The TWC Emperor Edition Beta Feedback

[the lightning legion]

Remember, this game is based on a time period before Newton invented gravity.

but Aristotle was partially correct when he said things 'yearn to be with the earth'

[Humble Warrior]

Well I've been having a good and tough run on beta patch 15. The CAI diplomacy is somewhat better, but I see how it works now. It's the old gang up routine if you appear weak.

Stage 1 early, playing as Rome: No one wants to deal with you for some reason. Killing the Etruscan is, in my view, essential or they remain a thorn in your side, holding up everything.
Stage 2: As you get larger and a little out of Italy, you may start getting some invitattions to non-aggression pacts and trade deals. Expect to be attacked by some one. There tends to be a sweet spot calm for some turns here. A chance to focus on my economy.
Stage 3: I guess it's the way I play, but expect a lot of nearby Civs to declare war on you and try to tear you to pieces soon after that. I had the Ardiai (sp), the Averni, Sparta and another I forget the name of, attack me together.
Stage 4: Overcome most of that and other nations start to want non agression pacts and defensive pacts (Carthage, Nova- carthago, Libya) while others just hate you: the Averni and the Iceni for example, oh and the Scordisi. But things calm down for a bit- this is where I am at present.

CAI has been reasonable overall. I still hate the insta-ship armies, but now I know this unintuitive drill I can counter naval invasions better, catching naval transports like Sparta before they land on my shores. I have one powerful military navy that goes everywhere guarding Italian shores. I have not seen much AI just sitting out to sea and I get the feeling they're a little more restricted to land, I may be wrong, just how it seems so far. They do seem to be going more from A to B sometimes with a military navy leading or just behind. I have come across some completely empty cities from strong nations like the Averni, but I suspect they have been dealing with other enemies since they have war with at least 5 others including me.

Did you know you can actually plonk you soldiers in ships like the old TWs? It's completely useless with the insta-ship mechanic, but it's there.

Sieges: Not had much of a chance at sieges. I've only managed 4 so far and the AI seems to be using torches less, but torches seem to do damage faster. 1 cavalry firing toirches at a metal gate nearly had the gate down by the time it reached 1 man. This is really infuriating and I just don't get what CA are doing. It's hard to be happy with them when they won't even explain their thinking behind this or why they won't just disable it.

Land battles. I am very pleased with land battles. The AI is very good indeed. I've had some really amazing huge fights that have been nail biting and I must say, feel very realistic. I keep cavalry very busy now, running them back and forth, attacking one weak spot then moving onto the next weak spot, moving Roman soldiers to secure flanks or attack them. The fact that battles are longer mean that you can really use proper tactics and watch your men fight too. Also enemy units like Chosen warriors I totally respect now- they are HARD men and it takes HARD Romans to fight them (plus a good few skirmishers to bust them up!)
At the end of these battles my men are worn out, but it really feels like they've earned their day`s pay!

The BAI is great at breaking off units to deal with potential trouble, like your cavalry although I did use this to my advantage to lead away a couple of Phalanx` while my Illyrian Merc cavalry tore them apart one by one. However, if he has an army big enough, this is much harder to do since he still focuses his main force on the main objective.

Artillery does fire more slowly which is welcome, but I stil feel it could be a tad slower still, however, they feel less like raining meteorites now. I tend to sacrifice at least one merc cavalry to stop them as they can still ruin a guy`s day. They are still very accurate- too accurate I think.

Hiding troops in forest is a bit of hit and miss as the AI always seems to figure it out.

Not had the civil war yet, but I am more invested in my generals. Problems is Generals get killed off so fast in my current campaign that it's pretty hard for a civil war too happen. I actually see thsi as a good sign- last thing I need right now is one. I suspect a civil war will be much more likely once things settle down again and the outside danger is less.

[Causeless]

I've yet to see these overhauls occur, if they can be called overhauls to all. In fact I doubt many people have seen these overhauls and probably having a placebo effect: CA says they are, some people are screaming thanks CA has restored my trust, so it must be true.
In any case I stated "first impression" for a reason.

Some people never read.

What? It's a "placebo effect"??

So when I see a civil war occur and all the reasons why in my vanilla game, I'm just imagining things?

When I play a battle and see and feel the entirely different mechanics, the fact that hoplites are useful now and that I can throw pilum when stationary, I'm just going crazy? Imagining it all?

When I can both play the game and better understand this (IMO superior) building system, and check the encyclopaedia, I'm just losing a grip on reality?

Stop giving your uneducated "first impressions" and actually play the damn patch, or at least acknowledge it changes a lot...

[Yerevan]

This has been my problem with the game too. Been dying to start a new campaign as Rome but Carthage's armies going on cruises to nowhere always makes me quit.

Yes, this was really frustrating. Especially since the CAI always seemed quite good to me. But I attributed this problem to the insta-transport ship I remember. Ai would group its armies in the water (maybe to protect it from agents). And when you were coming to them with an invading force they would flee as if the security of those stacks was more important than their provinces. This is typically an AI's logic : as long as I don't fight, I'm not losing.
Then in the end, once all their cities were mine, they would send their starving depleted armies in a desperate attempt to take them back.


Last time I played (around patch 12 I guess) the system had slightly improved. AI had learn to keep most stacks on land. But still in this security obsession, it was grouping them all on the same border, as if it wanted to create a variation of the "super-stack of doom" concept. it was usually next to their capital. Problem was that in the meantime most of the other borders were left unprotected. And as you were conquering their provinces, instead of coming to it's people's rescue, this cold-blooded AI was attacking your territories to gain as many provinces you were taking from them.

This is all R2 to me : the game is quite efficient and logical in most areas but it's al about numbers and cold gameplay logic and the whole human/historic/immersive side is left behind.

I have a couple mods which remedy the "EVERY ARMY ON THE OCEAN" problem..

Ok, but you know, I would love to play this game without mods one day. As I do with S2 and FOTS. I love many mods, and after a while they are necessary to enhance replayability, but there's nothing as fun as a good vanilla campaign, in theory.

If those patch 15's feedback are good, I would love to try it.

[daelin4]

So when I see/play XYZ I'm just imagining things?

I don't think you know what "the placebo effect" really means. CA's statements towards all these "overhaul" changes have been predictably conveniently vague. These things are great only because the product they made exactly a year ago was . What should have been C+ last year suddenly became AAA, all because we're been yearning for it. All they had to do was lower the standards and get away with it. I'd call it brilliant if I didn't already consider it dishonest behaviour found only among scoundrels.

A sensible civil war mechanic would have been awesome last year, but they didn't do it then. Did they do it now and therefore deserve praise? Not really, the only change is that instead of your capital and 20 stacks, it is half your empire and armies depending on which generals are not in your dynasty. One part you can manipulate, the other remains entirely arbitrary. I am not ready to give thumbs up to half of a job inconsistently done right, regardless of how far that is compared to the mess over the course of one year. I'm not a fan of paying 60 bucks for a game to slowly improve itself over one year.

Stop giving your uneducated "first impressions" and actually play the damn patch, or at least acknowledge it changes a lot...

If you feel my input requires intervention from a moderator, you can always report me. Until then I do not think I need to take orders from someone who doesn't know just how long I have played the patch. The OP did not say feedback has to be educated or beyond first impressions.

If you want me to acknowledged one thing positive, I have noticed that you can choose which order your reinforcement armies can arrive in Conflict Phase. Nifty, though I'd much prefer if more than three reinforcements were allowed and that those generals that have Night Attack can join in a night battle. I'm also not a fan of saying the game lacks XYZ feature but it's all OK because they threw in one feature I never really asked for and is ultimately very trivial in its positive contribution. Or are you the type of person that won't mind buying a car lacking seats but has some extra air fresheners instead?

[Humble Warrior]

Ca have always been vague in what a Patch does... I often think they do make a change then say, `If the Player says it's working then it's working. If it's broke maybe they won't notice or they'll say.` and then they just leave it for us to find out.

For instance they've made torches do more damage to Gates- Nothing in the Readme about that. Probably cos they know most of us hate it.

p.s. I do agree with Daelin that CA don't really deserve praise for making happen what should've on release. Although it's still hard not to show some appreciation because at least they stuck with it and DID do it.

p.p.s Also, their attitude, I really don't like. It still seems to me they talk down to us. Even when they do something good it`s like they;re saying,`Have that you whiners!` Rather than, `thanks for sticking with us so long and yes, we're sorry for the balls up on release and our refusal to ackonwledge these things for so long`.

Like getting blood out of a stone it`s been.

[Causeless]

I don't think you know what "the placebo effect" really means. CA's statements towards all these "overhaul" changes have been predictably conveniently vague. These things are great only because the product they made exactly a year ago was . What should have been C+ last year suddenly became AAA, all because we're been yearning for it. All they had to do was lower the standards and get away with it. I'd call it brilliant if I didn't already consider it dishonest behaviour found only among scoundrels.

A sensible civil war mechanic would have been awesome last year, but they didn't do it then. Did they do it now and therefore deserve praise? Not really, the only change is that instead of your capital and 20 stacks, it is half your empire and armies depending on which generals are not in your dynasty. One part you can manipulate, the other remains entirely arbitrary. I am not ready to give thumbs up to half of a job inconsistently done right, regardless of how far that is compared to the mess over the course of one year. I'm not a fan of paying 60 bucks for a game to slowly improve itself over one year.

If you feel my input requires intervention from a moderator, you can always report me. Until then I do not think I need to take orders from someone who doesn't know just how long I have played the patch. The OP did not say feedback has to be educated or beyond first impressions.

If you want me to acknowledged one thing positive, I have noticed that you can choose which order your reinforcement armies can arrive in Conflict Phase. Nifty, though I'd much prefer if more than three reinforcements were allowed and that those generals that have Night Attack can join in a night battle. I'm also not a fan of saying the game lacks XYZ feature but it's all OK because they threw in one feature I never really asked for and is ultimately very trivial in its positive contribution. Or are you the type of person that won't mind buying a car lacking seats but has some extra air fresheners instead?

"Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."

Essentially, you are saying that the game hasn't improved at all the latest patch and I only THINK it has because the patch notes say so... which is one of the worst CA-bashing excuses I've ever heard.

[Carthago]

Sbd mentioned that there are some effect bundles for specific regions (in fact the big cities). @the modders here, do you think that it's possible now to add some extra garrison to some of these cities? Because I want Rome and Carthage to become a real fortress that have to be the very last city to attack in an Invasion of one of these countries.

Anyways, I'm really looking forward to the campaign and will definitely play Rome again after the finished patch is released.

[daelin4]

"Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."

Essentially, you are saying that the game hasn't improved at all the latest patch and I only THINK it has because the patch notes say so... which is one of the worst CA-bashing excuses I've ever heard.

I suppose that's the case if you ignored the last bit of my post. If I CA-bash you're one of them brown-nosing fanboys. But I don't like stooping low to such bipolar generalizations, I prefer not to be associated with your level.

End of the day, them making afew changes that the community has been whining about for an entire year is not praiseworthy. The attitude should be "about ing time s", not "take my money".

[Causeless]

I suppose that's the case if you ignored the last bit of my post. If I CA-bash you're one of them brown-nosing fanboys. But I don't like stooping low to such bipolar generalizations, I prefer not to be associated with your level.

End of the day, them making afew changes that the community has been whining about for an entire year is not praiseworthy. The attitude should be "about ing time s", not "take my money".

I'm not praising CA. I'm praising the update.

[daelin4]

In that case my criticism of the update should not be construed as an excuse for CA-bashing, a mistake on your part.
I will also like to point out that when I said "real improvements" I don't count fixing bugs as part of that. Fixing is not improving. Fixing is doing what you should have done but did not. Improving is making further positive changes.
If the game is bugged, and it still is, then it is bugged. A little less perhaps, but that's like saying I fixed that problem by not playing the game anymore, that won't fly.
There are also more problems to the game than bugs. If those problems are addressed (ie how civil war randomly switches regions from your control to a new faction's), then that's an improvement. Changing it from one capital at a whim to several random regions at a whim is not improvement. It is addressing one problem by replacing it with a different problem.
Whether or not you agree or have different views of what constitutes improvements is your prerogative, but it's clear that what I consider "real improvements" is cause for you to start trolling, rather than asking what they mean to me and merely disagreeing to what improvements are. That goes back to what I said earlier: some people never read.
Praising the update, who's making the excuses now?

[von stoker]

Just finished my Pontus campaign on VH-VH. Took 156 turns and this is how the map looked at the end of it.


Some decent empires for the playable factions (Iceni were still alive as well) Rome still alive but only because I saved them in the end as I had to take Italia (Averni had beaten back Rome to Brundisium and controlled Italia so I went to war against the Averni).

I found it relatively easy as I had solid alliances with Bactria, Egypt and the Greek States, which cocooned me in a protective envelope allowing me to fight my wars against the Horde of the Steppe, Persia, Armenia and Media Atropane without fear of other factions jumping me. The alliances I had with the other greek cultures fulfilled a lot of my regional victory conditions, so I would deem this more of a diplomatic victory rather than military.

I never had any problem with food or disorder (only 1 slave rebellion in a town I had just taken). So the it seems the new buildings make the campaign easier. I actually preferred the food/public order balancing act of the previous building line. With the new buildings, I could basically build what I wanted without worrying about food or disorder, though I only built up to max level 3 buildings. Level 4 is where it would get tougher though.
Still, I hope that CA toughens up the food and public order penalties to make the campaigns a bit harder.

I had no Civil War. I was at level 5 Imperium at the end and kept the citizen influence between 40%-50% throughout the campaign.

My only problem with the campaign was that the AI mainly recruits low level units. Most of my battles were against eastern spearmen and levy spearmen and archers/slingers, with the occasional mid level unit (Persian hoplite/chosen spear). The only battle I fought and lost was against a decent Eastern army ( Persian hoplites, pikes? reasonable cav.)
If CA can program the AI to recruit decent armies so we can have tougher battles, then campaigns will be a lot tougher.

All in all it was a pretty easy campaign, no food worries, no public order worries, strong reliable allies and weak enemy armies.
Next time it's the Suebi, I've always had a hard time playing as them.

[Humble Warrior]

Interesting. My campaign is a much tougher fight as Rome (also on VH\VH). The Averni and the Iceni (!) have become Europe power nations and both at war with me, while Carthage, carthago and libya are Allies which isn't much use since it means Rome, being in Europe is getting a LOT of hassle. I'm barely keeping above it. Just had a great victory against the Iceni when I caught their huge army in an ambush and destroyed it. I kept looking for a Boudica General!

I did come across Vercintorix leading the Averni. I almost killed him last battle but he won that one. He's being leading battles for a good few years now. The Averni have actually taken a part of North africa!

Sparta`s also being a pain in the butt. They just won't accept peace. I keep imagining my diplomats being kicked down a deep hole and, `THIS IS SPARTA!` being shouted at them!

No civil wars yet.
p.s. I suspect if it wasn't for the instamatic army-ships thing, the Iceni wouldn't be so strong or in Europe. I doubt the Iceni ever had an interest in going overseas, but that's streamling for you.

[Zeb77]

Have put aside my test Rome campaign. Was getting a little too much facing 4 armies of Celtic levy freemen who the AI would take great pleasure in lining up across the map. Only ran it on normal/normal and was fairly passive to give AI a chance to build empires. Focused on fulfilling mission goals. At one relatively early stage was running close to 200 units with a gold surplus of 12k per turn, was maxing out buildings and still running 20 or so food surplus, and had barely reached out from the four provinces you take first as Rome. Much easier to prevent rebellions, especially with an army or two garrisoning areas. Was also able to relatively easily avoid civil war but that could have been result of not pushing Imperium too far, too quickly.

AI was much more passive than previous versions, only one war declaration and that followed the following turn by a peace offer. AI nations much keener to be friends, at a price, and trade deals much easier to negotiate - of the nations I came across, only a supercharged Boii, the Selucids and a relatively strong Arverni didn't want to trade. When left to its own devices the AI did manage to start building towards some decently sized empires. Boii were dominant up into Germany, Athens took out Macedonia and pushed northwards into balkans (I bounced Sparta which helped them I guess), Selucids headed south and controlled Levant and Egypt. Syracuse and Carthage stalemated each other, whilst the Lusitanii were dominant in Iberia until Arverni and friends ganged up on them.

Plenty of room for some fine tuning downwards in my opinion, but pleased with general direction the beta is pointing towards. Only real gripe with Rome is how deep the first unit upgrades are buried into the chain, I didn't actually bother researching even the first one in the end! Was no need. Did seem to be some improvement in AI army composition (the Arverni were backstopping their levy/short sword/slingers with a ballista or two), but would still agree that more tinkering to get the AI to produce higher tier units would yield more interesting battles.

Might tinker about with some other factions to see how changes have impacted them but more inclined to wait on at least the formation bug being hotfixed.

[maexim]

Just finished my Pontus campaign on VH-VH. Took 156 turns and this is how the map looked at the end of it.


Some decent empires for the playable factions (Iceni were still alive as well) Rome still alive but only because I saved them in the end as I had to take Italia (Averni had beaten back Rome to Brundisium and controlled Italia so I went to war against the Averni).

I found it relatively easy as I had solid alliances with Bactria, Egypt and the Greek States, which cocooned me in a protective envelope allowing me to fight my wars against the Horde of the Steppe, Persia, Armenia and Media Atropane without fear of other factions jumping me. The alliances I had with the other greek cultures fulfilled a lot of my regional victory conditions, so I would deem this more of a diplomatic victory rather than military.

I never had any problem with food or disorder (only 1 slave rebellion in a town I had just taken). So the it seems the new buildings make the campaign easier. I actually preferred the food/public order balancing act of the previous building line. With the new buildings, I could basically build what I wanted without worrying about food or disorder, though I only built up to max level 3 buildings. Level 4 is where it would get tougher though.
Still, I hope that CA toughens up the food and public order penalties to make the campaigns a bit harder.

I had no Civil War. I was at level 5 Imperium at the end and kept the citizen influence between 40%-50% throughout the campaign.

My only problem with the campaign was that the AI mainly recruits low level units. Most of my battles were against eastern spearmen and levy spearmen and archers/slingers, with the occasional mid level unit (Persian hoplite/chosen spear). The only battle I fought and lost was against a decent Eastern army ( Persian hoplites, pikes? reasonable cav.)
If CA can program the AI to recruit decent armies so we can have tougher battles, then campaigns will be a lot tougher.

All in all it was a pretty easy campaign, no food worries, no public order worries, strong reliable allies and weak enemy armies.
Next time it's the Suebi, I've always had a hard time playing as them.

When i see your map, i realise 10 time more we need to have the diplomatic ability to exchange regions...

[nameless]

When i see your map, i realise 10 time more we need to have the diplomatic ability to exchange regions...

Why?

Aside from client states any faction that is allied with you militarily has their regions added to yours which is why he said it ended up being a "diplomatic victory"

[Toho]

Why?

Aside from client states any faction that is allied with you militarily has their regions added to yours which is why he said it ended up being a "diplomatic victory"

it pisses me off to no end to have a satrap or client state having a land locked territory in the middle of my empire.
which is why I will destroy them and take their land but after I have taken the land i wanted they will not obey me again. So I must exterminate them which again... pisses me off.

I once had 4 stack in Parthava besieging every single city and killing any army outside.
they would still not bend the knee.

I quit that campaign.

[Humble Warrior]

Also it would be useful where a friendly Nation takes your region.
For instance, I lost a region due to a rebellion. The next turn I went to take it back and Ardaie, who was friendly at the time, took it! Now, I know the AI probably didn't do it to annoy me, but in reality no friendly nation would take a city of yours that's rebelled without risking serious sour relations and likely war. In fact, that's what happened. I was so annoyed at him taking my city and still being `friendly` i just attacked him there and then and took my city back and of course, good relations was blown to pieces.

[Lugotorix]

I've been experiencing a re-occurring CTD as Odrysian Kingdom during a siege battle at Nicomedia against Pontus with a ton of Galatian reinforcements, like two stacks. Not sure if it's a memory issue. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Sebidee's Balkan roster expansion because I've fought battles previously with those units.

[async]

I've played a few battles now and I think I've got better performance!? Does anyone else?
Also the battles are longer and I like it.
Till now - great patch!