Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Your Updated Rome 2 in a Nutshell

Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users



I know it's great that Rome 2 is being patched with new content especially in the campaign area. But seeing this problem still exist, then what's the point of adding new campaign features if 80% of your campaign game play is playing land battles with the AI and this mostly the result of it? It's quite irrelevant if you ask me, and it's not enough for a paid DLC which only adds so little to the base game.

So what's the point of praising these devs? They didn't fix anything. Sure there is this new politics and stuff, but that's it? That still not enough, it's still the same concept. They just revamped the Politics UI and lets you decide to become an empire in the late game. Haven't they even thought of importing some features from Attila? Like family tree, unit formations, etc? I thought they said they wanted re address on what they think was missing with Rome 2? After so many years, this is the only thing they came up with? A lackluster politics update? How about fixing the AI? Adding more battle formations that we have never experienced before in TW series? Optimizing the game just like in Warhammer? More diplomatic actions like in Europ Universalis?

I'm gonna say it again, and again. I have not experienced this kind of terrible AI since Rome1/Medieval2. If CA's going to add features, they should at least fix their own mess with it.
«1

Comments

  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,724Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    I have played 3000 hours Rome II and the land battles are not 80 % of the time bugged.

    The AI is superior in every aspect to RTW and Med II.
  • Tenerife_BoyTenerife_Boy Member Posts: 338Registered Users
    I agree with everything you said here, but they won't fix that, they don't care about what community REALLY wants.
    This PP patch is awesome and sure, they heard us, but it's just 1/10 of what we need. Maybe they have future patches for us to come (don't keep your expectations high), who knows?

  • Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    You've read that out of context. I said playing a campaign are 80%land battles, however, playing land battles with the AI are mostly bugged. I hope I cleared that one for you. And no I'm not lying I've been testing Rome 1 and Rome 2's AI countless of times when it was launched because I was so frustrated of how Rome 2 turned out. And yes, when you are playing a campaign this was always the result of Siege battle in Rome. It's been like that since launched, and after a couple of years, tried it once again with the politics update the AI is still exactly like this. So before you accuse me of lying, make sure you are actually testing the game, not fanboy playing.

    I'm not saying Rome 1 has perfect AI, it is not and it also has some annoying bugs. But Rome 2's AI is just worse. At least Rome 1's AI is quite sensible to play against imo.


    Edit: Nice of you to edit out of accusing me of lying from you first post.
    Post edited by Machete1234 on
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,724Registered Users
    You are talking nonsense. I have played Rome II 3000 hours. It reacts better to players actions than Rome I /Med II ever could. Especially sieges have improved much since launch.

  • Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users
    edited November 2017

    You are talking nonsense. I have played Rome II 3000 hours. It reacts better to players actions than Rome I /Med II ever could. Especially sieges have improved much since launch.

    Yep. I can see your rose tinted glasses from here. Siege AI might improved a bit since launched, but it still not better than Rome 1/ Med 2's siege AI. And if you think that Siege AI is "improved". Judging from the picture above, I'm guessing you don't actually know what improve means.


    Actually I don't really care on how many hours you've played Rome 2. It doesn't really give any sense, other than you exposing yourself of being an extremist fanboy.
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,724Registered Users
    edited November 2017


    If i look on your screenshot and seeing another unit walking to another gate (yellow marked), you assumption( siege army doinh nothing) is obviously wrong. ;) Nothing more needed to say.
  • Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users



    If i look on your screenshot and seeing another unit walking to another gate (yellow marked), you assumption( siege army doinh nothing) is obviously wrong. ;) Nothing more needed to say.

    Just to prove the fact that you are doing this for the sake of arguing. That unit barely made it into the walls, they just sit behind the walls and get wrecked by tower arrows. Im sorry but arguing with you is a pure waste of time, from all I have said above and this the only thing you keep on grinding to.

    I think showing you a video as proof would still not be enough for your pace.
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,724Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    Hm, hard to believe as the AI have always FOUR siege ladders. So i believe, its pushing one of the other two siege ladders to the wall.

    And in one of five Rome TW sieges the AI doesen´t do anything and got mowed down by the towers. ;)
  • Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users

    Hm, hard to believe as the AI have always FOUR siege ladders. So i believe, its pushing one of the other two siege ladders to the wall.

    And in one of five Rome TW sieges the AI doesen´t do anything and got mowed down by the towers. ;)

    Look closely again. All four ladders are within the red circles near the wall. You can see 2 ladders already burnt down.

    So are you still gonna grind your way through this argument?
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 15,855Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Take it easy folks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • Tenerife_BoyTenerife_Boy Member Posts: 338Registered Users
    Sieges are **** in every single total war game. That's why I prefer non walled settlements sieges, cause AI attacks way far better.

  • Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users
    edited November 2017

    Sieges are **** in every single total war game. That's why I prefer non walled settlements sieges, cause AI attacks way far better.

    I still experience an AI keeps running back and forth (at least 1 to 2 units) inside a settlement without walls. And that's from my recent Rome 2 campaign.


    One thing I can only say a better TW Siege AI, is Warhammer. Sieges might only be limited to one side, but damn that's a very well implemented siege AI there.
  • Tenerife_BoyTenerife_Boy Member Posts: 338Registered Users
    No, that's a lazy way to pretend to show you fixed sieges, when you clearly don't.

  • thereign83thereign83 Junior Member Posts: 100Registered Users
    Dude I made a whole thread about how bad the AI still is, I raised the question of why wasn't the expansion just released for Attila where the AI isn't ****.
    Cant stop the Reign :cool:
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 13,337Registered Users
    I can give you screenshots and replays with buggy AI behaviour from pretty much every single TW title, so this shows exactly zilch.

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    That looks like a nav mesh problem. The AI isn't doing that.
  • Machete1234Machete1234 Posts: 11Registered Users

    I can give you screenshots and replays with buggy AI behaviour from pretty much every single TW title, so this shows exactly zilch.

    This shows that you didn't really give time to understand my point.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 565Registered Users
    Warhammer sieges are a big improvement in my opinion. Ca did a good job there. The siege ai and pathfinding in Rome 2 sieges is just horrible and unplayable. I really hope they can fix this. This has been adressed many times over the years.
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Posts: 370Registered Users
    edited November 2017


    Siege AI might improved a bit since launched, but it still not better ...
    if you think that Siege AI is "improved". Judging from the picture above, I'm guessing you don't actually know what improve means.

    If you think it might be improved but is definitely not better, couldn't your accusation of "not knowing what improve means" be levelled right back at you? Probably best not to go down that road.

    The results we get from AI behaviour/navigation on the battlefield have certainly, definitely "improved" since the game launched. This shouldn't be a controversial statement to make, for anyone who played the game since its release.

    Certainly it could be improved further, I don't think anyone would dispute that, but to go down the road of saying it's not better is a bit much. As is citing M2's siege AI.

    I look forward to seeing the improved siege AI from warhammer in a history title (if not the one wall prefab settlements! :) ) but I question whether it will work quite so well when
    1. the "single direction of attack" concept is removed and
    2. map complexity intensifies (this is really the main problem that makes it bug out, I am sure of it after playing the series, you can see the opposition's battlefield brainfarts correlating with map complexity almost every time)

    ..both of which must be the case for historical settlements.

    I think if we want really great siege AI performance we and CA are going to have to accept lots of prefabs, that is fewer more rigorously tested parts for settlements, and I can almost hear the bitter complaints about that (along the lines of the OP) before it happens.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 280Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    Warhammer sieges are a big improvement in my opinion. Ca did a good job there. The siege ai and pathfinding in Rome 2 sieges is just horrible and unplayable. I really hope they can fix this. This has been adressed many times over the years.

    absolutely wrong!
    The siege AI is quite good in Rome 2 and i had a 40 Minutes Siege just yesterday where the AI hold every single jokepoint of its settlement quite confidently.
    In certain circumstances it may be a little buggy when the AI Attacks but i take that every time over the dumbed down and boring sieges in Warhammer.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 565Registered Users
    Jackless said:

    LESAMA said:

    Warhammer sieges are a big improvement in my opinion. Ca did a good job there. The siege ai and pathfinding in Rome 2 sieges is just horrible and unplayable. I really hope they can fix this. This has been adressed many times over the years.

    absolutely wrong!
    The siege AI is quite good in Rome 2 and i had a 40 Minutes Siege just yesterday where the AI hold every single jokepoint of its settlement quite confidently.
    In certain circumstances it may be a little buggy when the AI Attacks but i take that every time over the dumbed down and boring sieges in Warhammer.
    Wrong... Did you notice the blobing on the walls? In warhammer this doesn't happen. Rome 2 is just one big mess on the walls with nothing remotely interesting happening. Just look at the play through. Even ca seems bored during sieges. I've played since total war since the first shogun. Kind of a veteran... warhammer on the other hand has wider walls with better manouverabilty. Siege ai attacking on multiple fronts and has pathfinding working.
  • AkrotiriAkrotiri Senior Member Hellenic RepublicPosts: 873Registered Users
    So sick and tired of these Borehammer fans invading the historical forums and trying to divide us. We like both Attila and Rome2 and their both better games than the fantasy crap.
    "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks"
    -Winston Churchill , after the Greek victory against fascist Italy during WW2.
    explorechios.gr
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 280Registered Users
    LESAMA said:


    Wrong... Did you notice the blobing on the walls? In warhammer this doesn't happen. Rome 2 is just one big mess on the walls with nothing remotely interesting happening. Just look at the play through. Even ca seems bored during sieges. I've played since total war since the first shogun. Kind of a veteran... warhammer on the other hand has wider walls with better manouverabilty. Siege ai attacking on multiple fronts and has pathfinding working.

    yes that blobing is due to the narrow walls but the actual Siege AI isnt bad at all. If you take the Barbaian settlements for example where the walls are only on the outside the AI behaves much better.
    Although the enemy ai had a full stack in the settlement there was no blobbing at all.

    The Problem with Warhammer is that theres only a rush for the walls, cheesing your army in between the towers and once your on the wall the fight is over. Although the AI tends to leave half its army standing outside and getting shot to pieces by the towers.
    In Rome 2 you continue fighting through the city (the actual city and not just the boring looking part of it thats playable) and you have to secure the towers because they can shoot inside the city.

    With Warhammer they approached the problem from the wrong direction.
    Instead of making minor adjustments to walls and streets and expanding the existing AI pathfinding and decision making system they decided to reduce the complexity of everything else to make the AI "look" better.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 565Registered Users
    Wasn't this exactly what sieges are all about? Once you conquer the walls you win? I agree that the ai does dumb things and that cav just stands idle and get's shot up. But Infantry, art and archers do what they have to do in my opinion. In rome2 the same happens but pathfinding and blobing are far worse. I do agree that street battles lack in warhammer and that Rome 2 had more of those. Wish they could fix the pathfinding and blobing. The let's play was not very convincing.
  • amitchell22amitchell22 Senior Member Posts: 146Registered Users
    Akrotiri said:

    So sick and tired of these Borehammer fans invading the historical forums and trying to divide us. We like both Attila and Rome2 and their both better games than the fantasy crap.


    LOL what a bizarre comment. I own every Total War title with the exception of the Warhammer games, simply because I don't like Warhammer.

    No one is dividing anyone. The truth is that Rome II was unfinished and they didn't want to put the time and energy into fixing it. Attila was a $40 mod to Rome II + all of the DLC I purchased. The sieges are a mess.

    There isn't a single battle I have fought in Rome II or Attila that came close to the fun Rome 1 was.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 280Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    Wasn't this exactly what sieges are all about? Once you conquer the walls you win? I agree that the ai does dumb things and that cav just stands idle and get's shot up. But Infantry, art and archers do what they have to do in my opinion. In rome2 the same happens but pathfinding and blobing are far worse. I do agree that street battles lack in warhammer and that Rome 2 had more of those. Wish they could fix the pathfinding and blobing. The let's play was not very convincing.

    yes thats correct but it isnt really interesting and engaging gameplay when the fight starts and ends on the walls.
    I think the blobbing in Rome 2 could be fixed by making the walls and streets wider.
    And to be fair it was the player in the livestream that put half his army onto the walls in the same place^^

    But the problem in Rome 2 isnt the Battle AI imo but the campaign AI that constantly surrenders its cities to your legions.

    To me the Gameplay was also not really convincing, the fights in Rome 2 dont have the same feeling of weight and impact than Warhammers.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 565Registered Users
    I'm not a programmer but iT sounds logic to me that wider streets and walls Should help. Point is that nothing has been done about iT. Which means the problems with the sieges still exist. I really would have liked ca to have looked from different perspectives in how to further develop Rome. Adding stuff is great like they do with the story element And dilemma's. Also the updated skill tree helps to create more overview and meaningfull choices but on performance part ca seems to have choosen to let things stay as they are. I guess I hoped to also see Some improvements here.
  • hanesdavhanesdav Posts: 543Registered Users
    I also believe that battle AI is much better in Rome 2 than in Rome 1/Medieval 2. AI was Medieval's only issue meanwhile Rome 1 had many problems.

    Campaign map is completely unbalanced. Barbarian long campaigns are badly done because of their limited building chains. It is impossible to hold many cities because of big populations. Happiness buildings with full garrisons don't not work even with some civilised factions. Rebellions will kick your army out of the city with no reason and you will have to siege your own city with full stack and all of their units have golden experience points. The most interesting is that this army is mostly under control of previous owner of that city.

    Field battle AI is also much better in Rome 2 meanwhile siege AI has problems in both games. Defensive AI is good in both games but attacking is not. Attacking AI in Rome 2 is terrible but it can do some sneaky attacks and win. Attacking AI in Rome 1 is really great but it often refused to attack the settlements. This is game breaking because I have to attack full stack with few peasants and militia units. Something similar can happen in normal field battle but that is rare.

    Rome 2 was buggy mess at launch but now it is much better game than the firtst RTW even without power and politics. Rome 2 has better graphics, better campaign balance, much more units and balanced rosters, superior diplomacy, every faction can become superpower, AI overall feels smarter.
  • petertel123petertel123 Junior Member Posts: 704Registered Users
    One thing I liked better about r1/m2 was the palisade walls, those allowed the AI to more easily make breaches in other places than the gate with boiling oil
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Dark Elves
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 3,748Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    Jackless said:

    LESAMA said:

    Warhammer sieges are a big improvement in my opinion. Ca did a good job there. The siege ai and pathfinding in Rome 2 sieges is just horrible and unplayable. I really hope they can fix this. This has been adressed many times over the years.

    absolutely wrong!
    The siege AI is quite good in Rome 2 and i had a 40 Minutes Siege just yesterday where the AI hold every single jokepoint of its settlement quite confidently.
    In certain circumstances it may be a little buggy when the AI Attacks but i take that every time over the dumbed down and boring sieges in Warhammer.
    Wrong... Did you notice the blobing on the walls? In warhammer this doesn't happen. Rome 2 is just one big mess on the walls with nothing remotely interesting happening. Just look at the play through. Even ca seems bored during sieges. I've played since total war since the first shogun. Kind of a veteran... warhammer on the other hand has wider walls with better manouverabilty. Siege ai attacking on multiple fronts and has pathfinding working.
    Exactly, well said.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.