An interesting opinion.

[Daruwind]

I rather do my research and think about my purchases, than to spend money and be dissapointed once more. Steam reviews say the game is mediocre. Professional reviews call ToB mediocre. The number of current players points to the game being mediocre. I don't settle for mediocre. I want a good game. Everything points to ToB not being that. Im not gonna look at hyperbiased reddit for opinions.

You know what, i´m not gonna lose more time arguing with you. I can consider you hyperbiased as well ;-) Each player, each person has different set of qualities they are expecting from game. I´m not saying ToB is perfect for everybody, just that you might be suprised...especially you.

And please don't act like this is a big masterplan about their game development, that CA was gonna support Rome 2 for years to come (like Paradox does with their games). They were finished with Rome 2, and suddenly they saw an opportunity to squeeze some money with low effort content out of their history fans, who they have been ignoring for ages.
I don't mind new content. As long as it is good content. Thats where the problem lies.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. There were not masterplans. All I said was that WH success allowed CA to try new approached to the content. DLC for older game, R2 si logical game as it has still large active player base and ToB and standalone title. If anything DLC for R2 were great unknown from beginning. If it was sure money, CA would have done it a long time ago, trust me..You want content that would not mess up your modded game. You are not caring about Vanilla at all.. And that´s the problem. CA cannot care about modded game as there are countless options. It is not CA´s fault.

CA failed at the game, and failed to make it decent. They should have given up. If you can't make new content that is at least on par with what modders can, don't do it at all. Blaming people that they shouldnt use mods because CA delivered (and keeps delivering) a subpar product kinda blows my mind.

Well then I hope CA would stay and do more. You are free to move on if you want. And you have bog logical gap in your thinking. Anybody using mods is using mods tailored to his liking. You are not using all possible mods, just the ones you like. There are completing or improving your vision of game. But does is mean that everybody will like the same configuration of mods? Nope. Almost everybody has different set of mods and thats the great about modding actually. You can tailor your game experience to your vision/liking...While modder has only to care about his certain view, CA has to care about all players and especially Vanilla ones as there is billions of possible mods combination. As CA you cannot caretake to all mod player, not primary at least. So i´m sorry your mods are no longer working but quess what, In my lifetime i met such situation countless times. It happens..So stop being spoiled child. Either fix it or move. Or keep shaming CA at every turn but it won´t change the reality. Nope..

[eXistenZ]

If the vanilla game was any decent and still not outright broken, I didnt need a buttload of mods. Ever considered that? I dont use mods for EL, ES2, EU4, CK2, and only UI mods for Xcom 2 (and a minor mod for civ VI). You know why? Cause the base game is actually decent

But please, keep on saying how its my fault that the AI fails to put up a fight once you pas turn 12. Or incapable of proper diplomacy and army management. And how badly designed the politics or even victory conditions are. So how about CA fixes that first maybe?

[balparmak]

[QUOTE=Daruwind;15652935]see the problem is, human player especially gamers are quick to learn even very complex system. But AI for every game si different. Player can easily understand that he needs to save resourcer for certain building,technoloy, resources in order to unlock something in 5 turn for example. Like advance unit. AI cannot. AI can plan a few turns ahead but in this kind of games you either have quick end turns or better AI. So one option is to make system easy for AI..like tie unit recruitment via main building in each reagion, because each region has such building.... or second option is to give AI hidden bonus. Money, resources....basically this can offset players advantage but players want AI without cheating....

I think this is a very good talking point, the importance of depth and simplicity vs complexity. I for one think that simplicity is much underrated in today's strategy games. Developers often create unnecessarily complex systems, since we often assume or led to assume that complex=good. But as you said, no amount of complexity will really hold down a human player, especially now that wikis and forums are full of optimal strategies. Also, more often than not, complexity of the systems have very limited effect on the gameplay and revealed to be very shallow. Agents in R2 are very much like that, the system would work just fine by having just one agent and one attribute type. Or think about the traits and building effects that offer minuscule modifiers like +2%. These systems could have been simpler and both the AI and gameplay would benefit from it, if the essentials of the game were well-designed. I'm not against complexity by principle, but I think that every game has a core section that defines it, and should strive for complexity in that area while leaving the other mechanics clear as possible. Consider Hearts of Iron series, it has very complex battles, but production etc. are very streamlined. TW suffers from a clear-headed design and developers have been prioritizing non-essentials in the name of spectacle, such as graphics, number of units, features that add up to a high number but in fact are shallow or ineffective. It seems to be just a numbers game and/or a checklist for CA: something hundred units (which the AI cannot use properly), diplomacy (barely works), 3 agents (who needs it), technology (just brilliant), character development (most overrated TW feature ever).The core, which obviously would be war, cannot stand by itself, since it's not supported well - BAI is still lacking, no real logistics&supply mechanics (people are rightly pissed about lack of population), diplomacy is still not better than what it was 10 years ago. Come to think about it, in its core, the game just doesn't justify the decade that passed since R1TW. All these doesn't make R2TW a bad game, rather just a mediocre strategy game that falls well short of expectations.

For me, the best option is to understand where could lie potential bottleneck for AI and try to prevent them. Like if advance unit needs combination of 2-3 building in provinc, certain tech and certain resource....that is very likely to fail...

EDIT: every turn ahead you can play means a lot lot lot possible things to cumpute, plan, estimate. Because AI have to evaluate a lot more possibilities to get better result. The curve is of math is rising like exponential for additional every turn...

Totally agree. Yet the CA has shown themselves to be unwilling to fix these issues, repeatedly.

[Daruwind]

If you want to see a few videos about AI evolution in TWs..It seems that AI is still as bad as ever yet there is some kind of evolution behind every game. This video series is great as it shows what new things AI had to cope with through times...

Im not saying AI is perfect one, just that AI from original Shogun and AI from Warhammer is somewhat really really different piece of tech..

[balparmak]

Yeah, I watched those, very good series. It was actually one of the things that solidified my opinion about problem not really being the AI but rather the design, since it's almost unbelievable we would face the same issues again and again with such different versions of AI. Obviously I can't speak confidently about this, but my opinion is that the AI gained in width but not depth, as in it hasn't particularly got better at making decisions, it just makes more of them, as new systems and mechanics necessitate.

ps: I should note that I haven't played any TW games after R2TW (part boycott, part my rig getting old), so what I've written only applies to R2TW and earlier. I've been hearing good stuff about Warhammer, but also heard that many old issues remain the same, so can't comment on that.

[eXistenZ]

I find the "but the AI has always been bad" a flawed argument. The thing that bothers me the most is that in 5 years of Rome 2, the AI hasnt made a single step forward. If you introduce features the AI can't handle, maybe think about that for a second before you do it?Forced march is a perfect example. And five years on, the AI is still as stupid with it.



But we already know that playtesting isnt CA's biggest priority....

[Daruwind]

*Sigh* Okay, AI is as bad as it ever was, CA is making only steps back and TW is dying, now excuse me, i have to play TW before the foretold death

[Alwyn]

--> again spinning a story to justify a bad AI.

As I see it, telling a story is a good way to test whether a game feature makes sense. For me, what was wrong with my story about a broken, defeated army crossing the border hoping for refuge with a neighbouring tribe was that the population of the last settlement didn't go with them. Celtic tribes did migrate - Julius Caesar encountered migrating tribes in Gaul, for example. It's understandable that the game doesn't include the ability of the population of a settlement to abandon their homes and flee elsewhere. As I see it, the broken army moving into neighbouring territory is the way that the migration of defeated tribes is represented in the Grand Campaign. It's not perfect, but it's different from previous games, when if the final city fell, that faction's army would vanish into thin air (even if it could easily have recaptured the lost settlement). It's an improvement, in my view, that any remaining army still exists and might re-take the lost settlement, capture somewhere else or confederate with another faction. (Sometimes, in my experience, a faction which is losing a war becomes a client state/satrapy of a more powerful nation before its last settlement falls. I see this as quite a good move by the AI, for example when I played Pergamon and my enemy, Bithynia, became the client state of my major trading partner, Egypt. That created an interesting dilemma).

Your argument that this justifies 'a bad AI' begs the question - it assumes without showing that this was a bad decision by the AI. If the AI army lost a battle, then it was forced to retreat and wouldn't have chosen where to retreat to (just as the player can't choose where our defeated armies retreat to). If the AI isn't making a decision, then it isn't making a bad decision. Some players might want to be able to choose where to retreat to, and they might be right, but I can see the logic of this. As I see it, objecting to not being able to control a broken army which is fleeing in disorder is like objecting to not being able to control a unit which has routed.

--> There is no such things as logistical support or shared food in TW.

There can be shared food in Rome II, if the defeated army confederates with another faction. I've seen that happen, even after the last settlement of the defeated army is lost. I know that this stops the defeated army from starving. In my Insubres campaign (in Rise of the Republic) my ally lost their last settlement. Their last army was defeated and the survivors fled into my territory. I took pity on the survivors and confederated with them. Their faction and mine joined to become the Gallic Confederation - and their army was no longer losing men to attrition, because we shared the food.

--> If you lose your last city in TW, you starve, therefore, holding it is always better

Holding your last city is better, if you can do that. But sometimes there's no hope that an army can hold a city against a powerful invading force, not even with the help of the city garrison. What's better, for everyone to die (or surrender and be enslaved) in a futile last stand in the city, or for some warriors to escape into the lands of a neighbouring tribe, keeping their lives and freedom? If those who escape are lucky, they might be accepted into the neighbouring tribe (confederate) and return to take back their homeland. Life and freedom, or death and slavery? This doesn't seem like a difficult decision, a bit like Eddie Izzard's famous 'Cake or Death?' comedy sketch. Yet you seem to insist that death and slavery is the only logical choce.

--> It has made steps forward, (which isnt difficult seeing where it came from), however, none of them have the quality to justify 5 years of work. This is practicly stockholm syndrome. We have been deprived of good quality for so long, that we see any change/addition CA make, as wonderfull. We shouldnt be happy CA included a family tree after FIVE years. We should ask them "why did it take so long, and why is it still so uninteresting?". Or "why did you make agents so broke from the start and why took it so long to realize it?" It still doesnt explain or justify the gap CA left for two years, the quality of the updates is still nowhere to what we as a paying customer should expect

Sometimes I feel that your posts don't recognise that people are allowed to have a different view from you. It doesn't mean that they have "Stockholm syndrone" or that they're "spinning" anything. It means that they enjoy a game which you apparently don't enjoy. It means that different things matter to different people. It also means that some people like (or don't mind) game mechanics which you don't approve of.

For example, I care more about the more aggressive AI which I've seen on the campaign map and battlefield (since the Ancestral update) than the family tree - and I'm enjoying my Rome II campaigns with the Ancestral update. In my new Carthage campaign (with the Ancestral patch, no mods), both the Turdetani and Rome attacked my capital within the first 100 turns. In my previous Carthage campaign (before the Ancestral patch, with a More Aggressive AI mod) no faction ever attacked my capital in over 200 turns.

Oh, and if you want some "quality" positive reviews:

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/...mended/214950/ a guy asking how to fix his fps, apparently counts as a positive review

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/...mended/214950/ "better than my history teacher", this guy really has put a lot of thought into this

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/...mended/214950/ this guy just has some technical comments on the beta, how he cant tab out without crashing

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/...mended/214950/ this guy apparently confuses a review system with steam support, as his game won't launch.


I believe the bogus reviews (both good and bad) filter eachother out, so that the percentage stays somewhat accurate. And 60% is terrible for a TW game. Give whatever spin on it you want.

There you go again, accusing someone with a different view of 'spin'.

Why would you think that, if both negative and positive reviews are based on issues which have nothing (or little) to do the game, then the percentage of positive reviews is meaningful? The plural of garbage is not data.

[Skotos of Sinope]

There can be shared food in Rome II, if the defeated army confederates with another faction. I've seen that happen, even after the last settlement of the defeated army is lost. I know that this stops the defeated army from starving. In my Insubres campaign (in Rise of the Republic) my ally lost their last settlement. Their last army was defeated and the survivors fled into my territory. I took pity on the survivors and confederated with them. Their faction and mine joined to become the Gallic Confederation - and their army was no longer losing men to attrition, because we shared the food.

Forgot about this. Great point. Bottom line: You don't starve unless you choose to starve. I explained how to step aside, recruit, and retake the city to avoid starvation. But even after that, as you point out, there are options. As opposed to just sitting in your city and waiting to be annihilated. eXistenZ acts as though the choice is between abandoning your city or keeping it. It's not. If a superior army wants to take your city, the choice of keeping it has passed. After that, it's a choice between the possibility of living to fight another day or dying an unnecessary death for no reason.

[Welsh Dragon]

I, not for the first time, find myself wondering if we're all playing the same game. Because once again some of the complaints listed in this thread simply don't match my own experiences with the vanilla, unmodded Rome 2 game.

This is especially true with AI.

I find myself facing a Campaign AI that does a reasonable job of running its empire; that engages in realistic and sensible diplomacy a lot of the time, while also sometimes being as illogical and stubborn as a human on occasion; that adapts to a situation, for example building additional farms in response to my deliberate tactic of trying to take out his food with surgical strikes and agents; that is quite capable of exploiting a situation, for example in ED the Caledones making a big push against the Roman Britains to take advantage of the fact I've been raiding the Britannia coastlines with my Saxon ships; that makes sacrifices when necessary. such as focusing its limited defences into an effective force on one part of a front at the expense of other parts of that front, rather than try to defend it all with not enough troops; that makes balanced armies with the sort of composition I would use as that faction; and in general playing the game more like a human.

And a Battle AI which has been markedly improved in the Ancestral Update. One that is even better than before at flanking; that takes advantage of weaknesses in my own army, sometimes trying to punch through a gap or go after a weakened unit; that is quite capable of targeting my general with ranged units or cavalry if I leave him or her exposed; that makes use of a tactical reserve and brings units back into the fight if they've routed; that mounts a layered defence of settlements and that is quite adept at street to street fighting; and which in general plays well for an AI, and again more like a human.

It also strikes me that many of the complaints levelled at Rome 2 now are subjective. As Alwyn's and eXistenZ's exchange above demonstrates, one person's "bad AI" is another persons "intelligent, human like AI." Some, it seems, have a very specific way they want the game to play, and use mods to heavily tailor it to that specification. Others have a broader approach, either enjoying the vanilla game and the way it has changed over time, or using only minor mods which they aren't inconvenienced by much if they aren't able to use.

Ultimately I think it comes down to this. Different people want different things out of their games, and so have different expectations of what should and shouldn't be in there, how the game should work in general and in specifics. Rome 2 is a game, and much like every other game, it appeals to some and not to others.

Many of those that liked this game before, still like it now. They may like it even better. Many that didn't like it before, still don't like it now. And at this point that's unlikely to change. The former, such as myself, will likely stay with this game for the foreseeable future. The latter, will likely uninstall it and move on, as eXistenZ has apparently done going by his Steam post. I'm sorry you feel the need to do so, as I think you're missing out on a great game. But I respect that it seems like it just isn't for you, and I hope that you will find a game you do enjoy as much as I enjoy Rome 2.

So, in conclusion, Rome 2 is the game that it is. For some that's great, for others not. Such is life. But as Dead*Man*Wilson kind of raised earlier, is it really worth the time & energy arguing over it all yet again?

Hope you all have a great weekend.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Daruwind]

What more, there could be easily added food hidden bonus for AI factions. Actually it is one of few tricks im modding into my mods. Depending on difficulty of AI. However this bonus is good enough for army not to starve...especially if somebody is playing with mods, such mechanics can be easily there..... I don´t know what is AI logic in such case or how it will affect it. There could be hidden money income, food bonus...AI with little raiding can easily recruit some mercenary units even. Im no expert for AI but without exact situation,mods, we cannot decipher what happened and why. I believe Existenz to see what he thinks he saw but he is looking constantly for comfirmation of his negative oppinions so I would prefer somebody without biased oppinion here...

Heck as is stated in the AI videos, with Rome 2 onward AI has no background info. In previous titles the Ai had hooks to get info players cannot get but no longer. So for example army in ambush stance is invisible truly to AI...

See Dresden´s mod for R2....
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil.../?id=186931912

[Alwyn]

Thanks, Skotos - yes, there are options. To be fair, I agree with Daruwind when he said:

I believe Existenz to see what he thinks he saw ...

I agree with eXistenZ that AI factions make illogical decisions at times. Welsh Dragon acknowledged this, saying that the AI can be "as illogical and stubborn as a human". As Welsh Dragon said, different people have different views about the overall experience.

I find myself facing a Campaign AI that does a reasonable job of running its empire; that engages in realistic and sensible diplomacy a lot of the time, while also sometimes being as illogical and stubborn as a human on occasion; that adapts to a situation, for example building additional farms in response to my deliberate tactic of trying to take out his food with surgical strikes and agents; that is quite capable of exploiting a situation, for example in ED the Caledones making a big push against the Roman Britains to take advantage of the fact I've been raiding the Britannia coastlines with my Saxon ships; that makes sacrifices when necessary. such as focusing its limited defences into an effective force on one part of a front at the expense of other parts of that front, rather than try to defend it all with not enough troops; that makes balanced armies with the sort of composition I would use as that faction; and in general playing the game more like a human.

Well said! (You make good points in all of your post, I specifically wanted to respond to this part). Like you, I'm enjoy it a lot. In my current Carthage campaign, something new and unexpected is happening. I'm losing a war.

AI Rome and Syracuse are executing their strategy more quickly and decisively than I am. Rome and Syracuse each sent a tiny force far inland (so the armies in my coastal cities would have to move more than one turn to attack them). Then those armies started raiding. Rome sent a legion from (Roman-held) Lilybaeum across the sea, to approach my capital. Rome's legion eliminated my fleet (and my capital's garrison fleet), then sailed back and forth between Carthage and (Roman-held) Lilybaeum a few times. This could be seen as 'bad AI' - I can imagine critics saying that this shows that the AI is indecisive. Maybe they're right. However, as I see it, Rome had created a situation to its advantage. My army in the city of Carthage could pursue the raiding army - but, if so, the Roman legion from Lilybaeum could take my capital. I kept my army in the city and the Roman transports turned back. But don't forget that that small AI raiding army, depriving my capital region of its income and reducing public order. Rome had created a situation in which, as long as it continued, I'd be at a disadvantage. To change the situation, I need to build a new fleet elsewhere, which I began to do in Cyrene.

But, before that fleet was complete, the situation got worse. Syracuse invaded the coastal cities belonging to my client state, Libya. Rome used their legion to take the port of Thapsus, south of Carthage, and began landing more troops there. Libya had been reduced to just one inland city, Dimmidi. I gave Libya 6,000 talents, helping them to build a large army to try to re-take Thapsus. Do you remember people saying that AI factions don't recruit high-tier units? Rome's armies landing in Thapsus were small but they had powerful units including Legionaries, Veteran Legionaries, legionary cavalry and even First Cohorts! Libya's army of hoplites and peltasts was destroyed. I sent one of my hoplite and peltast armies to try to help defend Dimmidi from Rome, but my army encountered two Roman armies, each of which could easily have defeated it. My army fell back to Cydamus. The Roman armies followed, taking Cydamus and destroying my army.

To be fair, in my previous Carthage campaign with a More Aggressive AI mod, Syracuse tried a similar invasion, taking Thapsus and Cydamus (but not Dimmidi). Two things were different about my new campaign (with the Ancestral update and no mods). In the new campaign, Rome's invasion is more aggressive than the invasion by Syracuse in the previous campaign. Before, Syracuse stopped attacking after taking Thapsus and Cydamus. Now, Rome is continuing to expand. The other difference is that Rome is using high-tier units.

Some players, seeing these events, might conclude that the AI is bad, because the Roman legion sailed back and forth between Lilybaeum a few times, not capturing my capital (yet, although it has been attacked). However, I'm impressed with the AI, because it:
- Created a situation which was awkward for me (raiders inland, large armies offshore ready to capture my cities if I pursued the raiders)
- Eliminated my client state, Libya. I was building a fleet and army at Cyrene, hoping to eliminate Syracuse (Rome's ally), but Syracuse eliminated my ally (with help from Rome) before I could remove Syracuse.
- Recruited and used high-tier units before I did. I was still using hoplites and peltasts, I can't recruit Libyan Infantry, the Carthaginian sword unit, yet.
- Attacked so often and so strongly that Rome and Syracuse had the initiative, Carthage and Libya were doing our best to respond to their attacks.
- Continued to attack, not just taking one or two regions and stopping.

Like Welsh Dragon, I hope that you find (or have found) another game which you enjoy as much as I'm enjoying Rome II, eXistenZ.

What more, there could be easily added food hidden bonus for AI factions. Actually it is one of few tricks im modding into my mods.

That sounds like an interesting experiment. Spies can now steal food - I wonder if it would be possible to give a raiding army that ability? If so, that would allow the final army of a defeated faction to maintain itself by raiding. That seems fairly realistic. I can imagine the remnants of the warriors of a defeated tribe becoming brigands, raiding for food and plunder. I don't know whether the AI would use the raiding stance in that situation - or whether allowing a raiding army to steal food would make raiding over-powered.

[PointOfViewGun]

Talking about Rome II:

--> It has made steps forward, (which isnt difficult seeing where it came from), however, none of them have the quality to justify 5 years of work. This is practicly stockholm syndrome. We have been deprived of good quality for so long, that we see any change/addition CA make, as wonderfull. We shouldnt be happy CA included a family tree after FIVE years. We should ask them "why did it take so long, and why is it still so uninteresting?". Or "why did you make agents so broke from the start and why took it so long to realize it?" It still doesnt explain or justify the gap CA left for two years, the quality of the updates is still nowhere to what we as a paying customer should expect

I find the "but the AI has always been bad" a flawed argument. The thing that bothers me the most is that in 5 years of Rome 2, the AI hasnt made a single step forward. If you introduce features the AI can't handle, maybe think about that for a second before you do it?Forced march is a perfect example. And five years on, the AI is still as stupid with it.
But we already know that playtesting isnt CA's biggest priority....

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

What more, there could be easily added food hidden bonus for AI factions. Actually it is one of few tricks im modding into my mods.

That sounds like an interesting experiment. Spies can now steal food - I wonder if it would be possible to give a raiding army that ability? If so, that would allow the final army of a defeated faction to maintain itself by raiding. That seems fairly realistic. I can imagine the remnants of the warriors of a defeated tribe becoming brigands, raiding for food and plunder. I don't know whether the AI would use the raiding stance in that situation - or whether allowing a raiding army to steal food would make raiding over-powered.

Not an experiment at all.
It's a very much needed feature (extremely important for faction's survival) and we're doing it for ages in DEI.

--> It has made steps forward, (which isnt difficult seeing where it came from), however, none of them have the quality to justify 5 years of work. This is practicly stockholm syndrome. We have been deprived of good quality for so long, that we see any change/addition CA make, as wonderfull. We shouldnt be happy CA included a family tree after FIVE years. We should ask them "why did it take so long, and why is it still so uninteresting?". Or "why did you make agents so broke from the start and why took it so long to realize it?" It still doesnt explain or justify the gap CA left for two years, the quality of the updates is still nowhere to what we as a paying customer should expect

I'm usually not into extreme bashing, but I mostly agree with this post. It seems like many people forgetting the thousands of messages and the immense pleads from modders to CA the last 5 yrs for proper AI,family tree, modding tools,specific map tools, more testing before each release etc.The list goes on for pages and now after 5 yrs we're starting taking a few things that should be in the release day 1. Should we be grateful for that ? I think not. We certainly deserve more for our support and the love we're showing to the series all these years. Not crabs after 5 years. Most of the latest changes and implementations of Rome 2 are clearly ideas take from modders (plainly) and still they did it wrong cause many of the features are still incomplete or not working as designed. If they had better a communication team (like before) most issues could have been solve already.

Anyway most people are not aware of the ''behind the scene'' actions taken from the Company the last years to minimize modder activity and the promises they haven't honored to us. I'm not gonna say more, I could tell you about specific conversations with specific members in the London conference before a few yrs, but I won't because of NDA.
I may sound a bit obnoxious, but I'm aware of many things many of you here can't imagine about the war certain company members declared the last yrs against the most famous and favorite modders and other friendly to modders company members. I guess a time will come when we could speak freely about all these dark, hidden (but known to many) secrets.

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

really strong reply to points made. Have you ever considered politics?I don't hate the game. I hate what CA has done with it. Or more acurate: has failed to do with it. I have actually got a lot of hours into it (all modded offcours, and 95% of it before the Empire Divided update that ruined everything).I just like to understand why people call this game now "good", while it clearly isnt. The updates are poorly thought out. The old issues of poor AI remain. The new content isnt balanced or properly done.Or I like people to tell me that I am the only one having issues with a terrible passive AI, diplomatic spam, empty cities, boring politics and I have somehow have been playing wrong, like I pressed a button I shouldnt have.

I have not, actually. But I might after your suggestion! Nowadays, I'd be a shoe-on! Perhaps I should run on a f***k CA platform?
But nice attempt at condescension. I can tell it's your thing. I'm sure it may even work sometimes. Though, you've gone to the well with that one a bit too much. Change it up a little bit. Some of your shtick is getting played out.

I'm not in this to reply to any points made, really. In fact, I think you make a lot of good points. I don't disagree with you on many of them. I just see a member constantly spazzing out ad nauseam, and I wanted to bring this to their attention. You seem to be under the impression everybody that responds to your posts wants a big to-do. Not the case here, sorry darling.

Thanks for clarifying your position, though. Luckily for me, all the mods that I play still get at least somewhat regularly updated, so I simply don't feel as passionately as you may on this subject. Ta-ta.

PS: I'm sure you'll come back with some sort of insulting or dismissive response, but like most of your posts, it will fall on deaf ears and into oblivion.

[Daruwind]

Not an experiment at all.
It's a very much needed feature (extremely important for faction's survival) and we're doing it for ages in DEI.

True indeed and it is prime example how such small one digit change can easily affect whole game. I think half problems in TWs is usually about balancing a few digits...It is by no mean easy task. :-)

I'm usually not into extreme, bashing but I mostly agree with this post. It seems like many people forgetting the thousands of messages and the immense pleads from modders to CA the last 5 yrs for proper AI,family tree, modding tools,specific map tools, more testing before each release etc.The list goes on for pages and now after 5 yrs we're starting taking a few things that should be in the release day 1. Should we be grateful for that ? I think not. We certainly deserve more for our support and the love we're showing to the series all these years. Not crambs after 5 years. Most of the latest changes and implementations of Rome 2 are clearly ideas take from modders (plainly) and still they did it wrong cause many of the features are still incomplete or not working as designed. If they had better a communication team (like before) most issues could have been solve already.

Anyway most people are not aware of the ''behind the scene'' actions taken from the Company the last years to minimize modder activity and the promises they haven't honored to us. I'm not gonna say more, I could tell you about specific conversations with specific members in the London conference before a few yrs, but I won't because of NDA.
I may sound a bit obnoxious, but I'm aware of many things many of you here can't imagine about the war certain company members declared the last yrs against the most famous and favorite modders and other friendly to modders company members. I guess a time will come when we could speak freely about all these dark, hidden (but known to many) secrets.

I cannot comment on background info and such. But merely looking at game. Original release was disaster mainly to bad PR mistakes. After that with all 20 patches games is much better. Not perfect, never will be. By my optics for judging the new DLCs is simple. Is it adding and pushing game forward? Is game at least partially better than year ago? I believe honestly answer to both question is yes. After all this new content is mostly for people still playing, still happy with game. People who already left due to any reason probably won´t be coming back just for one DLC...Basically no amount of content will ever fix the release disaster as CA have to sell things. Prime example is Ancestral Patch being quite large and RotR being not such extensive DLC. I´m perfectly fined with that even knowing that for my money and buying others free patch. Without RotR there would not be any Ancestral patch at all... Still I agree with you ♔Greek Strategos♔ that there is a lot to fix and improve :-)

[Lifthrasir]

Please stay on topic Gents. Some posts are getting too personal and you don't really want me to interfer any further in this thread, do you?

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

True indeed and it is prime example how such small one digit change can easily affect whole game. I think half problems in TWs is usually about balancing a few digits...It is by no mean easy task. :-)

Sometimes the most simple tweaks are hard to implement and other times simple edits change the whole game's performance, indeed.

I cannot comment on background info and such. But merely looking at game. Original release was disaster mainly to bad PR mistakes. After that with all 20 patches games is much better. Not perfect, never will be. By my optics for judging the new DLCs is simple. Is it adding and pushing game forward? Is game at least partially better than year ago? I believe honestly answer to both question is yes. After all this new content is mostly for people still playing, still happy with game. People who already left due to any reason probably won´t be coming back just for one DLC...Basically no amount of content will ever fix the release disaster as CA have to sell things. Prime example is Ancestral Patch being quite large and RotR being not such extensive DLC. I´m perfectly fined with that even knowing that for my money and buying others free patch. Without RotR there would not be any Ancestral patch at all... Still I agree with you ♔Greek Strategos♔ that there is a lot to fix and improve :-)

Agreed. After 20+ plus patches the game is playable at last, after 5 yrs. Are we really satisfied from a 5yr old game and it's course through the yrs? were your expectations met as a fan and as a modder ? because people fail to understand that modders have a much deeper knowledge of the game's mechanics and as a result have higher expectations from the company they support.

I have very high standards tbh, so I'm not pleased. I'm not happy that after 5yrs I can't play the vanilla game without mods, I'm not happy we haven't received the much promised tools we eagerly waiting for so long, I'm not happy because I know that the game could have been much better since 2-3yrs ago, but the company got lazy and greedy. Each to his own though. I'm not trying to proselytize you or forcefully share my opinion about CA's policy and general performance. I'm just stating the facts I'm well aware of. As a modder, I want the best for the game and as a fan I want the best for the series, but when I'm not taking what I have paid for, I'm entitled to criticize and share my opinion, right ?

Anyway there is no need repeating myself, as I believe you got my point about the aforementioned matter. I'm not a hater ofc. I'm just a critic with good intentions and love for the series. I'm quite experienced on the gaming field though, so I'm not falling for advertisement and PR tricks from any company, not only from CA.

Cheers

[Daruwind]

Agreed. After 20+ plus patches the game is playable at last, after 5 yrs. Are we really satisfied from a 5yr old game and it's course through the yrs? were your expectations met as a fan and as a modder ? because people fail to understand that modders have a much deeper knowledge of the game's mechanics and as a result have higher expectations from the company they support.

I have very high standards tbh, so I'm not pleased. I'm not happy that after 5yrs I can't play the vanilla game without mods, I'm not happy we haven't received the much promised tools we eagerly waiting for so long, I'm not happy because I know that the game could have been much better since 2-3yrs ago, but the company got lazy and greedy. Each to his own though. I'm not trying to proselytize you or forcefully share my opinion about CA's policy and general performance. I'm just stating the facts I'm well aware of. As a modder, I want the best for the game and as a fan I want the best for the series, but when I'm not taking what I have paid for, I'm entitled to criticize and share my opinion, right ?

Anyway there is no need repeating myself, as I believe you got my point about the aforementioned matter. I'm not a hater ofc. I'm just a critic with good intentions and love for the series. I'm quite experienced on the gaming field though, so I'm not falling for advertisement and PR tricks from any company, not only from CA.

Cheers

I honestly like anybody with constructive critique :-) It is way more pleasant discussion even if we disagree on something.

You are completely right that R2 could have been way more further both for players and modders. And that it is somewhat flustrating to underastand especially as a modder how much more we could have with a little more tools, help... But due to CA´s ed up with R2 release the game will probably never catch up completely still kudos to CA that they even try to return after so long time. Looking at many other companies like EA...Mass effect, Battlefront 2... Many will never forgive, forget but what about people still playing? Looking at number of players,mods..R2 is still active, many people play it, I alone have 1700 hours in R2. (Shogun 2 - 1200, Attila - 1000, Wh1 - 1300, Wh2 - 250...yep waiting to have all possible content) With so many hours. Is 60,100 bucks with all DLCs enough for so many fun?

And as a super slow and lazy modders. Looking at things people are able to script with Whs, looking at how similar the structure is...i believe a lot things is still possible to do even in current state without more tools. I spend 5 years cracking building slots and at least crack it for WH and maybe for R2 later as well. :-)

Everything could be better. But then if the game would be trully dead, we probably would not even be talking here about it. Games are dead when nobody plays them, nobody talks...and yet here we are after Attila,ToB,WH1+2 and still talking about R2. :-)

EDIT: We should probably move to new topic I have no more idea what to say and not to repeat ourselves.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

And as a super slow and lazy modders. Looking at things people are able to script with Whs, looking at how similar the structure is...i believe a lot things is still possible to do even in current state without more tools. I spend 5 years cracking building slots and at least crack it for WH and maybe for R2 later as well. :-)

Your work with building slots is surely appreciated.

Everything could be better. But then if the game would be trully dead, we probably would not even be talking here about it. Games are dead when nobody plays them, nobody talks...and yet here we are after Attila,ToB,WH1+2 and still talking about R2. :-)

Agreed. But I also believe if not for modders and the loyal supporters-lovers of antiquity the game would probably be another Attila.

EDIT: We should probably move to new topic I have no more idea what to say and not to repeat ourselves.

Yep. Plenty of other interesting matters to discuss.