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

The Karak Grudge

DerpCatDerpCat Registered Users Posts: 448
edited June 2016 in General Discussion
Now that we all have had our fair share of warhammer i would like to bring something, up. I think we can all agreed that one way or another sieges are not what we wanted them to be. But beyond the mechanics themselves do you like the aesthetics of the karaks? Do you like the way they are designed almost as a reskined empire city on a hollowed out mountain? The weird lighting? The total disregard from actual lore karaks? Share your thoughts please.

PS: Remember this is really a matter of taste rather than whos right or wrong

Comments

  • MrRaTmAnMrRaTmAn Registered Users Posts: 181
    edited June 2016
    No, I don't like them in terms of gameplay. And I'll straight ou laugh at anybody who says otherwise. They are joke under the mountain, that's it. In fact, every siege in this game is a damn joke. I'm really sad to say that, because, damn, this game is so much fun. It still have so much potential with all the DLCs. Decision on making such thing with sieges is one big disappointment. A straigh-out disgrace to all TW fans and new customers.
    Simply - a lazy decision from the devs.

    I mean, they even were saying in some "making of series" (or something like this, I don't remember, sorry) that sieges in this game will be revolutionary. Every faction will have it's own set of unique defence mechanism. And some year/s later, we got a plain field with a wall.
    My heart broke a little.


    In terms of aesthetics? That's even worse. Because, man, these maps are so beautiful! Imperium/Vampires castles are 10/10, simple as that. But even Karaks, though as you said, not very lore-friendly, have their own style and in fact are very nice to look at. Props in these maps are just great. They have their own feel throughout the whole set (mix of Lotr Dwarven shapes with a bit of style from WH dwarfs), the texture work is great, modelling is also top-notch. Even some FPS's have less detail.
    And it hurts even more because of that. I'm myself a (starting) freelance artist, and I can really appreciate work put into the models, textures and whatnot.
    But map work in sieges, especially Karaks? It's quite okay in terms of pure aesthetics. But it's Grungnis awful in terms of gameplay. It really is. I'm a hobbyist mapper, and I was making maps to alot of games in spare time (Third Age included, heh). And (without showing off) I think that even I could make it better with all these props available in-game.

    Rant is over, thank you for reading.

    PS.
    CA, pls, plsss, give us better sieges. Stop acting like you're above everyone else in this forum. We're all humans guys. All we want is a fair treating and as much fun time as possible :confused:

    Or hire me as a mapper. I'll work for free!
    Post edited by MrRaTmAn on
    ca pls fix
  • WatsiroWatsiro Registered Users Posts: 2
    I have no idea how these things would work, but would it be possible to stat a petition for the developers to release mod tools for the cities?

    People have done ridiculously good stuff so far with what are essentially reskins and a bit of number tweaking, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they came out with those unique sieges for every faction within a month.
  • AetaosRauKeresAetaosRauKeres Registered Users Posts: 327
    edited June 2016
    best sieges in TW since rome 1.... until I realized how to exploit the AI, until i realized how stupid the AI is. Good ol unlimited morale town square, on the other hand the unit that was first on the wall will be wiped out.
    I for my part cant understand the praise of old sieges. Every siege was just 2 stacks and autoresolve.
    Oh i forgot, the epic scale... yeah. I conquered rome a city with 1 million people with an army of 2000 guys. Yes...
    or the epic 20min bombardment phase or the epic i dont defend the walls at all.

    Nostalgia has clouded your minds.

    Are the sieges "epic" now? no, but i think they are better.
    Now you defend the walls as long as possible.
    Now, you actually have bowman on the wall
    Now, you are making a last stand on the square after the walls have been lost.

    But the most important part.... The AI is better in sieges. CA has dumped down the possibilites so the AI cant be exploited to easily
    Why do you think you could burn down the gate house with a torch? Historical? No, the AI was incapable, the devs had to give the AI a way to breach the walls. Unfortuanly they also put in hot oil in the gatehouse.... back to the exploit

    As for aesthetics... well dwafren towns look dwarfen to me.
    Luckily they didnt put real dwarfen holds in the game. Have fun attacking that.
  • MrRaTmAnMrRaTmAn Registered Users Posts: 181
    edited June 2016
    Old sieges were not that good either, nobody said that here yet.
    The thing is, their problem was not in the map design, which was mostly okay, but AI - what it means, you still could have fun playing with real players. And it WAS real fun most of the time giving the right company.
    What's fun with current sieges, AI or player? You basically derp whole round looking at guys smashing each other on the walls. Any tactical maneuver within the actual city almost never happens, just because of the silly size of it.

    AI is not better either, and that's real shame. Instead of actually making both better AI AND even better maps (or at least okay as they were), devs took a very short route and made worse maps that play good with old AI.
    Yeah, great. Think about it for a while.

    It's quit sad actually. I mean, some part of this game have so much passion put into it. The artwork, the concept, the actual working things. And then there's stuff like this. I know that even if some dev is reading this he most probably won't response to this, but I really wonder if these decisions were made by them or publisher. In case of latter - I feel sorry for your team guys.
    ca pls fix
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,793
    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • DerpCatDerpCat Registered Users Posts: 448

    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Are the karaks as good as they could be? No
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,793
    DerpCat said:

    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Are the karaks as good as they could be? No
    That's a redundant question, it would fall under my second question.

    Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks.

    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • DerpCatDerpCat Registered Users Posts: 448
    edited June 2016

    DerpCat said:

    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Are the karaks as good as they could be? No
    That's a redundant question, it would fall under my second question.

    Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks.

    Are the karaks nowhere near as good as they can be? yes
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,793
    DerpCat said:

    DerpCat said:

    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Are the karaks as good as they could be? No
    That's a redundant question, it would fall under my second question.

    Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks.

    Are the karaks nowhere near as good as they can be? yes
    Another redundant question.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,257
    They look amazing on the campaign map. Something more a-kin to those would be better.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • DerpCatDerpCat Registered Users Posts: 448
    edited June 2016

    DerpCat said:

    DerpCat said:

    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Are the karaks as good as they could be? No
    That's a redundant question, it would fall under my second question.

    Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks.

    Are the karaks nowhere near as good as they can be? yes
    Another redundant question.
    Another redundant statement. If CA could do better than they did they should improve, thats whats this thread is about, to see if people are happy enough with the karaks to see if they warrant a change, we got you opinion, thanks ... what you shouldnt perhaps do is try to look so smart, with statements like "Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks. " No offense but thats "no **** sherlock" right there, no one is asking for perfection only improvement, considerable improvement, we all know everything could be improved but not everything warrants improvement... big difference
  • DerpCatDerpCat Registered Users Posts: 448

    They look amazing on the campaign map. Something more a-kin to those would be better.

    Agreed
  • ImmaculateDeceptionImmaculateDeception Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,073
    Imagine that, another whine thread. So, what DO you like about this game Derpie?
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,793
    edited June 2016
    DerpCat said:

    DerpCat said:

    DerpCat said:

    Do I like karaks as they are now? Yes.
    Do I like karaks compared to some idealistic siege map in my head with perfect AI? No.
    Do I like karaks compared to what we've gotten in previous games? Yes.

    Are the karaks as good as they could be? No
    That's a redundant question, it would fall under my second question.

    Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks.

    Are the karaks nowhere near as good as they can be? yes
    Another redundant question.
    Another redundant statement. If CA could do better than they did they should improve, thats whats this thread is about, to see if people are happy enough with the karaks to see if they warrant a change, we got you opinion, thanks ... what you shouldnt perhaps do is try to look so smart, with statements like "Karaks could be better, but that can be said of everything, not only in this game, but in the world. It certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying karaks. " No offense but thats "no **** sherlock" right there, no one is asking for perfection only improvement, considerable improvement, we all know everything could be improved but not everything warrants improvement... big difference
    If you want to discuss with me then I'm more than happy to do that, but it has to be reasonable, not this insults mixed with points stuff. If you don't want to discuss with me then don't reply.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • SkollopSkollop Senior Member Behind you :ORegistered Users Posts: 3,291



    But the most important part.... The AI is better in sieges. CA has dumped down the possibilites so the AI cant be exploited to easily

    This is why I think the sieges are the best in TW so far.

    No, they are not as epic as they have been. No more having 40 units, scaling walls at the time, battles all over the map etc. No more layered defence like we saw in M2TW. But the battles are so much more fun when the AI can actually defend properly. If the enemy has a full stack inside a city, well you pretty much have to wait them out. Your superior numbers don't count if they can't all stand in the front line. The AI has learned about defence in depth, reinforcements, chokepoints and flanking. Sieges are so much more fun when it's not just a small Shogun 2 settlement where you can just kill all enemies with ranged units before you move in.
    Previously known as DenmarkRules
  • MrRaTmAnMrRaTmAn Registered Users Posts: 181



    But the most important part.... The AI is better in sieges. CA has dumped down the possibilites so the AI cant be exploited to easily

    This is why I think the sieges are the best in TW so far.

    No, they are not as epic as they have been. No more having 40 units, scaling walls at the time, battles all over the map etc. No more layered defence like we saw in M2TW. But the battles are so much more fun when the AI can actually defend properly. If the enemy has a full stack inside a city, well you pretty much have to wait them out. Your superior numbers don't count if they can't all stand in the front line. The AI has learned about defence in depth, reinforcements, chokepoints and flanking. Sieges are so much more fun when it's not just a small Shogun 2 settlement where you can just kill all enemies with ranged units before you move in.


    Once again, it just have to be said. AI is not better. I have seen the code for the AI in the modding tools. It's the same siege AI as it was since Rome. Devs just cheated by making the maps... well, I really don't want to sound like a ranting bugger, but they are simply brain-dead.
    You can't exploit AI, but guess what? In fact, you can't do anything on these maps that involves using your brain.
    You rush for the walls, and pretty much the whole rest od the round is watching these stupid mashpits on them. Nothing else. You can break through the gate, you can break through the walls, but AI doesn't care. It'll put one unit on each breach, and wait there till someone wins. Small maps make it look dynamic. It only gives you a immersion of AI thinking, but it's really not.
    This is NOT a good design. That's lazy work-around for poor AI.

    What's fun with that, really guys? At least in the past TWs you could have fun playing with actual people. How's it fun now, with one wall, empty outside, and city made from... 2 streets?
    It really could be better. It maybe even will be. But if people will just accept these poor decisions, cherrypicking the "good" things, we'll be stuck with things like this forever.

    And that's real shame. It's fun game, it really is. I have 200h put into it dammit, you cheeky little magical devs.
    The thing is, it's not about the things that could be better. It'a about things that SHOULD be better.
    ca pls fix
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,257
    edited June 2016
    MrRaTmAn said:



    But the most important part.... The AI is better in sieges. CA has dumped down the possibilites so the AI cant be exploited to easily

    This is why I think the sieges are the best in TW so far.

    No, they are not as epic as they have been. No more having 40 units, scaling walls at the time, battles all over the map etc. No more layered defence like we saw in M2TW. But the battles are so much more fun when the AI can actually defend properly. If the enemy has a full stack inside a city, well you pretty much have to wait them out. Your superior numbers don't count if they can't all stand in the front line. The AI has learned about defence in depth, reinforcements, chokepoints and flanking. Sieges are so much more fun when it's not just a small Shogun 2 settlement where you can just kill all enemies with ranged units before you move in.


    Once again, it just have to be said. AI is not better. I have seen the code for the AI in the modding tools. It's the same siege AI as it was since Rome. Devs just cheated by making the maps... well, I really don't want to sound like a ranting bugger, but they are simply brain-dead.
    You can't exploit AI, but guess what? In fact, you can't do anything on these maps that involves using your brain.
    You rush for the walls, and pretty much the whole rest od the round is watching these stupid mashpits on them. Nothing else. You can break through the gate, you can break through the walls, but AI doesn't care. It'll put one unit on each breach, and wait there till someone wins. Small maps make it look dynamic. It only gives you a immersion of AI thinking, but it's really not.
    This is NOT a good design. That's lazy work-around for poor AI.

    What's fun with that, really guys? At least in the past TWs you could have fun playing with actual people. How's it fun now, with one wall, empty outside, and city made from... 2 streets?
    It really could be better. It maybe even will be. But if people will just accept these poor decisions, cherrypicking the "good" things, we'll be stuck with things like this forever.

    And that's real shame. It's fun game, it really is. I have 200h put into it dammit, you cheeky little magical devs.
    The thing is, it's not about the things that could be better. It'a about things that SHOULD be better.
    I don't understand this argument. It's not just for the AI, it's for the player as well.

    Give me a 17 layer castle which takes 70 minutes to march armies through and I'll still pick 1 spot to choke-point and annihilate the enemy.

    At least this way makes me fight for the walls and look kickass without being 2 units of pikemen with ranged behind them creating AI sausages down a street somewhere.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • MrRaTmAnMrRaTmAn Registered Users Posts: 181
    edited June 2016



    MrRaTmAn said:



    But the most important part.... The AI is better in sieges. CA has dumped down the possibilites so the AI cant be exploited to easily

    This is why I think the sieges are the best in TW so far.

    No, they are not as epic as they have been. No more having 40 units, scaling walls at the time, battles all over the map etc. No more layered defence like we saw in M2TW. But the battles are so much more fun when the AI can actually defend properly. If the enemy has a full stack inside a city, well you pretty much have to wait them out. Your superior numbers don't count if they can't all stand in the front line. The AI has learned about defence in depth, reinforcements, chokepoints and flanking. Sieges are so much more fun when it's not just a small Shogun 2 settlement where you can just kill all enemies with ranged units before you move in.


    Once again, it just have to be said. AI is not better. I have seen the code for the AI in the modding tools. It's the same siege AI as it was since Rome. Devs just cheated by making the maps... well, I really don't want to sound like a ranting bugger, but they are simply brain-dead.
    You can't exploit AI, but guess what? In fact, you can't do anything on these maps that involves using your brain.
    You rush for the walls, and pretty much the whole rest od the round is watching these stupid mashpits on them. Nothing else. You can break through the gate, you can break through the walls, but AI doesn't care. It'll put one unit on each breach, and wait there till someone wins. Small maps make it look dynamic. It only gives you a immersion of AI thinking, but it's really not.
    This is NOT a good design. That's lazy work-around for poor AI.

    What's fun with that, really guys? At least in the past TWs you could have fun playing with actual people. How's it fun now, with one wall, empty outside, and city made from... 2 streets?
    It really could be better. It maybe even will be. But if people will just accept these poor decisions, cherrypicking the "good" things, we'll be stuck with things like this forever.

    And that's real shame. It's fun game, it really is. I have 200h put into it dammit, you cheeky little magical devs.
    The thing is, it's not about the things that could be better. It'a about things that SHOULD be better.
    I don't understand this argument. It's not just for the AI, it's for the player as well.

    Give me a 17 layer castle which takes 70 minutes to march armies through and I'll still pick 1 spot to choke-point and annihilate the enemy.

    At least this way makes me fight for the walls and look kickass without being 2 units of pikemen with ranged behind them creating AI sausages down a street somewhere.
    You. You would. That's the key. If you want to play like this, It's fine, It's your way.

    The thing is, not everyone like to play like this. And while past sieges provided fun for both of us, current ones give that oportunity only for players of your way. The ones like me and many others are stuck with something that's not fun to play.

    Btw. Your statement on making death-corridors is kinda invalid tbh. If you'd actually have a more complex design, you could be flanked from the other streets. Or you're talking about internat gates. Then nvm... but even in that case there would be a wall that most of the time could be breached.
    ca pls fix
  • DreadedNorwegianDreadedNorwegian Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,176
    Sieges sucks, we`ve said that for months now.
    Enig og tro til Dovre faller!
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,257
    MrRaTmAn said:






    MrRaTmAn said:



    But the most important part.... The AI is better in sieges. CA has dumped down the possibilites so the AI cant be exploited to easily

    This is why I think the sieges are the best in TW so far.

    No, they are not as epic as they have been. No more having 40 units, scaling walls at the time, battles all over the map etc. No more layered defence like we saw in M2TW. But the battles are so much more fun when the AI can actually defend properly. If the enemy has a full stack inside a city, well you pretty much have to wait them out. Your superior numbers don't count if they can't all stand in the front line. The AI has learned about defence in depth, reinforcements, chokepoints and flanking. Sieges are so much more fun when it's not just a small Shogun 2 settlement where you can just kill all enemies with ranged units before you move in.


    Once again, it just have to be said. AI is not better. I have seen the code for the AI in the modding tools. It's the same siege AI as it was since Rome. Devs just cheated by making the maps... well, I really don't want to sound like a ranting bugger, but they are simply brain-dead.
    You can't exploit AI, but guess what? In fact, you can't do anything on these maps that involves using your brain.
    You rush for the walls, and pretty much the whole rest od the round is watching these stupid mashpits on them. Nothing else. You can break through the gate, you can break through the walls, but AI doesn't care. It'll put one unit on each breach, and wait there till someone wins. Small maps make it look dynamic. It only gives you a immersion of AI thinking, but it's really not.
    This is NOT a good design. That's lazy work-around for poor AI.

    What's fun with that, really guys? At least in the past TWs you could have fun playing with actual people. How's it fun now, with one wall, empty outside, and city made from... 2 streets?
    It really could be better. It maybe even will be. But if people will just accept these poor decisions, cherrypicking the "good" things, we'll be stuck with things like this forever.

    And that's real shame. It's fun game, it really is. I have 200h put into it dammit, you cheeky little magical devs.
    The thing is, it's not about the things that could be better. It'a about things that SHOULD be better.
    I don't understand this argument. It's not just for the AI, it's for the player as well.

    Give me a 17 layer castle which takes 70 minutes to march armies through and I'll still pick 1 spot to choke-point and annihilate the enemy.

    At least this way makes me fight for the walls and look kickass without being 2 units of pikemen with ranged behind them creating AI sausages down a street somewhere.
    You. You would. That's the key. If you want to play like this, It's fine, It's your way.

    The thing is, not everyone like to play like this. And while past sieges provided fun for both of us, current ones give that oportunity only for players of your way. The ones like me and many others are stuck with something that's not fun to play.

    Btw. Your statement on making death-corridors is kinda invalid tbh. If you'd actually have a more complex design, you could be flanked from the other streets. Or you're talking about internat gates. Then nvm... but even in that case there would be a wall that most of the time could be breached.
    You don't think if they could make better AI they would?

    Seeing as it seems they can't, this is in fact the best solution.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,793
    That's the thing here; the siege AI is the limiting factor. MTW2's siege maps looked brilliant, but they were useless because the AI was useless. I never played siege battles there because they were simply awful.

    I get that people playing against each other can use the big sprawling maps, but the AI can't handle them. Realistically the best use of their time is to make the siege AI better and then to build siege maps as complex as it can handle.

    What could work is if they made a couple exclusive MP maps which allow for more tactics, but then people would whine about them not being in SP, and they can't say "Well, our siege AI can't handle them so you don't get them".
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • MrRaTmAnMrRaTmAn Registered Users Posts: 181
    edited June 2016
    That's exacly what I'm trying to say all along guys.

    AI is the main problem. They should've at least try to improve it. Just look at land battles - though still not perfect, AI is actually often at least pretending to act intelligently.
    If they tried, nobody would have to shrink sieges and change very formula of them. They took short route though, as I said. And that's just... sad. It really is.

    I mean, look, I know AI programming is not walki in the park, and requires a LOT of effort. But it has been 3 games already for the love of Vallya. 3 games with pretty much the same siege AI. With the last one pretty much giving up on fixing it, and instead giving us a field with a single wall, just for the AI to pretend like it know what its doing.
    It's really not right.



    ca pls fix
  • MemnonMemnon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 581
    Sige battle a bit broken-If You lose battle on walls-battle is over.Even if im keep 5 units to def square /flags they all run from battle in few seconds .Most of them full soldiers on units but lose morale and rout.
    Should be a bit improve this.And CA should a bit change Karaks for Dwarfs-now looks too similar to humans city...
  • DerpCatDerpCat Registered Users Posts: 448
    Guys pls remember that this thread is abut karak aesthetics, there are already tons of threads abut the sieges themselves
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Registered Users Posts: 1,725
    Yes I love the astethtics to them... they have depth and also some of them have many layers you know pits within the walls, mining shafts, lots of stunning background like the rest of the cities. They look amazing and also has great design gameplaywise with the Ai but thats off topic.

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,793
    MrRaTmAn said:

    That's exacly what I'm trying to say all along guys.

    AI is the main problem. They should've at least try to improve it. Just look at land battles - though still not perfect, AI is actually often at least pretending to act intelligently.
    If they tried, nobody would have to shrink sieges and change very formula of them. They took short route though, as I said. And that's just... sad. It really is.

    I mean, look, I know AI programming is not walki in the park, and requires a LOT of effort. But it has been 3 games already for the love of Vallya. 3 games with pretty much the same siege AI. With the last one pretty much giving up on fixing it, and instead giving us a field with a single wall, just for the AI to pretend like it know what its doing.
    It's really not right.

    Do we know that they've given up on it though? I find that hard to believe, I think it's just turning out to be trickier than the field battles. Hopefully the success of this game means they'll spend some proper money on the next games siege AI.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • MrRaTmAnMrRaTmAn Registered Users Posts: 181
    edited June 2016

    MrRaTmAn said:

    That's exacly what I'm trying to say all along guys.

    AI is the main problem. They should've at least try to improve it. Just look at land battles - though still not perfect, AI is actually often at least pretending to act intelligently.
    If they tried, nobody would have to shrink sieges and change very formula of them. They took short route though, as I said. And that's just... sad. It really is.

    I mean, look, I know AI programming is not walki in the park, and requires a LOT of effort. But it has been 3 games already for the love of Vallya. 3 games with pretty much the same siege AI. With the last one pretty much giving up on fixing it, and instead giving us a field with a single wall, just for the AI to pretend like it know what its doing.
    It's really not right.

    Do we know that they've given up on it though? I find that hard to believe, I think it's just turning out to be trickier than the field battles. Hopefully the success of this game means they'll spend some proper money on the next games siege AI.
    It's the same AI, really. I'm not getting this info out of my butt, there have been discussions about this already, even before release. And it have almost exacly the same behaviour as in Rome/Attila.
    But even if they tried to change it, they failed. Thing is, they probably didin't. Why would they change the whole formula of sieges if they did? There was no reason whatsoever. It really is suspicious when you think about it.

    I really hope for improvement either.
    ca pls fix
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,956
    Karaks are not what I envisioned. I'm ok with it though... I mean, I still have my fun. I'd be solidly in favor of CA enabling modders to alter maps though.

    That seems a good answer for everyone. Keep small maps that work with a restricted ai for most people, and enabled modded flights of fancy for the rest.

    Asking for AI improvements within this iteration in the total war series, sadly, is probably just wishful thinking.

    (Unrelated, but I loved the med 2 seige maps, even if the ai was junky).
Sign In or Register to comment.