I'm really worried. The things that modders are limited by are really not further forward than Warband really. It may only be early access, but the fundamental limitations of Warband are still very much in play, if not worse.
Let's start with campaign AI. We all know that modders won't be able to completely override the AI if it's bad, and it's awful. It's arguably not even on par with warband right now. That worries me because it's not the kind of thing that should be on a 'to do list' after a decade. The foundations of AI have to be laid quite deep. As it stands it seems that our best case scenario is that in the next 12 months, TW transplants a new AI system almost entirely on top of this, because there are no decisions that the AI make that seem guided by any purpose except OMG CASTLE WITH FEW DEFENDERS even if it's behind enemy lines, or a complete nothing target in the grand scheme of the war.
Oh and that war? It pretty much doesn't mean anything. There's no 'higher purpose' and that again worries me about modding. I always think about the best mods and they had better stories, better goals and objectives. You couldn't build the LOTR mod on what we have now. Sauron would go and besiege Moria because everyone in it is dead. He'd then go back to Mordor because he hasn't got any food for his Orcs. There's no 'higher purpose' coded into the game, and I understand the sandbox element, but if the TW crew don't hardcode some of this, it will be impossible to mod into anything with a worthwhile end game.
Ok, now Battle AI.
Battle AI is so basic and although we have seen some improvements to in-battle commands, there has been no thought into making a battle feel like anything more than a sporadic and random event. It often feels that the protagonists are looking around like they've been teleported into an unknown situation, then they notice the enemy and everyone panics to get into position. Doesn't matter that you've been chasing these lads for 2 in game days, there's no preparation system. You can't choose your troops, choose your tactics or even position your army before jumping into the battlefield.
Those are absolute minimum expectations after 10 years of being involved with a game that is all about battlefield combat. Where is the love for the game? Where is the understanding that the strength of the game is in these incredible set pieces, which need build-up and a feeling of setting up troops and then taking the big leap into battle, not the other way round. M&B is not - despite what people sometimes say - a sandbox to the point where battles are meaningless or inconsequential. Right now, I'd be dubious that modders could overcome the limits and turn them into comething more meaningful.
And of course, if it's bad for the player, the AI is simply incapable of overcoming it. In the majority of cases, they'll aimlessly wander over and attack. In some cases when outnumbered they'll wait, then aimlessly attack when you get closer. It's often as simple as when you order the advance, they order the advance. They give up good defensive positions or don't move to exploit advantages. Nothing. Nothing at all. This is disheartening, because my basic expectation was that we'd be able to play out of context battles that were a big improvement from Warband.
TW needs to think about those limitations very quickly and focus on them. The infrastructure they build can support infinite stories and mods, many of which will transform M&B into an epic game that has another few decades of success. As it stands, there has been almost no obvious fundamental change to the engine that powers this whole shebang. Ask yourself honestly now, what has fundamentally changed from warband?
I got as far as:
Graphics - much better but probably at the lower limit of what people will tolerate, particularly up close textures and faces
Town size - bigger, empty scenes with no depth
Factions - they made the map bigger and added new factions with distinct lore, then added no particularly distinctive troop traits or tactical nuances
That's it isn't it? My hope was that the underlying foundations would be super robust, that we would have these super powerful elements that TW hadn't harnessed into a coherent finished product. That's clearly not the case and after 10 years, it seems a lot to think that they can work from such a weak foundation and do anything substantive with this. It's early access, but there's nothing here that you could hang your hat on and say 'oh, look at that big underlying work that will help M&B take the next leap forward.
I'll keep playing, I'll keep supporting, but I feel this needs saying despite this, because there's very little depth to what is on display now. Does anyone else have this feeling, or disagree? I only want what is best for the game, especially in the long term. I remember how it was impossible to overcome lots of the original Rome Total War code, and I don't want to see that dynamic become part of the M&B experience.
Let's start with campaign AI. We all know that modders won't be able to completely override the AI if it's bad, and it's awful. It's arguably not even on par with warband right now. That worries me because it's not the kind of thing that should be on a 'to do list' after a decade. The foundations of AI have to be laid quite deep. As it stands it seems that our best case scenario is that in the next 12 months, TW transplants a new AI system almost entirely on top of this, because there are no decisions that the AI make that seem guided by any purpose except OMG CASTLE WITH FEW DEFENDERS even if it's behind enemy lines, or a complete nothing target in the grand scheme of the war.
Oh and that war? It pretty much doesn't mean anything. There's no 'higher purpose' and that again worries me about modding. I always think about the best mods and they had better stories, better goals and objectives. You couldn't build the LOTR mod on what we have now. Sauron would go and besiege Moria because everyone in it is dead. He'd then go back to Mordor because he hasn't got any food for his Orcs. There's no 'higher purpose' coded into the game, and I understand the sandbox element, but if the TW crew don't hardcode some of this, it will be impossible to mod into anything with a worthwhile end game.
Ok, now Battle AI.
Battle AI is so basic and although we have seen some improvements to in-battle commands, there has been no thought into making a battle feel like anything more than a sporadic and random event. It often feels that the protagonists are looking around like they've been teleported into an unknown situation, then they notice the enemy and everyone panics to get into position. Doesn't matter that you've been chasing these lads for 2 in game days, there's no preparation system. You can't choose your troops, choose your tactics or even position your army before jumping into the battlefield.
Those are absolute minimum expectations after 10 years of being involved with a game that is all about battlefield combat. Where is the love for the game? Where is the understanding that the strength of the game is in these incredible set pieces, which need build-up and a feeling of setting up troops and then taking the big leap into battle, not the other way round. M&B is not - despite what people sometimes say - a sandbox to the point where battles are meaningless or inconsequential. Right now, I'd be dubious that modders could overcome the limits and turn them into comething more meaningful.
And of course, if it's bad for the player, the AI is simply incapable of overcoming it. In the majority of cases, they'll aimlessly wander over and attack. In some cases when outnumbered they'll wait, then aimlessly attack when you get closer. It's often as simple as when you order the advance, they order the advance. They give up good defensive positions or don't move to exploit advantages. Nothing. Nothing at all. This is disheartening, because my basic expectation was that we'd be able to play out of context battles that were a big improvement from Warband.
TW needs to think about those limitations very quickly and focus on them. The infrastructure they build can support infinite stories and mods, many of which will transform M&B into an epic game that has another few decades of success. As it stands, there has been almost no obvious fundamental change to the engine that powers this whole shebang. Ask yourself honestly now, what has fundamentally changed from warband?
I got as far as:
Graphics - much better but probably at the lower limit of what people will tolerate, particularly up close textures and faces
Town size - bigger, empty scenes with no depth
Factions - they made the map bigger and added new factions with distinct lore, then added no particularly distinctive troop traits or tactical nuances
That's it isn't it? My hope was that the underlying foundations would be super robust, that we would have these super powerful elements that TW hadn't harnessed into a coherent finished product. That's clearly not the case and after 10 years, it seems a lot to think that they can work from such a weak foundation and do anything substantive with this. It's early access, but there's nothing here that you could hang your hat on and say 'oh, look at that big underlying work that will help M&B take the next leap forward.
I'll keep playing, I'll keep supporting, but I feel this needs saying despite this, because there's very little depth to what is on display now. Does anyone else have this feeling, or disagree? I only want what is best for the game, especially in the long term. I remember how it was impossible to overcome lots of the original Rome Total War code, and I don't want to see that dynamic become part of the M&B experience.
