Of course, that does not excuse bad AI. One of the interesting things about AI in general is that some of the hardest items to program are some of the easiest for humans to manage – i.e., pathing. We humans have no problem walking in the direction we want to go, even if our destination is abstract, but it’s a bitch to program that kind of thing into an AI routine.

Nonetheless, it can be done, and shame on the Creative Assembly for still failing to do it after all these years.

One thing they could have done (and didn’t do much in Medieval) is boost the competency of the AI separate from the resource difficulty. If you want tactically strong AI for battles – set that to “Insanely good”, while you might select a different level of AI for the campaign map if you want an easier time out of battle – maybe just “Moderate”. Spelling out that “Moderate” does X, Y and Z less often thus is easier, is a good way to go about it.

I’d love an AI interface where I could choose to enable and disable specific things (especially if you ever have allied armies, or 3 way battles). This would reveal the layers that the AI can achieve.

For a turn based map game though, there is also the longer term possibility of making the AI more efficient as the game goes on – so early leaders can get knocked out, but later on do gain a bigger foothold and put up more resistance.

Lots of possibilities, I don’t think AI was a major focus of this development, but I have seen some stuff from the developer saying it’s improved – no doubt navel warfare drastically upped the amount of work, all things considered.

I’ve still not played it, will do soon! (or maybe leave it until there is even more patches, heh)

Thank you for your input about multiplayer. I have not tried it in ETW, but I would expect it to be tactically challenging when playing against human opponents. Although I like multiplayer gaming, I prefer single player in my TW games, mostly because they grand campaign map is usually such a delight. Maybe I’ll give it a try.

I didn’t see much variation in line infantry, save for a few points of accuracy and reloading skill here and there. In most of these cases, however, it was simply a case of “one is clearly better than the other, though slightly more expensive,” and so there was little reason to take anything but the best available, as long as I had some artillery, some cavalry, and some infantry. M2TW seemed to do a better job of giving me significant decisions about which infantry to use (i.e., berserkers with little armor but superb melee skills vs. pikeman), while ETW just encourages me to have 14 of the same type of line infantry.

When I invaded India and was able to make V.O.C. Infantry, their stats were identical to my line infantry’s. They just wore different uniforms and had a different name–hardly thrilling.

Andrew–
I’m sure making a competitive AI is a daunting challenge for any development team. Sure, they could do it with a gigantic amount of money and resources, but even SEGA must kneel before budgets and time restrictions. Still, after five TW games, I expect some improvement, especially in the pathfinding.

The AI doesn’t need to match the best human opponents so much as just avoid doing anything overtly stupid (like exposing its general to cannon fire or allowing me to flank it in every battle). It would be better if it could also play more aggressively and surprise me every once in a while, but perhaps my expectations are too high. Since I’m not an AI programmer, I have no idea; that’s why I pay people to make my games for me.

As for the campaign map, I was completely disheartened by the AI’s extreme passivity. Even when I declared war on Spain, they sent one large army my way, and after I destroyed it, I successfully sued for peace. Spain! While such cowardly AI is regrettable, I would caution any future AI programmers against the easy solution, which is simply making all AI countries “hate” the human player. Again, making the AI function well in any diplomacy model must be difficult, otherwise we’d already have a game with great diplomacy.

There are issues with Steam as well, for the multiplayer you need to select server download, so its regional. In the past ( ie RTW & MTW2) multiplayer has been international. Line infantry does have variation in accuracy and melee ability and the multiplayer is tactically challenging with ranking and so on. Steam does facilitate player communication well, in game at least, so coordination is actually easier. In multiplayer organisation and timing become important.

I miss the ability to retreat in multiplayer, having to watch your men die when the cause is obviously lost and I feel bad about having to gun down opponents soldiers because they cannot surrender, part of fighting battles should be about minimising casualties. It feels dishonourable.

I however want to above all support the single player turn/real time strategy genre. There never was a million of them compared to action games, and so when they appear most of the time they’re very enjoyable and well worth sinking a dozen hours easily into, if not more.

I still never got too far in my Medieval 2 game though…I hope that I can get through this one (or perhaps I should go back to M2TW later…)

As for your accusation regarding murder, here you are:

1) When you say, “murder teenage girls,” you mean “terminate the makers of the would-be generals of our enemies.”

2) Those girls weren’t just wandering the meadow sucking on lollipops and cooing at butterflies; they were forging alliances with my enemies, sleeping with them, and trying to marry MY GENERALS. If they’re going to poke the bear with a stick, then they shouldn’t be surprised when they find themselves missing a few key arteries.

3) My assassins needed practice. Not so much in the act of killing so much as in the act of sneaking through their guard and in disposal of any evidence that could trace the killing to my nation.

4) War is hell.

So pfffft.