ballista, etc. will move out of position in order to follow the movement of the target they were assigned. The AI knows this, and using “ESP” will begin to move the selected unit out of artillery range (often the artillery hasn’t started firing yet) drawing the artillery forward to be attacked by some other AI unit. If the HOLD POSITION button is selected, artillery is supposed to simply STOP FIRING at the selected unit and hold position allowing the player to pick a new target.

3. Never noticed this, are you sensing a common theme here? But I never use artillery either. I prefer ladders and seige towers, I'm pretty old fashioned.

4. Crazy Unit Movements: When the AI orders an attack, its units will charge the selected player unit, and maneuver on the battle map to avoid any unit that tries to get in the way. Furthermore, if the AI unit is partly intercepted by a player unit, most of its troops will ignore the interception and keep going until they reach the unit they were assigned to attack. Not so for player units, who will charge using the most direct route possible, regardless of if the AI sends units to intercept. Then, if intercepted by even one single AI unit member, the player unit will stop and fight the intercepting AI unit. Note however, when a player unit is ordered to destroy a routing AI unit it will literally avoid going head-on, instead maneuvering completely around until it is directly behind the routing unit, then try to catch up. Most times this means the routing AI unit escapes unless the player unit is cavalry (and the AI unit isn’t cavalry).

4. This kind of goes back to the "problem" stated in #2. The AI can do everything at once. You, the player, can Zig-zag your units around the battle map using waypoints(hold shift while giving multiple orders) but as far as I know they will always start walking at the start of every new waypoint. So you have to keep an eye on them as they move about all the while managing the rest of your units. The AI however pretty much seems like "one player" controls each unit and are able to do micromanage each unit all at the same time, that would be impossible for a human. And yes if you order you unit to charge here just forget about them and leave them to their devices, when intercepted they will do as you mentioned. But if you catch them as they get intercepted and re-order them to attack the original unit they will move through the unit that intercepted them, but will get slaughtered in the process.

Three-Second Delay: There is a 2 – 3 second delay between the time an order is given to a player unit and the unit carries it out. (Ex. 1: A cavalry unit is being charged by some AI spearmen. Player orders the cavalry to move away. The cavalry sits there, one-thousand one; still sits there, one-thousand two; cavalry starts to move, one-thousand three…..but the AI spearman have caught one or two of them. Instead of following orders to move away the cavalry turns and fights back, gets slaughtered.) (Ex. 2: A unit of spears is set up just behind some artillery when the player sees an AI unit charging the artillery and orders the spears forward to block. One-thousand one, no movement. One-thousand two, a ripple of movement but still stationary. One-thousand three, the spears rush forward to engage but the AI units are fighting the artillery by the time the spears get there.)

5. K this one I have noticed. There is sometimes a slight delay after ordering units. I kind of think it might have something to do with your generals command . Because some battles I find my self yelling at my men to "MOVE YOU IDIOTS! I TOLD YOU TO MOVE OVER THERE!" and so forth, and it's really noticeable that my units are much stupider than usual, but more often than not the battle runs smoothly for me. I've never thought enough into it to make the link between the stupidity of my soldiers and my general leadership qualities but I'm going to start keeping my eyes peeled.

[seanbg]

Hi Captain Adverse,

1) I concur with Emperor Hantscher on this first point. Whilst it can be annoying at times that the AI may start off with better terrain, typically the game system is rather accurate in matching real time battle maps to the actual turn based campaign map. I also understand, that there are limitations to the maps that are obviously prefabricated, hence it will not be able to match it detail for detail. If you wish to have high ground for example, situate yourself on elevated ground on the campaign map. If the enemy occupies it, attack from the direction which allows you to attack downhill. This normally allows you to have a superior position. The defending faction will also normally get the better position. However, at the end of the day...it's what you make best of a situation. You can always force your enemy to move. For example, the enemy will always turn to face the side with the most number of troops, but keeping out of archer range. The axis can generally be said to be your general, or the bulk of your forces. The enemy will always pivot to have his strongest flank to yours. See attachment. If you then utilise this to your advantage, you can force the enemy off that position, occupy the high ground, and rain death on them who have just had their positions reversed. And if you were smart, you'd have a small detachment, that they ignored, and flank them from the sides. Game over. You don't always get to fight the battles you want, but you can always win the victories you choose.

2) The truth is that, just as in real life, there is no way we can issue instantaneous commands to the troops, the AI does not function the way people do in the real world. A general accepts that and uses it to his advantage. It's not about the best adherence to realism, it's about the best strategist. Factor everything into your plan. If you know they will predict arrows, or move the minute you begin to charge. Fool the enemy into retreating by pretending to charge, so that your troops can move into position. Whilst they are moving, they aren't firing. Cancel the charge at the last minute, and by then your archers would be in range to pepper them the minute they turn around, covering your cavalry. Also useful when moving infantry into position, a broken archer formation kills less than one that is fully formed. Target archers with your archers to provide covering fire. I once used a full cavalry army to defeat a full Greek phalanx army using this method in RTW. Charge, feint, charge, feint, all charge...enemy routs.

3) Annoying at times, but that is why you do not leave your artillery unsupervised. The artillery moving away from position is the least of your worries. Artillery firing into your troops because you ordered it to fire at the target, that has now been engaged in melee is disastrous. Hold position is a command used to ensure the unit does not chase a fleeing enemy or follow an enemy that has engaged it and pulled away. A direct command to fire will be obeyed irregardless of the hold position command. Because it WAS a direct order. Imagine if your troops refused to move when you asked them to attack, because they were on the hold position formation.

4) Very annoying at times. Especially when a stupid single character stops an entire charge. And the interception point is well noted. Nothing much to do here except adapt to it, though it works both ways. I've often interrupted an enemy cavalry charge this way. Saved a lot of lives. But if they could improve it brilliant!

5) The delay. Unavoidable, as forementioned, in RL, you can defeinitely never move your troops the minute you command them to. I take in in stride, and simply try to predict how the enemy will react, and plan accordingly. For example, I will charge, and the minute it crashes into the enemy formation, pause the screen, press the stop button frantically, and issue a command to break away, and then play. Works every time.

Hope this helps to answer your doubts.

[k/t]

I know about the delay, but units should not move instantly, because they're not robots springing into action at the push of a button. If anything, they obey orders too readily. Look at the way cavalry can come to an instant stop when told to, or how easily it changes directions 90 degrees at a gallop. If you know that it takes a second or two for them to get moving, issue the order a second or two earlier.

[FC Groningen]

If that's the main problem, then it can be solved very simple. There's a pause button during battles, so I recommend you use it if you feel the need of it. Using it frequently can easily save you hundreds of men in a battle if used well once needed. That way you can get a new overview of the battle, think of a new plan if needed and order your units at the same time like the AI does.

[seanbg]

What he said ... /\

[Galain_Ironhide]

ditto

[ElvenKind]

Even Skynet pauses the game..

[Emperor Hantscher]

Captain Adverse:

I hope, on top of everything else, your not one of those people that thinks using the pause button is cheating.

The pause button is key to any battle plan. I use it all the time to make simultaneous charges. For example, I'll study the enemy's and my own line's in real time, position my men for where I want them to attack(who is flanking, who's hitting the middle etc.) once that's done, pause, pick and choose which unit is attacking which enemy unit, do that for every one of your units taking part in the charge, press play and voila, you entire line will rush out at the same time and hit the enemy's formation at the same time without delay.

You will have to "pretend" that the whole time your army was redeploying, your general was saying "Listen here, when I say go, you guys will charge at those buggers over there" to every unit. If you really want to go all realism on it, you can move your General from unit to unit and pretend he's actually issuing commands.

I suppose to make this possible in real-time, CA or any other developer could break it down into a two button system. By merely clicking you would only issue the order and the unit won't do anything until you press an "execute" button. You can issue commands to however many units and then when ready select everybody, press "execute" and they all charge at the same time without pressing pause.

[beerin]

chalk all of these things up to the chaos and unpredictablity of battle ie "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

[deusvult6]

I'm not sure what you mean by your Incongruous Battle Terrain issue. I'm pretty sure the terrain and elevations are assigned onto the strat map, being usually the tile of the defender, and starting army positions are decided by where the armies are standing. If you notice the battle mini-map retains the orientation to the strat map. If you attack from the SW, your army deploys in the lower left corner.

What I first thought you meant, and what I do have a problem with in regards to this mod, is that some of these values do not seem to at all match the strat map representation. In vanilla, I could situate my army as high up a mountainside as I could go and in battle I would be firing down a murderous slope, on a small rise or hill and in battle there it would be giving clear dominance of the field, or, alternatively, on a flat, grassy plain and the battle map would be just so. In TATW, I engage an Isengard army with a cavalry force on some apparent plains somewhere west of the Isen and I find myself at the bottom of a sheer cliff with only one path up, I fight the OoG in one of the hill ranges in Eriador and it's more or less flat farmland, and most distressing was when an army of almost all archers was approached by one of Gundabad's emergency stacks north of the mountain range in between Carn Dum and Gundabad. Knowing I'd get overwhelmed by their numbers in a straight fight, I pulled up onto the mountainside for what I thought was a sure defense. The battle opened and the map was perfectly flat. Perfectly. I was dismayed to say the least. That was less a case of a misvalue and more just 'no value.'

I love this mod and it's gameplay, and am very thankful to the developers but I think that is one issue which deserves a little ironing out.

[Captain Adverse]

I'm not sure what you mean by your Incongruous Battle Terrain issue...
What I first thought you meant, and what I do have a problem with in regards to this mod, is that some of these values do not seem to at all match the strat map representation. In vanilla, I could situate my army as high up a mountainside as I could go and in battle I would be firing down a murderous slope, on a small rise or hill and in battle there it would be giving clear dominance of the field, or, alternatively, on a flat, grassy plain and the battle map would be just so. In TATW, I engage an Isengard army with a cavalry force on some apparent plains somewhere west of the Isen and I find myself at the bottom of a sheer cliff with only one path up, I fight the OoG in one of the hill ranges in Eriador and it's more or less flat farmland, and most distressing was when an army of almost all archers was approached by one of Gundabad's emergency stacks north of the mountain range in between Carn Dum and Gundabad. Knowing I'd get overwhelmed by their numbers in a straight fight, I pulled up onto the mountainside for what I thought was a sure defense. The battle opened and the map was perfectly flat. Perfectly. I was dismayed to say the least. That was less a case of a misvalue and more just 'no value.'

Got my main point exactly. I move my stack (often times further than needed for a "straight-on" battle) on the strategic map in order to get the best chance of the best terrain on the tactical (combat) map, and end up on some twilight zone terrain with the AI on a better position than I am. Of course I can move around on the tactical map but that takes time, and excess movement often costs me unnecessary casualties. The tactical map should reflect the proper terrain, and the rank of each general should determine the starting battle positions on it.

Captain Adverse:

I hope, on top of everything else, your not one of those people that thinks using the pause button is cheating.

The pause button is key to any battle plan. I use it all the time to make simultaneous charges. For example, I'll study the enemy's and my own line's in real time, position my men for where I want them to attack(who is flanking, who's hitting the middle etc.) once that's done, pause, pick and choose which unit is attacking which enemy unit, do that for every one of your units taking part in the charge, press play and voila, you entire line will rush out at the same time and hit the enemy's formation at the same time without delay.

Emperor Hantscher, (and others) yes I do use "pause" from time to time and don't consider it "cheating". However, that does not compensate for the 3-second delay, or the problems caused by the AI's instantaneous movements and the ability to intercept/deflect an entire player unit with one contact, while ignoring player intercepts to continue to charge their original player targets.

Geez guys, seeing an AI unit trying to intercept one of yours you hit pause, order the unit to take an action, but it still takes 3 seconds to react....meanwhile it gets caught and decimated by the AI intercepting unit. Or you see an AI unit charging, hit pause and order the endangered unit to move meanwhile sending a unit to intercept the AI unit. But even if your intercepting unit catches the AI unit most of the AI unit will ignore the intercepting unit to continue it's attack on the unit you were trying to protect. Meanwhile, the unit you were trying to protect takes 3 seconds to move and gets decimated by the AI unit.

So what? You are saying pause every second to try to control 20 unit's movements throughout a battle? Aside from being tediously over-micromanaging, it's neither fun nor very effective when dealing with the player unit 3-second delay and the AI's ability to maneuver effectively and instantaniously.

Lastly, there should be no need to pause and stop artillery from moving. Like I said, archers and other units hold in place when you select the shield "hold" button. So why don't the catapults etc. do so?

[Galain_Ironhide]

1. meh, its an engine thing.....

2. As mentioned by others previously, I normally get a volley or 2 off before I notice enemy archers fanning out. I was raging last night at my screen because my General got stuck in the middle of a spread enemy archer unit then died. The main annoying point for me is watching so many of my archers dying from ballista fire even when they are fanned out like the ai's.

3. This has happened on occasion. "where do you think you are going?"
As long as it is not during a vital time, it no real biggie to me.

4. see no.1, and yes can be frustrating, especially when chasing important routers such as elites or even enemy Generals who are slower.

5. I thought this was a feature to reflect slow response from heavy cav (due to armor, energy etc). I think if you were to try with a light cav unit, the response is immediate (I stand to be corrected though).

Generally small things, however I think these tend to pop out more as you are fighting battles alot in TATW games which can bring out certain weaknesses in the engine - not the mod.
Don't let the machine win man, it wants you to get frustrated.

[Captain Adverse]

I really appreciate the comments, Thanx. I'd like you all to try to understand that part of my frustration comes from actual combat experience. I've spent more than a decade in active military service, serving as both an enlisted man, and a combat officer. It's one of the reasons I enjoy strategy games and tactical gaming. My goals in these games is to do the mostest with the least, and not take too many casualties doing it. In this game thats important because of the various economic and logistical problems players face during a campaign.

I brought up point one because aside from the rare instances where a defender had been sitting on the terrain for quite a while and intentionally set up a static dug in position, medieval style battles were typically meeting engagements, where each side spent time trying to maneuver onto the best terrain before engaging in combat. The better general usually started the battle from the best terrain. So what's the point of having a 10 star general when the enemy AI typically ends up on the best terrain when the battle starts regardless of the quality of it's leadership? I know I need to maneuver more on the battle map, combat is a fluid environment. But my training and experience has taught me to get as many advantages as you can before you attack so you can accomplish the mission with the least cost to your men. If the battle maps are limited and medieval battles depend on high ground, then IMO whoever has the better general should start with the better ground and maneuver occurs from there.

As for the other points:

I know of no major example in history where artillery "moves" without specific orders. Ranged weaponry (prior to gunpowder cannister shot) was highly susceptible to ground assault and did not move willy-nilly around battlefields. All I am saying is, like archers or other units, if the "Hold Position" icon is selected, that means the catapult stays in position even if it's target moves out of range.

The other points are annoying because the battle IS fluid with a lot of things going on simultaneously. No commander has time to micromanage the movement of every single unit every single second. Now if the computer can make a player unit that has been ordered to attack a routing AI unit swerve around and always attack from the rear, why can't it also make an attacking player unit swerve away from intercepting AI units so it can try to realistically reach the unit it's supposed to attack?

You say "plan" for this, or "set up waypoints" etc. I do try to do that, but time spent micromanaging a unit allows loss of control of the 15 others engaged and increases the chances that they will get into trouble. Besides, that does not answer the "3-second delay" problem. Like one poster said, you can try ordering your unit to do something else but by the time it does it's likely to be slaughtered by the attacking AI unit.

I win most of the battles, but I still feel like I need to preserve my units just like I would any real personnel that were ever under my command. That's all.