I don't care about the graphics...

[bla21]

... as long as they'll put in as much work in the AI.

Seriously, anybody having the same thought? While CPU and GPU power increased greatly over the time, CA kinda forgot the AI.

I've played all TW games up to Shogun 2 (didn't play that one that much though, not my scenario) but I didn't see much improvement in the (battle) AI, especially when they're on the defending side. They get bombarbed or archered like mad and never ever storm the gates or flank my army, but rather run around like headless chicken - I can easily destroy 1/3 of the enemy army without even getting my men scratched .

The campaign AI got abit better yep, but still it speaks for itself that we need DarthMods AI to make the games actually challenging.

My plea: Let a single roman have 7000, 5000 or 1000 polygons. But work on the AI.

Or I'll stop every sentence with... ceterum censeo malum ingenium a ludo conventus creativum delendam esse

[xjlxking]

As far as plain field battles, I think the AI has improved dramatically. They tend to try and flank, and prevent the flanking. Go back to RTW1 and try to play play a battle. You will notice the AI barely attempts to stop a obvious flank. Fast forward to S2, and the AI sends units to stop a rear-flank. Obviously, it needs improvements when it defends or attacks, but I think having objectives(capture points) will make a big difference. The new system should help the AI since the AI will know what it needs to capture or what to hold.

But with that said, there should be a balance between AI and graphics. I don't think they should focus entirely on one or other.

[Stavroforos]

I wouldn't mind if the graphics aren't a major improvement over Shogun, but I've never understood the "graphics versus AI" argument, considering different teams develop each independently.

[MrBoBo1]

I wouldn't mind if the graphics aren't a major improvement over Shogun

I think it would probably be fair to make the argument that Shogun 2 is (or at least easily one of the best) looking strategy titles around. If they manage to make it as or improve the fidelity while optimising it even more cant really see many objective people complaining.

[Larkin]

Anyone who looks for graphics above gameplay in a computer game is an idiot.

Unfortunately, 80% or thereabouts of game consumers are idiots. So games have to look shiny and pretty so people buy them. A game wouldn't sell if it was marketed as "amazing AI! makes battles really really hard!" Whereas if it was "huge battles with lots of men and even more death!" people are far more likely to buy it.

I'm exaggerating, since it's Total War and we'll all buy it anyway. But you see my point.

[myaku]

Anyone who looks for graphics above gameplay in a computer game is an idiot.

I could just as easily say that anyone looking for gameplay above graphics is too poor to afford a decent gaming computer and my broad, sweeping generalization would be just as false.

When it comes to the video game industry, money talks (hell, it's half the name), and all of the data suggests that graphics have increasing importance in traditional PC games. I'm not just talking about the blockbusting, multimillion-dollar FPSs such as Call of Duty, Far Cry 3 or Battlefield, where graphics are expected to be cutting-edge and improving all the time, but the most financially successful strategy games like Company of Heroes, Total War, Civilization, and Starcraft 2 also rely on their graphics as a key selling point - look at any user metacritic reviews, nearly all of the favorable reviews mention or emphasize the graphics in their dissertations of what makes any particular Total War game enjoyable.

If the general public wanted depth over eye candy, Paradox Interactive games would have ten or twenty times the sales.

In an era where "mobile games" are touted as the next big thing and "casual gamers" are increasingly taking market share from the traditional console and PC markets, two key elements separate the casual games from the hardcore - depth and graphics. To improve one while completely neglecting the other is madness

Also, I'd like to plug a thread I made a few weeks ago, where I ask people which element of graphics (units, terrain, animations, buildings, campaign map) they'd like to see most improved. Who knows, if CA sees this, they might maybe even get a sense of what fans want:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=584640

[Solitudian]

Gameplay over graphics, always. Always. I wouldn't care in the slightest if Rome II had identical graphics to the original Rome, which I play frequently. But I would care if they didn't improve the AI, or didn't try to stick as close to historical accuracy as possible.

[MrBoBo1]

I think both are important. When you go back to Rome or even Medieval II which still has fairly decent graphics, the game doesnt feel as immersive as Shogun 2 because of the superior animation, texture quility and effects going on.
Even when I just jump from Empire to Napoleon I notice a diffrence and presentation does matter imo. I can understand if you have a weak computer you are probably going to get fairly poor graphic anyway but if you are running a decent computer for some people the "wow" factor of the scale/detail going on is part of the enjoyment. Strategy titles such as WIC, DOW and COH are becomng much better in that regard moving away from 1999 spites and cube heads.

[EdmireDragonbane]

AI and Graphics need an improvement. Which we've already seen the Graphical improvement of RTW2 from the Alpha that was shown of the Siege of Carthage.

[Altimis]

Sorry? what are you saying about? >.> Shogun 2 these days AI been improved so much. Its a good sign that Rome 2 will also be as good like Shogun 2 and better.

Graphic, I don't really serious about this, I can play the graphic like Medieval Total War, Shogun Total war [2D sprite] but all I care is "animations" without those, the game just too plain...

[Destraex]

u mean lower the graphics and put rowers in

[petertel123]

u mean lower the graphics and put rowers in

No

[Destraex]

How could I have got that wrong Bla21, I mean petertel123

[hardcore knight]

go play Rome if u dont care about graphics...

[Deafening Milk]

go play Rome if u dont care about graphics...

Did you even read his post? If not then dont post, if you did read it then seriously do you have a 2 second memory span?

[roarer]

... as long as they'll put in as much work in the AI.

Seriously, anybody having the same thought?

More than 90% of the ppl on this forum have the same thought....

the thing is the human resources for AI improvement is different from what needed for graphic improvement. Our demand touch on the company's structure, which most of us has no idea how costly it will be.

[Stavroforos]

I Don't care about historical accuracy so long as the AI is improved.

[BigHairyMelon]

I hope to see some improvements for the AI in siege battles, in Shogun 2 I would often just sit in my castle and slaughter the AI hordes because they would just senselessly throw their men at the walls. The AI has definitely improved in open field battles. I remember in Medieval 2 they just couldn't handle it if you split your army into two parts and hit them from two different flanks. They would either turn to face one and leave their rear exposed or just run around in circles which was hilarious. I found that even in Shogun 2 the AI likes to stick to certain formations and camp with that, and just move its army as a group, but then they will never be as smart as another human player. Unless CA are secretly developing skynet.

[airborne guy]

... as long as they'll put in as much work in the AI.

Seriously, anybody having the same thought? While CPU and GPU power increased greatly over the time, CA kinda forgot the AI.

I've played all TW games up to Shogun 2 (didn't play that one that much though, not my scenario) but I didn't see much improvement in the (battle) AI, especially when they're on the defending side. They get bombarbed or archered like mad and never ever storm the gates or flank my army, but rather run around like headless chicken - I can easily destroy 1/3 of the enemy army without even getting my men scratched .

The campaign AI got abit better yep, but still it speaks for itself that we need DarthMods AI to make the games actually challenging.

My plea: Let a single roman have 7000, 5000 or 1000 polygons. But work on the AI.

Or I'll stop every sentence with... ceterum censeo malum ingenium a ludo conventus creativum delendam esse

the reason you dont care about graphics is probably because you have never had the PC to run everything at max. We people who have the rigs to handle nice graphics and can run everything at max want a nice graphics game

[myaku]

the reason you dont care about graphics is probably because you have never had the PC to run everything at max. We people who have the rigs to handle nice graphics and can run everything at max want a nice graphics game

so much this. People who shell out thousands of dollars with certain reasonable and well-founded expectations don't like it when games don't justify their expenditures.

The derision that some graphics enthusiasts get on here is highly lamentable. Not only do gamer demands propel the industry forward, they also have a direct impact on humanity's scientific and engineering progress - currently the most powerful supercomputer in the world, the Titan Supercomputer in Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is powered by over 18,000 nVidia GPUs - components that wouldn't have existed if there hadn't been demand for better graphics and correspondingly more capable hardware.

Titan will be the first major supercomputing system to utilize a hybrid architecture, or one that utilizes both conventional 16-core AMD Opteron CPUs and NVIDIA Tesla K20 GPU Accelerators.

The combination of CPUs and GPUs will allow Titan and future systems to overcome power and space limitations inherent in previous generations of high-performance computers.
Because they handle hundreds of calculations simultaneously, GPUs can go through many more than CPUs in a given time. Yet they draw only modestly more electricity. By relying on its 299,008 CPU cores to guide simulations and allowing its Tesla K20 GPUs, which are based on NVIDIA's next-generation Kepler architecture to do the heavy lifting, Titan will be approximately ten times more powerful than its predecessor, Jaguar, while occupying the same space and drawing essentially the same level of power.

http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/titan/

The U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory on Monday completed the deployment of a 20-petaflop supercomputer called Titan, which the lab hopes will give the U.S. an edge over China and Japan in the race to build the world's fastest computers.

The supercomputer, deployed at ORNL facilities in Tennessee, is capable of processing 20,000 trillion calculations per second. The supercomputer is more than ten times faster than its predecessor called Jaguar, which was deployed in 2009 and was considered the world's fastest supercomputer in June 2010 until it was dethroned a few months later by a Chinese supercomputer called Tianhe-1A at the National Supercomputer Center in Tianjin.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20132...ing-power.html

One of my biggest concerns was when one of devs stated that they wanted R2 to have the same minimum required system specs as S2 - this bothers me immensely. To what extent are the graphics scalable? Is the potential of my experience being sacrificed in any way to expand access to gamers with low-end PCs?

Anyways, support science - fight communism - demand better graphics from your games