M2TW: Kingdoms

[Ned]

C, IIRC, and you can check their readme's for confirmation, the "hang up" diplomacy is not a bug, but a feature introduced to eliminate what was thought to be a diplomacy bug, the details of which I don't recall at this point. I remember when it was introduced, it caused me enormous angst as I had used diplomacy to "defend" cities with diplomats. If an enemy were to attack a marginally defended city, I would just bribe the enemy stack into non existence. But that was no longer reliable after the diplomacy fix.

[Ned]

Another fix they introduced in patches was to reduce the power of wardogs. Prior to this, wardogs lead the charge in my games, rather than just mop up.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
C, IIRC, and you can check their readme's for confirmation, the "hang up" diplomacy is not a bug, but a feature introduced to eliminate what was thought to be a diplomacy bug, the details of which I don't recall at this point. I remember when it was introduced, it caused me enormous angst as I had used diplomacy to "defend" cities with diplomats. If an enemy were to attack a marginally defended city, I would just bribe the enemy stack into non existence. But that was no longer reliable after the diplomacy fix.

That's not a feature. If it is a feature, it's the worst designed feature I've ever seen. It basically eliminates any chance of real negotiations. Imagine if this was a "feature" in Civ - you make your proposal, and if the Civ doesn't agree to it, it refuses to speak with you for the rest of the turn. What the hell?

It also just doesn't make sense. You can talk to a Roman stack in Gaul, try to bribe them, and be refused - and then talk to a Roman stack in Mesopotamia, the same turn, and have them refuse to even speak to you because somehow they know that you tried to bribe some other trivial pile of men halfway across the Empire.

The new patch also introduced negatives to diplomacy if you diplomat fails to get a deal. Because he isn't allowed to negotiate anything, at all, ever, and because the "updated" AI almost always refuses cease-fires or alliances when they share a border with you (even if it's clear that they need to accept), you end up with a bunch of "undiplomatic" and "tactless" diplomats that couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag, while the AI somehow gets 5-6 star diplomats easily.

Anyone who think's that's a feature is certifiably insane.

But it wouldn't be the first time CA claimed something as a "feature" when it wasn't - when the save-load bug was discovered, and after CA finally acknowledged that it was real, they then insisted that it was, in fact, a "feature." Think about that - the AI forgets what happened throughout the rest of the game, abandons sieges and loses all diplomatic info, every time you save and load the game - and that's supposed to be a "feature." It took a few more months before they finally admitted that it was a bug, and finally got around to fixing it much later. That, my friends, is the definition of bull****.

You mention wardogs, and I'm glad you did - it reminds me of the first patch debacle with RTW. The first patch released contained only one fix - it rebalanced elephants. They later released a second patch (1.2) to deal with some other bugs. When they finally admitted that the save-load bug was, in fact, a bug, they then said that they couldn't do anything about it because they had already put out their "two patches" that they had intended.

Think about that - they decided that they would only support the game for two patches, one of which consisted only of a minor, minor tweak to elephant units. It clearly wasn't an issue of money, because when they finally relented after months of nagging from the online community, they did indeed put out another patch to fix the bug - and in the process, totally ****ed diplomacy and messed up phalanx combat too. At that point, they threw up their hands and said "new updates will come with the expansion." They left every regular RTW player with a fundamentally broken game, and demanded that anyone who wanted proper fixes get the expansion. But here's the real kicker - the expansion didn't fix anything. Sure, the save-load bug was still gone, but diplomacy remained retarded and phalanxes still don't work like they used to.

It's all absolute bull****, Ned, and this is coming for a guy that sincerely likes RTW - I'm playing a game right now, because despite how angry the developer makes me, despite how they repeatedly screw their customers, despite all the flaws in the game, the game can still be fun (though only when heavily, heavily modded). But that doesn't mean it's not still bull****.

For the love of God, everyone else here, don't buy games from this series. This makes the complaints against Civ3/PTW look tame and minor. The core philosophy behind the developers of RTW and MTW2 is one of "make a totally broken game, compel people to buy it for the nice graphics, and then ****ing laugh in their goddamn faces."

[MJW]

Wow, that's broken. Civ4 is 'just' imblanced (if you chose to abuse slavery).

[ChrisiusMaximus]

they did release a version of patch for the game after BI that did not require you to have BI installed, it was after the release of BI granted but to say you had to have BI to patch RTW is false !!!

I wont try to defend CA but i will say that I read the forums and see the tirade of crap the impatient ones post all over the forums about the patch being late etc etc etc. It is frustrating to wait for things but it never ceases to amaze me just how impatient people are these days.

I think RTW and M2TW are excellent games, despite the bugs so many rant on endlessly about ive had great fun with M2TW, I dont care whether these bugs exist or not or whether theyre features or not, I actually think CA are a good games developer and I believe they will and do continue to support their products.

The expansion looks interesting, I will probably get it but it will depend on my workload at the time.

[mactbone]

See the problem is that a game shouldn't need patches. You're supposed to be buying a working product. Any patch, whenever it comes is already late. The longer after the release it takes to fix is just more time that people are playing a beta that they had to pay for.

Fortunately for game developers we're all used to this and there people like you who will come a defend them by trying to argue that the patch is some great addition that we should all be thankful for.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

whatever ! only I aint trying to argue that the patch is some great addition that we should all be thankful for !

Or defening them! So your post is at best wrong at worst pointless.

[Wiglaf]

So your post is at best wrong at worst pointless.

You seem like an ass.

[Cyclotron]

All I'm trying to say is that people should seriously consider the history of the Total War series, its patches, its problems, and the history of its developers before buying M2TW. I have indeed had a lot of fun with RTW, though it does aggrevate me quite a bit.

RTW has a history of being profoundly broken in critical areas of gameplay. It's not up for debate - having the computer remember what it did between save periods is a crucial part of any game, and to ship a game with that serious error is unforgivable, especially when that error is at first denied and then claimed as a "feature," and then when, in the process of finally fixing the error, more errors are introduced.

I do not own M2TW, but from what I've read of the "shield bug" - a bug where shields actually make defense worse, rather than better, leads me to conclude that the developers have not changed their ways from the days of RTW. I think that their attitude and approach is profoundly disrespectful to their customers, and I don't think people should fund such sloppy and disrespectful work.

If you want to look at the history of the save-load bug and other critical problems with RTW and M2TW and conclude that the developers "support their customers" or that these critical game flaws are "features," so be it. I think it's obvious that this isn't true. As a RTW owner, I feel it's my duty to inform people that they are essentially buying a broken product when they purchase a Total War title. That doesn't mean it can't still be fun - you might decide that the game has enough redeeming qualities that the game critical flaws don't bother you that much. You can structure your game to avoid those flaws, by handicapping yourself, or (in the case of the save-load bug) playing for long periods of time so the game doesn't lose all its information that often. You should still be aware, however, that you are buying a broken product with a poor history of support and a long history of developer indifference and disrespect. It's ultimately your decision, but you should make an informed decision.

[Wiglaf]

Can someone explain to be the ramifications of the save/load bug?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
All I'm trying to say is that people should seriously consider the history of the Total War series, its patches, its problems, and the history of its developers before buying M2TW. I have indeed had a lot of fun with RTW, though it does aggrevate me quite a bit.

RTW has a history of being profoundly broken in critical areas of gameplay. It's not up for debate - having the computer remember what it did between save periods is a crucial part of any game, and to ship a game with that serious error is unforgivable, especially when that error is at first denied and then claimed as a "feature," and then when, in the process of finally fixing the error, more errors are introduced.

I do not own M2TW, but from what I've read of the "shield bug" - a bug where shields actually make defense worse, rather than better, leads me to conclude that the developers have not changed their ways from the days of RTW. I think that their attitude and approach is profoundly disrespectful to their customers, and I don't think people should fund such sloppy and disrespectful work.

If you want to look at the history of the save-load bug and other critical problems with RTW and M2TW and conclude that the developers "support their customers" or that these critical game flaws are "features," so be it. I think it's obvious that this isn't true. As a RTW owner, I feel it's my duty to inform people that they are essentially buying a broken product when they purchase a Total War title. That doesn't mean it can't still be fun - you might decide that the game has enough redeeming qualities that the game critical flaws don't bother you that much. You can structure your game to avoid those flaws, by handicapping yourself, or (in the case of the save-load bug) playing for long periods of time so the game doesn't lose all its information that often. You should still be aware, however, that you are buying a broken product with a poor history of support and a long history of developer indifference and disrespect. It's ultimately your decision, but you should make an informed decision.

QFT.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Can someone explain to be the ramifications of the save/load bug?

When you reloaded a saved game, certain information would not be recovered.

The AI would forget battle plans. If it was laying siege to a city, reloading the game would cause it to lift the siege and cause its armies to wander around for a while formulating a whole new battle plan. The result was very limited AI expansion - it was impossible for the AI to mount a real campaign against anyone, because every time you took a break all the AI players would forget what they were doing.

Thus, you (say, as the Romans) could expand over the course of 200 turns to be master of the western Mediterranean, but when you looked east you'd find that none of the eastern factions had really done anything; they would still be more or less in the same position as they were 200 turns ago, unable to make a sustained campaign because of recurrent memory wipe.

Aside from the obvious crippling effect it had on AI war and expansion, it could also be exploited indefinitely to keep the AI from taking your cities. Saving and reloading every turn would generally keep the AI too frazzled to do anything but wander around while you butchered them at your leisure.

The bug was worse for people with less time to play. If you played RTW in marathon sessions, it wasn't too noticable, though it would still hamper the AI to some degree. Those who played a few turns, saved, and quit would experience a virtually brain-dead AI opponent.

[Asmodean]

Well at least I didn't buy M2TW. I got it for christmas

But no.....I didn't know about the history of the franchise when I put it on my wishlist

Asmodean

[Skanky Burns]

Hmm. That explains why I could conquer the entire known world in RTW but after a certain point the other factions just stopped doing anything. I only have time to play a turn or two each night (I play all battles and do control almost all the known world).

[Cyclotron]

It's a rather insidious bug; to most, it simply appears that the AI is rather dumb and doesn't expand. It isn't immediately obvious that a bug is at work (as opposed to plain ol' stupid AI) until you happen to reload a game during a siege, and note that the computer inexplicably retreats. That's why CA was able to deny the bug existed for so long; it was difficult to ascertain the nature of the problem without deep knowledge of the game (i.e. source code), and the only people with that - the developers - opted to lie rather than attempting to find out what the problem was.

Once the bug is fixed, you can immediately tell the difference - the AI is far more aggressive and intelligent on the strategy map, steamrolling lesser factions and generally making a nuisance of themselves. It's amazing the degree to which the strategic AI was hobbled until the 1.3 patch.

However, with the new patches, you also get the diplomacy "feature," that is, a complete crippling of diplomatic options. In the end, the RTW player has to decide which is more annoying: the save/load "feature" or the diplomacy "feature." As a Civ player, I highly value my diplomacy, so I went back to 1.2 just because I couldn't stand the constand refusal to speak with you just because they didn't like the price you offered for their maps. I deal with the save/load bug by adopting "house rules" by which I handicap myself.

Needless to say, no game should make you adopt house rules to play it without simply destroying it out of sheer frustration - but the Total War series happens to be the only game of its kind. There are virtually no other alternatives if you want to play the type of RTS/TBS game with massive armies that the franchise delivers. Creative Assembly hit on something big with Shogun: Total War, and they've been content to ride that shooting star through two core engines and four games (plus expansions), passing off bugs as features and generally making a half-assed effort of everything. If it wasn't the only game in town it would be ridiculed.

And that's the essence of it, really - no competition. CA is really the best argument for the virtues of capitalism in the world of computer games. If a studio came along with a similar game and good quality control - hell, even mediocre quality control - it would give CA a serious run for its money.

Of course, it's not just quality control that's the problem - public relations, beta testing, these things are a part of it. It's also core game design philosophy - CA has always maintained that the strategic part of the game (that is, the turn based part) is merely a vehicle for the player to arrive at the RTS part of the game. Imagine what a developer could do who actually cared as much about the TBS as the RTS, and made the TBS something other than a last-minute attempt to create the preconditions for a big RTS fight.

I could go on and on about this, but I won't; I'll spare you all. I just hope that you read my earlier post and be informed when you consider purchasing Total War games. And, if you're a developer yourself, go make your own Total War style game to shake up the monopoly a little bit.