Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I guess this was the only way they were able to make the dumb AI harder to beat.
Player gets slight advantages on Normal, and the AI gets slight advantages on Hard.
Or try Normal for campaign difficulty, and Hard for battles. That is probably the most balanced in terms of "cheats."
Just remember, the AI clans are not other players in the game: they are the game 😉
You aren't really being cheated in the true sense of the word. You are just setting a challenge for yourself. If you don't like that kind of challenge, i.e. your intellect and actual intelligence (not scripts) versus heavy numbers or great odds, then just lower the difficulty, and/or use mods.
In Rome 1 you could assassinate every, we'll say Gaul, general and then the faction would "die" and become rebel and then you'd have an easier time taking regions because rebels rarely leave. I think Creative Assembly figured out this trick because you can't do it anymore. In Shogun 2 i've killed Daimyo's in the lone region a clan has left, then put the town under siege and ended turn...only to have a brand new Daimyo pop up in the town.
In Rome: Barbarian Invasions i actually lost the campaign because i was so bankrupt and in the red (destroyed a bunch of outlying towns and moved all the armies so instead of being spread out i was more together...didn't work out for me). You can't bankrupt an AI clan/family/country to the point that they "lose" or go rebel. I've even tested it in multiple games. In Shogun 2 with the Shimazu against the Shoni, they had 1 city, they had no trade with anyone, i killed every agent, i killed every general, i sabotaged farms and ports, and every building i could...and still every turn a brand new Daimyo and all buildings repaired, and they still managed to field a full stack army.
In both instances i could easily cry "cheat" but at the same time i was smart enough to think of such things whereas the AI isn't and can't.
If you would play any competition and you let the people know you were playing by diffrent rules they would all say you were cheating, because that is basicly the deffinition and having a computer AI do it does not change this.
This is not to hate on the Total War francise as every single RTS game does this when it comes to difficulty changes.
I think your post should remind people that, while we are quick to say the ai has "cheats," the human players are reluctant to admit that we do stuff all the time called "exploiting" 😆
If players didn't exploit or cheese so much, it's debatable whether devs would feel they have to make scripts for things like spawning daimyo.
The agents used to be very prone to exploiting in the earlier games too. People would just keep reloading saves till they got the outcome they wanted from an agent.
Just the fact that the player can save scum is huge, when we think about it. Save scumming is actually the biggest cheat there is. Just imagine in poker if every time you got dealt a bad hand or didn't fold when you should have, you could just tell every one at the table, "OK that didn't work like I thought...lets everyone show what they had and do it over, for real this time." 😄
Some players will still say that the older games were more realistic or something because you had the freedom to do these kinds of strategies, but that's bs.
I don't see how just killing a daimyo or general should leave an entire region suddenly empty of all leadership: how is that realistic? There are like 6,000 fighters and samurai in an area but not more than 1 of them can assume command after a commander is assassinated? That seems contrived, not the alternative scenario where a new character assumes leadership three months (i.e. 1 turn) later.
But again, the ai is not different players playing the game: the ai is the game itself.
You are the only player in sp, which is why it's called "single player."
And again, to be consistent, we'd have to allow the ai the cheats the human gets, like save scumming.
Even allowing for that, nothing can change the fact that the human is an actual intelligent actor, and the ai is a set of scripts.
Scripts can't be cunning or use abstract and non linear thinking. They can't think at all.
Like I've said before, the higher difficulties are for people who want to negate some of the huge advantages they have as a human.
If someone doesn't feel that way, just lower the difficulty.
In some videos its called a handicap, in others cheating. You like to trow it on a intellectuel thing. Any one calling it cheating is dumb and can not seem to handle the harder difficulties, or understand why the AI gets the advantages. Well I am not sure about the other posters but I play them all on very hard or legendary, either way it will be maxed, and I am fully aware why these advantages are in place and gladly accept them, infact in many of my Total War games it is modded so they are even bigger.
But you are still playing against a opponent, whether that is a human player or a ai there are rules. Sure you can say that because its a computer and it was coded this way to counter all the advantages the "human" player has that it is not cheating as it is in the game and its how its designed. But the average Joe will always call it cheating.
However, gaming wise I completly agree. I always found it very boring in the previous games and sometimes even very anoying especially when a faction commits scuicide by using their last leader terribly
Ah, the ol' "cheating verses harder difficulty" argument. I guess in a philosophical way one could argue that the AI cheating IS technically making the game more difficult but I guess it comes down to personal view and that the AI could be both "cheating" and simply a "harder difficulty" it just depends on the person really.
For me personally i guess i fall on the cheating side as opposed to simply being more difficult mostly because in my experience so often designers are kind of lazy and the only way to make a game more difficult is to kinda cheat. I played a lot of Halo 4, especially the co-op missions because 1) they were fun 2) you earned XP without having to play multiplayer and 3) i didn't have to deal with the cheaters in multiplayer. I noticed that at higher difficulties instead of the game being more challenging the game just got stupid (aka "kinda cheaty"). The player runs around with armor, a shield, and a machine gun but the lowest ai enemy-with a pistol-can 1 shot kill your shield and with the second shot kill you, while it takes you still 1/2 a clip to kill him with a machine gun. Technically yes it's higher difficulty, but i didn't feel challenged, it felt really, really stupid. Any game where a pistol beats an assault rifle is dumb.
When it comes to Shogun 2 there are plenty of things i find annoying but outside of the rare max level agent being killed by a level 1 new recruit, or the decimation of a full stack with Daimyo, Heir, and General that's instantly replaced the next turn by a full stack with Daimyo, Heir, and General i can't claim there's too much "cheating" by the AI.
Well if you really want to call it cheating that's fine. It doesn't really matter.
The point is, when you ask "why does the ai have to cheat?" or something of the sort, you're just asking why the ai has to have advantages or buffs relative to the player.
All I'm saying is that:
1) the ai gets buffs buffs because the human already has buffs, by virtue of actually being a conscious actor and being able to manipulate the game itself, like through save scumming, and,
2) If you don't want the ai to have such buffs, just lower the difficulty or use mods.
People ask if the ai has cheats/buffs/whatever; then they ask why; then they get perturbed when someone explains why.
Doesn't make sense to me. Or am I missing something here?
If you had to deal with ai buffs/cheats, then I could see where people would get irritated; I could also see a cause for irritation if, on the higher difficulties, the ai tactics got better but it came alongside buffs. In that case, a perfectly justified critique would be: "why can't CA make it to where I can play against the more cunning ai level, but not have to deal with its buffs?"
But none of that is the case. You don't have to play the game on higher difficulties, and you don't lose any ai tactical ability or strategic behavior by lowering the difficulty.
So why not just lower the difficulty?
And you won't be vac banned for using mods that remove the ai buffs or bias against the player (like the no RD mods), so why not use mods?
If you want the Shogun 2 ai to "play fair," set it to N/N or maybe E/N or N/H, then use mods to taste: mission accomplished.
It's like people want to play and beat the game on vanilla Legendary, knowing what that means, then complain about how they are on vanilla Legendary.
Like I said, I just don't get the frustration.