AnimeSuki Forum - View Single Post

Irenicus · 2011-01-31, 03:40

I know there are algorithms involved that could be made sense of if you really try. But honestly now, the weakest point in Total War games have always been the AI and the Diplomacy. They're always, always inexcusably flawed.

I mean, I've known that Firaxis fans complain about Civilization AI at Deity level and Paradox fans complain about AI in Paradox games, but they're just bitching in comparison to Total War's Campaign AI and Diplomacy.

The original Shogun, ironically enough, was the least hampered by this issue. A game simulating 19th century Europe needs working diplomacy -- an era of great powers mean an era of the balance of powers, and what balance of powers means is that every conflict must be followed by negotiations, interventions, resolution of conflicting interests. A surrendered Paris doesn't mean Germany could just declare France its protectorate. Demands made through battlefield triumphs were regularly moderated when fellow great powers raised their objections. Empire Total War didn't even try. On the other hand, the Sengoku Era -- admittedly with its own intricacies not simulated in Shogun -- was one which, at least, if you really did crush your enemy beneath your steel-clad feet, take his head, send his armies running and burn his castle-towns, sure you won. Now keep what you have and guard it against the next challenger.

Which means that a flawed diplomacy whereby a trusted AI ally backstabs you at first opportunity isn't so horribly off-putting, because that's what the warlords of the Sengoku really did. The nation-states of the 19th century played a very very different game, so when Russia declares on your weak little Prussia at the start of turn 1 and the British gangs you up immersion is irrecoverably lost (the real case would have been the Royal Navy bombarding St. Petersburg and then negotiating a status quo ante bellum; like, oh, the real life Crimean War). Every other Total War game is set in the times between these two extremes, and the campaign AI generally failed in all of them.

Battle AI, yeah it's flawed, but that's where tangible improvements are much easier to make, and the spectacular graphics helped.

2011-01-31, 03:40	Link #59
Irenicus Le fou, c'est moi Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA Age: 34	I know there are algorithms involved that could be made sense of if you really try. But honestly now, the weakest point in Total War games have always been the AI and the Diplomacy. They're always, always inexcusably flawed. I mean, I've known that Firaxis fans complain about Civilization AI at Deity level and Paradox fans complain about AI in Paradox games, but they're just bitching in comparison to Total War's Campaign AI and Diplomacy. The original Shogun, ironically enough, was the least hampered by this issue. A game simulating 19th century Europe needs working diplomacy -- an era of great powers mean an era of the balance of powers, and what balance of powers means is that every conflict must be followed by negotiations, interventions, resolution of conflicting interests. A surrendered Paris doesn't mean Germany could just declare France its protectorate. Demands made through battlefield triumphs were regularly moderated when fellow great powers raised their objections. Empire Total War didn't even try. On the other hand, the Sengoku Era -- admittedly with its own intricacies not simulated in Shogun -- was one which, at least, if you really did crush your enemy beneath your steel-clad feet, take his head, send his armies running and burn his castle-towns, sure you won. Now keep what you have and guard it against the next challenger. Which means that a flawed diplomacy whereby a trusted AI ally backstabs you at first opportunity isn't so horribly off-putting, because that's what the warlords of the Sengoku really did. The nation-states of the 19th century played a very very different game, so when Russia declares on your weak little Prussia at the start of turn 1 and the British gangs you up immersion is irrecoverably lost (the real case would have been the Royal Navy bombarding St. Petersburg and then negotiating a status quo ante bellum; like, oh, the real life Crimean War). Every other Total War game is set in the times between these two extremes, and the campaign AI generally failed in all of them. Battle AI, yeah it's flawed, but that's where tangible improvements are much easier to make, and the spectacular graphics helped.