AI playing by entirely different rules is unacceptable

[Hector of Troy]

Firstly, let me just say the first game I ever played and loved was Rome 1.

That said, I have 17 games currently installed and none is a Total war. Moreover, Attila was the last purchase I made from the franchise.

Why? Because I started playing other grand strategy tittles with a much better AI and care for the game.

As original as they are, even battles in TW games are archaic and outdated. Literally all RTS games on the market will allow the players to automate troops if they want, not forcing them to babysit every single unit on the battlefield.

But when you read reviews saying the AI is in 2023 still biased towards the human player, and that the AI play by entirely different rules and game mechanics, not revolting, not starving, not trading or forming alliances with other AI factions and pursuing victory, not factoring resources at all, then it´s just too much.

I will just repeat what many have already been saying for a long time, CA: your games deserve better than this. A lot better.

[JimmyTheSnake]

Okay.

[Berserk Breton]

Each to their own, I guess. For me, making units autonomous so you "don't have to play" is absolutely the very last thing they should be looking at imo. If there was a list of 100 things they need to fix (and there is that) making units manage themselves probably wouldn't make the list

That's RTS fare, and the Total War battlefield is not RTS, it's RTT. It makes some sense to cut out the tactical gameplay in an RTS where your goals are resource management, base building etc and you might be "generally pointing in the direction" for attacks so you can concentrate on the other stuff.

In tactical gameplay things like formation, position, posture, moving to objectives etc are the point of the gameplay, not a side-issue. So it only makes sense for units to be changing these things on their own under very specific circumstances - like routing, breaking or charging due to poor discipline.

Whether it's the current year or not makes no difference. Managing units isn't an inconvenience in TW battles it's the gameplay.


Just my 2c. Completely respect that you see it differently.

[Hector of Troy]

For me, micromanaging 20/40 units on the battlefield is chaos. And it´s not that I don´t know all the tricks to minimize the burden, I simply dislike it.

As I said, all games with RTS battles give players the option to automate troops, it´s an inclusive measure that makes everyone happy.

Take Hearts of Iron 4 as a good example. If you choose, you can draw battleplans and let the AI execute your strategy. You can also draw lines for your infantry and only micro tanks or whatever you choose, or you can micromanage everything.

I for one wouldn´t have more than 500 hours playing HoI4 if it were not for automation. And many player think like I do.

As for TW, there is clearly an audience who despise microing the whole thing, otherwise you wouldn´t see modders trying to "fix" this issue.

[chopper [FD]]

You are talking about two different issues. 1) having the AI play the battle for you based on some pre-defined input and 2) the AI factions get buffs to public order, upkeep and production, diplomacy, etc.

Well, for point 1), the appeal of TW is the battle system and for the most part you only have to worry about 20 units. There is already an option to have the AI control reinforcing units if you don't want to deal with more than 20 units. Simply put, the battle is not designed with automation in mind, beyond simple things like chained commands, drawing a path for a unit, and setting guard/skirmish behavior.

For point 2), I agree that it's disappointing how the AI gets buffs that completely invalidate game mechanics. For example, I would never pick a trait that reduces public order in enemy provinces since I usually play on VH. Forcing a rebellion in the enemy province is just not a viable mechanic for higher diff levels. There are other mechanics impacted.

[Hector of Troy]

There is no such thing as battles were not designed with automation in mind, This is CA´s choice.

In fact, you could automate troops in Medieval 2, It was just awful. Instead of improving this feature, CA chose to abandon it.

[chopper [FD]]

Originally posted by Hector of Troy:

There is no such thing as battles were not designed with automation in mind, This is CA´s choice.

In fact, you could automate troops in Medieval 2, It was just awful. Instead of improving this feature, CA chose to abandon it.

That's what I meant to say. The lack of automation is by design because people enjoy playing it like a fast paced RTP with unit micro. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[Hector of Troy]

Wrong. You enjoy playing like this. Not everybody.

[Hector of Troy]

Here: a 5 stars mod for Three Kingdoms: AI Commanders - Let the AI lead your men to battle! 1.6 (with new gameplay video)

[chopper [FD]]

The AI taking control of some/all of your units was a feature in Rome 2 and it's still a feature in newer games for reinforcing armies.
There you go, you can also use mods. What is the issue then?

[Vlad the >Implyer]

Originally posted by Hector of Troy:

As I said, all games with RTS battles give players the option to automate troops, it´s an inclusive measure that makes everyone happy.

Can you please give me an example because I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I've never seen an RTS (thinking here of AoE, C&S, Warcraft etc) where I would describe units as "automated".

BTW, and I genuinely don't know, since when does HoI have RTS battles!? :D

[Hector of Troy]

An important feature shouldn´t depend on mods.

Mods aren´t as good as regular features, mods get outdated, mods introduce bugs etc.

If what I consider an essencial feature depends on the effort of modders, chances are I won´t buy the game, just as I haven´t bought any TW games in a long time for this and some other reasons as well.

[Hector of Troy]

Hearts of Iron 4 is an example, I just said it.

Hearts of Iron has had RTS battles since always.

[Vlad the >Implyer]

Originally posted by Hector of Troy:

Hearts of Iron 4 is an example, I just said it.

Unless I'm GRAVELY mistaken HoI does not have tactical battles (last HoI I played was 2 but I'm still pretty sure it's just moving divisions :D).

Originally posted by Hector of Troy:

Hearts of Iron has had RTS battles since always.

Dude that's being so generous with the term "RTS" that it's bordering on dishonesty :D

[Hector of Troy]

It´s not only moving divisions. You make encirclements using tanks, make naval invasions etc.

I suggest you watch a youtube video.

[Hector of Troy]

You are bordering on ridiculousness.

And I will stop it here, man. Not interested to stay locked forevever in this thread talking to CA fanboys.

My message to CA has been sent, in case any CA representative reads this forum.