Ultimate Battle AI 1.2 *UPDATE*

[Konstantin Alexander]

(the ballista was doing weird stuff... moved forward, turned back, turned forward all the time)

As far as i can see on the screenshots you were on a significantly higher position than your opponent. Ballistas (at least in the game engine) are not suited for high angles and it probably tried to get into a firing position, then noticed the angle was impossible, then moved to where it had a line of fire (back) but was out of range again. I have seen this stuff happen with organ guns as well. In Vanilla, that is. I had my men paintakingly drag that damned gun all the way up to a plateau, which had a bit of a declination and it refused to fire (even when i had a LOF, when i zoomed directly to the guns) and did a weird foxtrot dance back and forth.
I´m not sure about it, but i suppose the engine doesn´t calculate the declination of the ground an artillery piece stands on, when it checks, if the target is at an suitable angle for a shot.

[DrBeast]

I've come to accept that passive AI when I'm attacking is somehow hard-coded and will happen from time to time. But I've noticed a strange thing, both in UBAI 1.0 and now in 1.1: sometimes when I'm attacking (odds range from 1:1 to 2:1, I don't play battles with higher odds), the AI will start moving across the map, oblivious to my attacks. If I engage one of their units, that unit will defend itself, but the others will promptly ignore them and keep marching until they've reached their destination, usually the highest accessible place on the map. Once they're there, they'll just sit there and wait.

[Konstantin Alexander]

@The Doc

Actually i do not see this as a bug, but as a feature. That tactic would, of course, make more sense, if the AI would commit some disposable units, preferably swift units with ranged weapons, to keep you occupied or cover it´s repositioning, but i fear that would be asking for too much.

In an ideal AI world (i know, i´m daydreaming again-don´t wake me up!) the enemy would make movements like modern armies would do, always halting with a detachement and facing the enemy, while the rest moves back/at it´s new position and then swapping the roles until the detachement closer to the enemy reached a line with the one further away, then swapping roles again. The backguard (opposite of vanguard?) would consist of cheap, disposable units with those ranged weapons that have a smaller range and the main detachement would include all the elite troops, the artillery and the archers with greater ranges.

EDIT:

It´s rearguard, ain´t it?

[DrBeast]

Yes, I agree this tactic would be awesome if the AI wasn't so hell-bent on getting from point A to point B (where point B is a better strategic location than point A) NO MATTER WHAT and oblivious to attacks!

[dm04]

Well, you field a more than 2 times bigger army than the AI and complain, that you win easily on a defensive position. There is no way, that the AI will give you a decent fight under these circumstances.

My reinforcements arrived at the battlefield when the battle was already over, so thats not the problem.

What I mean is: the battle starts and the AI moves towards my position (ok), then it stops and wait taking heavy casualties from my archers (not ok), then the AI charges my position (finaly), but stops half the way and returns slowly to its former position, waiting there again (this is realy bad).

As you can see on the first screenshot, my reinforcements are already on the map, the bar that indicates the strength of each army, shows "even" powers. Ok when the AI charges the hill, it wil still take some damage from my archers and most likely its soldiers will be "tired", but still they could cause some damage to my army, so I would be no longer able to siege a heavy defended town. - But the AI just stood still...

You know, Im not blaming you, I love the battle AI, it works (already lost 4 battles, and my faction heir ^^), but on some circumstances, the AI behavior is "strange". (I would say, the AI cant handle hills/forests well... see next example).

Another 2 battles today:
1) open plain (no hills, no trees, no obstacles, just a plain), my reinforcements took care of the AI attacker, I had to turn around 180° and face the AI reinforcements, as they were realy close. Whatever happened behind me I dont know, as I were busy... the AI threw ANYTHING at me (thought had 6 catapults firing at my position)... in the first wave the AIs 3 units of mailed knights charged... they broke through my milita, reached the longbowmen and vanquished them (out of my 6x60 longbowmen are 28 left)... I won only because of a general at my side (ai attacked with just captains). In the end: 2000 vs 2000 men fought the battle and I survived with about 200 left (like 10 men in each unit). - this shows, the ulmtimate battle ai works and it works good... in vanilla the AI had just no chance.

2) plain ground (no obstacles, no trees etc) but I had to take a hill: first I moved my longbowmen to the hill and started firing at the AI. The AI holding the position in the beginning, charged down the hill. The result was devastating, I lost the battle and my faction heir.

ANother assumption: it seems, the AI dont know how to use the "new" RealCombat units and the AI buys too much siege equipment, any chance changing this?

[GrandViZ]

I'll investigate the max. angles for siege equipment, and see if I can fix the above mentioned problem.

The amount of siege equipment is related to recruitment pools and refresh rates, determined in the export_descr_building.txt. I have fixed this issue in the Ultimate AI setup, so have a look into the UAI EDB.txt.

Here the values I use for the standard siege equipment.

Level 1
recruit_pool "NE Ballista" 1 0.2 1 0 requires factions ...

Level 2
recruit_pool "NE Ballista" 1 0.25 1 0 requires factions ...
recruit_pool "NE Catapult" 1 0.25 1 0 requires factions ...

Level 3
recruit_pool "NE Ballista" 1 0.34 1 0 requires factions ...
recruit_pool "NE Catapult" 1 0.34 1 0 requires factions ...
recruit_pool "NE Trebuchet" 1 0.34 1 0 requires factions ...

And, btw thank you for your detailed reports on issues. If there is a way to improve these things, I assure you, that I will do it. But you should also keep in mind, that many aspects of the battle AI engine are hardcoded.

Best regards
GrandViZ

[dm04]

Hm... the edb, didnt know there was more about it. Well I will use it and see what happens (btw I dont like the tweaks to the stables... no, actualy no cavalry at all with just stables, light cavalry for 90% of all factions, and with knight stables anyone can build light and first heavy cavalry... weird.) Why not light cavalry (ie Hobilars) available in stables?

[GrandViZ]

Hm... the edb, didnt know there was more about it. Well I will use it and see what happens (btw I dont like the tweaks to the stables... no, actualy no cavalry at all with just stables, light cavalry for 90% of all factions, and with knight stables anyone can build light and first heavy cavalry... weird.) Why not light cavalry (ie Hobilars) available in stables?

If you mean the current EDB.txt of UAI 1.5, then you are not alone. I also dislike some of the original Realistic Building Tree decisions, but I used them, as I simply had not the time, to do something on my own. Things are different now. Therefore the next UAI version will have a completely new EDB.txt, that is (hopefully) free of inconsistencies.

[dm04]

Ok

[notger]

GrandViz, your AI has cost me two faction heirs! Give them back, they were in their prime!

Yesterday a captain of mine was attacked while guarding a bridge. The ratio showed something like 1.3 to 1 in favor of the enemy.
No big deal, I thought.
I have the bridge, I thought.
I have tons and tons of genoese crossbowmen with me, some infantry and lots of cavalry militia, I thought.

On my side of the bridge, the hills steeply inclined, so I put the crossbows up there and formed a bottle-neck in the woods near the bridge. At the flank, the cavalry was ready to charge in while the semi-flanks and the center was held by my brave italien militias.

I expected the enemy to cross the bridge and reform, maybe run into the infantry and get killed by crossbows and cavalry.

Well, battle started, his artillery fired and he began moving asap. He crossed the bridge at high speed and at the other side immediately charged. He charged my infantry with his Varangians, my cavalry with his spearmen backed up by Varangians and my archers with his cavalry.

Retreat was the only option.

I lost a bridge-battle with favorable terrain, fire superiority and nearly even numbers.

GrandViz, give me back my legion!

[Froggie5]

If you mean the current EDB.txt of UAI 1.5, then you are not alone. I also dislike some of the original Realistic Building Tree decisions, but I used them, as I simply had not the time, to do something on my own. Things are different now. Therefore the next UAI version will have a completely new EDB.txt, that is (hopefully) free of inconsistencies.

Grandviz - I am definitely interested in having the ai field better armies but I use a custom mix of mods (RC, UBAI, BBB) and play 1.5 ypt. How would you recommend adapting your current and future EDB to 1.5 or 2 ypt? Many thanks!

[GrandViZ]

To make the AI field better armies, you will have to edit every unit recruitment entry for each building, which is a very time consuming effort! In general you'll need to decrease the unit cap and refresh rates for low quality troops on high level buildings. The current UAI 1.5 EDB.txt uses this widely, but it is not free of inconsistencies. UAI 1.6 EDB.txt will be structured much better, and I would recommend to take it as a reference (once it is available), when you want to do something similiar to your own EDB.txt.

Adapting the construction costs of buildings to a different campaign length is something different (and has little to no influence on the army composition).

GrandViz, give me back my legion!

Very nice reading! I almost can imagine the expression on your face.

[Froggie5]

Thanks for the reply - I will wait for 1.6. I would just use your EDB but, as you note, the construction costs and times will be geared toward 1ypt.

EDIT - Now that I think of it, I will use your 1.6 EDB and just change the build times/costs - this will probably be at least a little bit easier than changing all the recruitment info.

[Bacon!]

as i was playing as england yesterday i sent 3 units of armored sergents up one siege tower and one ladder to kill one unit of french armored sergeants on top of some castle walls. I thought to myself yeh im bound to take some losses but i didnt expect all but about 20 out of about 230 soliders that went up the wall to die >.<. the last 7 frech soldiers just wouldnt die by the time i won the battle by holding the plaza with my cav the battle on the wall was still going on. Do soliders on their own walls get some sort of bonus or somthing

[Ebola]

Is there a reason that mortars and trebs, and cannons are at 150, 120 and 180 vs. buildings, respectfully, while the Culverin and Basilisk are at 90 and 180 respectfully? Curious as to what the reasoning/thinking was with this.

[GrandViZ]

Good question. The reasoning is the mass and velocity of the projectile.

[DrBeast]

Velocity of the mortar is set too high, I think. It now fires pretty cannon-like, as in in a too shallow angle. Mortars should, I feel, be able to fire OVER walls. With the current velocity, the shot hits the wall each and every time.

[notger]

Yesterday, the valiant genoese troops attacked rebel scum hiding in Innsbruck castle. It was a great and enjoyable fight. The siege defense AI really worked well.

Yet, it could have done better. To plug the gaps in the wall, it used Sergeant Spearmen instead of the available Swiss Pikemen. These stood immediately behind, guarding a road that was a dead end.
I do not know wether there is a plug-a-hole-with-pikes-value, but it could be raised.

Maybe that helps.

[GrandViZ]

I do not know wether there is a plug-a-hole-with-pikes-value, but it could be raised.

If I find one, I will tell you.

[Konstantin Alexander]

News from the frontlines
Monday edition 8.7.07
2 Bucks


There we go again with the new week´s curiosities.

Scenario: Besieging Clermont, which is held by filthy rebel scum. I assault, bring down the walls as usual and try to provoke the enemy to leave the town square, so i can rout them. Therefore i drag my guns into the streets, my cannons still have one third of their ammo. The enemy general (in a unit of feudal knights) valiantly attacks my cannons, but meets his end at the spearpoints of my infantry. Then i carry the cannons a little further and begin to do, what is shown below....

Attachment 3941

I pumped all the cannons´remaining ammo into the town square and the few left ribault shots as well, which took about 5 minutes, but the Swiss and Flemish seemed not troubled at all. If there is a way, i would suggest you make them more aggressive towards artillery. Or generally let the enemy charge artillery that is far away from any support and constantly bombarding them at point blank range.