AnimeSuki Forums

Hooves · 2011-01-17, 17:13

Just finished watching how they plan to make the AI in Shogun Total War 2 work and I must say for myself, that it works out in itself. We no longer have the simple-minded AI that attacks 1 side of the wall/fortress like we did in Medieval Total War 2 and Rome Total War. They also use the forest to a good use (from what I saw) well basically they plan to make the AI more.... Complicated to predict then games like Napoleon Total War, and Empire Total War in terms of using ranged people.

Siege AI besides attacking more then 1 side of the wall is a little more cautious of advancing. Since they tend to take towers that shoot at their men first before proceeding to take your base. Overall I like it.

SoldierOfDarkness · 2011-01-17, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

How about Total War: China?

The Three Kingdom period is something the japanese adore about the most in Chinese history and it also has its fair share of river battles as well (Battle of Red cliff).

However, I think CA might stick with Shogun, Rome, Medieval, and Empire eras.

Quote:

Just finished watching how they plan to make the AI in Shogun Total War 2 work and I must say for myself, that it works out in itself. We no longer have the simple-minded AI that attacks 1 side of the wall/fortress like we did in Medieval Total War 2 and Rome Total War. They also use the forest to a good use (from what I saw) well basically they plan to make the AI more.... Complicated to predict then games like Napoleon Total War, and Empire Total War in terms of using ranged people.

Siege AI besides attacking more then 1 side of the wall is a little more cautious of advancing. Since they tend to take towers that shoot at their men first before proceeding to take your base. Overall I like it.

Some would disagree with you but the only way to go is up and there have been improvements. Can't wait to see all of this carried over to Rome.

Hooves · 2011-01-17, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Some would disagree with you but the only way to go is up and there have been improvements. Can't wait to see all of this carried over to Rome.

I could understand fully if people disagree with me, but I myself find the AI development to casually increase with every new Total War game that has released. (Well... Empire Total War and Napoleon Total War were nothing really in terms of improvement..) but just seeing this video is giving me hope that the creators are actually making the AI worth a challenge in strategy. But that is just battles... Now to see how the campaign functions..

yezhanquan · 2011-01-17, 19:43

I'm probably asking for the moon, but imagine campaign functions ala Europa Universalis III? On another note, CA should have support like that. 4 expansions? Awesome (even if it's by bits and pieces).

David Watts · 2011-01-17, 23:58

Have they made any videos showing how the game looks?

Hooves · 2011-01-18, 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

Have they made any videos showing how the game looks?

If you want to see battles involved with the looks, I can provide you battle scenes, but there has been nothing about how the campaign will look like yet.

lightbringer · 2011-01-18, 07:03

You can see the campaign map partially in that ninja assassination video, among others.

Hooves · 2011-01-18, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightbringer

You can see the campaign map partially in that ninja assassination video, among others.

Well they are sneak peaks at how the campaign map looks overall, but I was interested in seeing how the campaign will function.

lightbringer · 2011-01-19, 07:13

You can see many of the new functions, like experience points and such, in this video.

Hooves · 2011-01-19, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightbringer

You can see many of the new functions, like experience points and such, in this video.

Arigatou for the video

Love that they are keeping the "Empire-Total War" Diplomacy system instead of sending out Diplomats that take hours to finally reach their destination, as well as the naval combat. Also love that MMO feeling of experience points on your generals that make them more valuable now instead of just there for boosting morale.

David Watts · 2011-01-19, 21:46

well it looks great
though i liked how you moved your people about in the first game

lightbringer · 2011-01-20, 14:33

I liked the "paper scroll", board-game kind of feeling of the original map also, but they are definitely making progress on the campaign map. Now if only they would be as committed to post-release support, I would have nothing to complain about.

Hooves, generals are useful for more than just boosting morale. A charge from a general unit at the right time from the right angle can make the entire enemy line break up and flee. But personalizing them with experience where you pick the specialization is definitely cool... kind of reminds me of Civ IV. They just need to stay alive long enough for this to matter. I am hoping for at least the option of four turns per year.

Kaze · 2011-01-20, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hooves

Just finished watching how they plan to make the AI in Shogun Total War 2 work and I must say for myself, that it works out in itself. We no longer have the simple-minded AI that attacks 1 side of the wall/fortress like we did in Medieval Total War 2 and Rome Total War. They also use the forest to a good use (from what I saw) well basically they plan to make the AI more.... Complicated to predict then games like Napoleon Total War, and Empire Total War in terms of using ranged people.

Siege AI besides attacking more then 1 side of the wall is a little more cautious of advancing. Since they tend to take towers that shoot at their men first before proceeding to take your base. Overall I like it.

Woah, where did you see this?
Got a link somewhere?

Looking forward to see the AI get improved.

Empire and Napoleon total war was total war alright, especially if EVERY god damn AI in the GAME declares war on you for NO reason

I mean, I was playing as the Knights of St. John (Malta) and even INDIA and the friggin' NATIVES in Canada were declaring war on me.

Hooves · 2011-01-20, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaze

Woah, where did you see this?
Got a link somewhere?

Looking forward to see the AI get improved.

I've only seen how they improve in a battle and siege type of situation, not sure on the diplomacy yet. I don't believe they ever show how the AI works in trailers based on campaign diplomacy dont they? If you want to see a siege and a battlefield video on how they plan to make the AI play as, then I can provide one.

Quote:

Empire and Napoleon total war was total war alright, especially if EVERY god damn AI in the GAME declares war on you for NO reason

I mean, I was playing as the Knights of St. John (Malta) and even INDIA and the friggin' NATIVES in Canada were declaring war on me.

Well atleast not specifically "all" the AI are declaring war at you all at once

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightbringer

Hooves, generals are useful for more than just boosting morale. A charge from a general unit at the right time from the right angle can make the entire enemy line break up and flee. But personalizing them with experience where you pick the specialization is definitely cool... kind of reminds me of Civ IV. They just need to stay alive long enough for this to matter. I am hoping for at least the option of four turns per year.

I was referring to how they used generals during Empire and Napoleon Total War where they are completely useless compared to what the generals were like during Rome and Medieval 2 Total War. I'm going to guess generals are back at top strength like they used to again? But since generals are going to be more valuable then what they used to in all Total War games. I'm probably going to take the defensive when I decide what to do with my general.

lightbringer · 2011-01-20, 20:05

Gunpowder will be marginal, at least in the initial stages, so I'm guessing a heavy cavalry charge from a general unit will be serious business like it was in Rome/M2. Come to think of it, in Empire I don't remember using generals all that much, especially since I had to autoresolve so often due to my poor hardware lol.

Hooves · 2011-01-29, 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaze

Woah, where did you see this?
Got a link somewhere?

Looking forward to see the AI get improved.

Empire and Napoleon total war was total war alright, especially if EVERY god damn AI in the GAME declares war on you for NO reason

I mean, I was playing as the Knights of St. John (Malta) and even INDIA and the friggin' NATIVES in Canada were declaring war on me.

I think I can explain the AI diplomacy in Rome, Medieval 2, Empire, and Napoleon, but not quite sure if I can explain on Medieval, and Shogun. But here goes

Spoiler for Rome + Medieval 2:

I'm not quite sure on Rome Total War, but I think it's similar to Medieval Total War 2 without the chivalry rating of being "Reliable" or "Trustworthy" and such.

Medieval Total War 2's AI Diplomacy has serious issues honestly, when you are beating on a country with only leaving them with one settlement and barely no army. When they request a ceasefire, they demand you give back the settlements that you took from them.. Honestly that is something that your average country would not do against a superior power. There is also the thing about when the AI is at war with you and you are getting beaten, you can find absolutely no way to persuade the AI to stop their war against you unless you pay some "major heavy" debt... Of course this might be reasonable for hostile AIs that are set to have ambition goals, but countries that just want to live peacefully are out of the question.

There is also the difficulty of the campaign that can really set off diplomacy.
Easy = AI will think less of the player and fight other AIs
Normal = AI will take player and other AIs as an equal
Hard = AI will take somewhat-high priority over the player then other AIs
Very Hard = AI will do whatever it takes to hate the player then other AIs

So in terms of Very Hard campaign difficulty, your relations with a country like Egypt who you have almost no conflict with will turn from "reasonable" to "very poor" in a matter of 15 turns into the game. Honestly I find Hard more challenging then Very Hard end-game. The AI is more set on military then their economy in Very Hard that's why they are very hostile early and have huge armies early on, but if you look at their cities they are somewhat poor. On Hard, the AI atleast has some dignity in economy terms and tries to balance them out.. But the "reasonable" to "very poor" atleast takes 23 turns instead of 15 turns. So if you can survive the mass army that the AI produces in Very Hard, then you are basically invincible with superior technology and cities then they are.

Having trade with other countries can set something off as well, for example if Hungary is at war with the Holy Roman Empire, and you are trading with both, then either one of the sides will eventually attack you after a certain amount of time and relation points that have deteriorated, but canceling the trade agreement will make your standing in the game from "Mixed" to "Dubious" possibly, but I don't mind this and just go with trading with everyone that offers... Nothing to really consider, besides if you refuse to trade with one country then they will go to war with you eventually.

Your standing in the game is also crucial, if you are "Trustworthy" then you will not see that much trouble, but the AI will still consider you a target. But if you are "Dubious" then you are basically going to war with everyone in the game to be honest..

If you want better AI diplomacy, then you will have to download a mod in order to do that. A good mod in mind would be Stainless Steel, but that is just a recommendation if you hate the diplomacy in Medieval 2.

Spoiler for Empire + Napoleon:

Empire Total War atleast fixed some issues, but the campaign difficulty is still sorta prioritized and highly-considered now instead of deteriorating over time. For example, you are slowly expanding your Empire and take 5-6 settlements in a set of turns, "all" the other factions will slowly have a -negative relation with you with each settlement you conquer. They will think of you as an ambition overlord that is trying to dominate the world, and can clearly see this on how fast you expand. But the campaign difficulty takes into effect.

Easy = AI will not really care about what you do
Normal = AI will think of you as an equal
Hard = AI will take "some" priority over your conquests, and your current relation with them.
Very Hard = AI will look for all possible chances to have a negative relation with you.

So in Very Hard, the more settlements you take, the faster the -territorial expansion negative influence increases. You can be completely neutral with Great Britain, but then when you take 5 settlements and you have no business with them. They will instantly turn "hostile" towards you with atleast -50 relation from territorial expansion alone. It may not be that fast, it probably is like -5 for each settlement but you can understand my point yes?

So Kaze, were you in a powerful state when those native countries went to war against you? If so then other countries who were like the natives will also do the same and eventually gang up on you because of how fast you expanded. Of course waiting for the negative relation to go down is just pretty impossible, I caught onto this and was able to maintain 8 alliances with France, Spain, Great Britain, Venice, Bavaria, Wurttemburg, Rhineland, and Poland-Lithuania as Austria for 38 turns and expanding on the Prussians and Ottomans. How stubborn is the AI difference between Medieval and Empire? None! They are still completely stubborn about stopping a war, I was giving Prussia some serious damages by taking all their major cities (then they moved against Poland) and when I took all the big cities from them and demanded peace, they refused. So they actually want to die that badly and stick to war with you for a very long time unless you just keep sending gifts which don't really help.

Napoleon Total War is pretty good... Of course not as expansionist as Empire Total War, but atleast you wont get backstabbed easily, and you can make protectorates who will follow you till the end. But have to pay them some heavy fines to actually get them to go to war with your current enemies.

Atleast they fixed the slow deterioration from trading, and the AI doesn't mind if you trade with their enemies.

Sadly there are no AI diplomacy changing mods like in Medieval 2, so you will have to live with it.

So all we can hope for is if they can fix the stubborn AI from Medieval 2 and Empire... But everything else is pretty set.

SoldierOfDarkness · 2011-01-30, 01:12

Iin Empire actually if you expanded piece by piece then the expansion penalty will not be as severe.

The penalty decreases over time so if you just captured the one province and held onto it, eventually the penalty will decrease.

There are ways around it and in some cases it depends on your faction and what's happening as well. If you want a more regular campaign then Normal is a bit more tame.

Hooves · 2011-01-30, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Iin Empire actually if you expanded piece by piece then the expansion penalty will not be as severe.

The penalty decreases over time so if you just captured the one province and held onto it, eventually the penalty will decrease.

There are ways around it and in some cases it depends on your faction and what's happening as well. If you want a more regular campaign then Normal is a bit more tame.

Well either way, the expansion penalty will eventually increase as your ambition and power grows over the game, and you'll find yourself hostile with everyone. But if you want to take things very slowly and wait till the penalty is down then you won't make the time limit if you are playing a long campaign.

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.

Hooves · 2011-01-31, 17:04

You practically nailed the entire AI and diplomacy issue Irenicus

2011-01-17, 19:43	Link #44
yezhanquan Observer/Bookman wannabe Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Singapore Age: 38	I'm probably asking for the moon, but imagine campaign functions ala Europa Universalis III? On another note, CA should have support like that. 4 expansions? Awesome (even if it's by bits and pieces). __________________

2011-01-17, 23:58	Link #45
David Watts Stay Free Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Texas Age: 32	Have they made any videos showing how the game looks? __________________ But go easy... Step lightly... Stay free...

2011-01-19, 21:46	Link #51
David Watts Stay Free Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Texas Age: 32	well it looks great though i liked how you moved your people about in the first game __________________ But go easy... Step lightly... Stay free...

2011-01-18, 07:03	Link #47
lightbringer M9000 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: SBC Gurokken	You can see the campaign map partially in that ninja assassination video, among others.

2011-01-19, 07:13	Link #49
lightbringer M9000 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: SBC Gurokken	You can see many of the new functions, like experience points and such, in this video.

2011-01-20, 14:33	Link #52
lightbringer M9000 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: SBC Gurokken	I liked the "paper scroll", board-game kind of feeling of the original map also, but they are definitely making progress on the campaign map. Now if only they would be as committed to post-release support, I would have nothing to complain about. Hooves, generals are useful for more than just boosting morale. A charge from a general unit at the right time from the right angle can make the entire enemy line break up and flee. But personalizing them with experience where you pick the specialization is definitely cool... kind of reminds me of Civ IV. They just need to stay alive long enough for this to matter. I am hoping for at least the option of four turns per year.

2011-01-20, 20:05	Link #55
lightbringer M9000 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: SBC Gurokken	Gunpowder will be marginal, at least in the initial stages, so I'm guessing a heavy cavalry charge from a general unit will be serious business like it was in Rome/M2. Come to think of it, in Empire I don't remember using generals all that much, especially since I had to autoresolve so often due to my poor hardware lol.

2011-01-30, 01:12	Link #57
SoldierOfDarkness The Dark Knight Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think? Age: 38	Iin Empire actually if you expanded piece by piece then the expansion penalty will not be as severe. The penalty decreases over time so if you just captured the one province and held onto it, eventually the penalty will decrease. There are ways around it and in some cases it depends on your faction and what's happening as well. If you want a more regular campaign then Normal is a bit more tame.

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.