XAI 3.4 For KGCM coming soon !

[xeryx]

RantingHeretic[/left];4240081]

Yep, My game only lasted 31 turns. I am running this on an old computer, so I couldn't fight battles, but even if I did it would have been a hard one. The AI is, in war, vicious and unrelenting, and will not sign a ceasefire unless you offer up some pretty prizes or its in their best interest.

Then is sounds as if human Ceasefires are still too hard. I want them to be hard and costly, but should be attainable.

BTW when doing diplomacy deals like that. Save the game, then feel free to use the money cheats. Definitely pay attention to the relations and reputation. Those factors allow me to tell how things are balanced. So screen shots help the most.

Note that these units were not stuck or anything (they all moved next turn). This small stack behavior is perhaps counter-productive for naval units, as these fleets could be picked apart one by one, but the AI was making use of naval warfare quite well and there is a real tactical use to keeping multiple fleets, so I don't think this is an issue.

Usually, if larger stacks are detected, within range then you will see merging.

Three Findings from this Campaign.
One-

Diplomancy is HARD (on very hard) but not quite Impossible or unrealistic.

I will take that into account. Especially since we are used to easy diplomacy.

BTW: Just because it says demanding, or generous. This only applies to what it appears (it is general)! It can be accepted or rejected in either stance, so you can try it regardless.

Example: Denmark went to war against me on around turn 15, and they went to war with a vengeance. I

was'nt playing all that well, so I was really weak- I was actually the 2nd weakest faction on the map. Denmark was somewhere in the middle in ranking, and after Norway was free from Rebels, Denmark turned its attention to me.As I posed no threat, my offers for a ceasefire carried no weight. I offered them settlements, and though this changed the little diplomancy thing to 'balanced' or 'generous', they refused. Logically, why would they settle for peace and a few cities when they could have all?

Yes, you should have pursued for a ceasefire! Unfortunately, unless you are a "trusted" Ally of France, it would not have an impact.

Denmark was part of a massive alliance of 7 nations. I thought I had a screenshot, but I

dont...
So, I sought to Ally with France, thier Ally.

This can happen, but it still seems a little large for the difficulty. However, we cannot "limit" the number of alliances. Only try and control when they are sought. This is something to keep a close eye on. This maybe related to the new seek peace rules, they may needtweeked.

For 10,000 gold I bought an Alliance. Denmark and me were at peace. As soon as I hit the end turn button,

Denamrk attacked me again, breaking my alliance with france. I chalked this up to the fact that I had a small army in thier territory, so I moved him out and got an allaince from

franceagain, for another 10,000 gold. Again, me and denamrk were at peace.But, as soon as I hit End Turn, they attacked again, also breaking the alliance.Again I got an alliance, again me and denmark

were at a ceasefire, but I was out of money, and when they attacked again next turn, I lost the game.

Again, you would have been better spending the money on forces, or infrastructure. Or the Ceasefire.

I think perhaps that the proliferation of Alliances might lead to a very peaceful AI in

europe- while combat between Muslims and Christians, Christians and Pagans, and Orthodox v Everybody was everywhere, fighitng between religous groups was way down from any previous version of this CAI. I do like the forming of large powerblocs, but I think in thelongterm it may negatively affect the gameplay.

This should be ok, in the longrun. It may also happen occassionally. It is something that we can adjust easily. We will watch it though.

These examples all have one thing in common- powerful nations are

iniating wars against the weakest nations around them, as if they are forced to by a trigger- I am the Weakest Nation in the Baltic- Lithunia blockades me. the TO is the 2nd weakest nation- Russia blockades them. Wales is the weakest faction on the map- and Spain blockades them.The fact that my 31 turn game saw 3 examples of this leads me to think there may be something to it.

Have you been peaking at the CAI? Yes, that is exactly how the rules are set up. They are triggered by poor faction and global standings. It is a way of the larger factions to exert their political powers. A feel that I am trying to achieve to enhance the "RPG" effect I know that we all are not really used to "NAVAL" combat. It now works, just like in RTW, so protection of your ports is going to be important. Especially if you think you can blitz the map, because you are going to make many enemies.

Regardless, Beta 4 seems like a lot of fun, If I could play it on a good computer!

I definitely agree, and once we get the next beta out, I think I will take a weekend off to play.

I really want to thank you RantingHeratic for your well thought out Post! You did an excellent job of analyzing, the issues. When you play, if you come up some ideas feel free to post them. I have covered many bases in the XAI, but I sure can't think of it all.


EDIT: It has been suggested to me from Argent Usher, that we decrease the Melee hit rates (VIA XBAI , and on ALL units) a bit to make longer lasting battles. The few battle I have played do seem really fast paced. I wanted to bring this to your attention, so you guys can give me some feedback on this.

Sorry about the stupid spell checker thing, I will fix..I hit the stupid button, LOL but it is pretty funny

[THARN]

oh man- Im done after 57 turns as Milan.. H/H
Venice started it- Hre jumped in... Sicily decided to take a bite by turn 40...
and then France at turn 50..... and the Pope --well the newly elected Pope- from Sicily..Whom I voted for... still gave me a poor rating. what a jerk..lol
I think because of the alliances I was looked upon as poorly as a Pagan..
just no way to stay alfoat with no trades due to war and every town getting beat upon.. and man did they set out to get me too.. relentless..

I didnt realize this but I was on version 1.4 I installed the 1.5 patch but the patch said it failed to update...
game still ran but i have no idea what to do..
so that might be why i had the ladder problems before.

I think my downfallw as due to me not getting any alliances quick.. i was shut out and it seemed the other 'groups' acted in unison to wipe out the ones who werent allied...
scots and then the Welsch... and then I was done for...

[Cleitanious]

So far with this installed I've only played a single town siege, so my findings are limited to that experience. There will be more later though.

I noticed the AI guarded all of the entrances, and not just one. This is good, and bad. It prevents me form attacking a completely unguarded side, but if I focus everything on one side (which I normally do) their defenders are of course spread thin and 3/4ths of them are idle.

I started shooting out a section of wall with a catapult, the Archers moved off of the wall before it "popped" them off. But, they moved off that entire section of wall when it was less than 50% destroyed. I did this little bit of damage to three spots and the whole front of the town's walls were vacant. Their Archers retreated off of the walls and therefor were useless in the actual defense.

I blew open a section of wall and then blew off the towers nearby to that section. The AI didn't really gather by the opening, so my guys were able to spread out on the other side of the wall. They didn't get surrounded as they usually do in this situation. I put my spearmen on Guard and lined them up at the three streets to block whatever units came to help while my ostmen killed off the units within the perimeter. Those that tried to rout of course ran int my spearmen formations and got eaten.

The archers that retreated earlier returned, but they actual l charged into my spearmen in melee. They didn't use their bows at all, so they definitely shouldn't have been out of ammo. My spearmen, with my archers behind them routed them after their numbers got low and I moved up all of my lines, replaced "tired" or worse units with "fresh" ones. Moving the "tired" units outside of the walls to rest.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The enemy came out of the plaza to attack my spearmen until they routed back to the plaza, and each time I moved my guys up a little bit and kept the General right behinde everything to keep my guys morale up, and of course I replaced "tired" units with "fresh" or "warmed up" ones as needed with 2 archer units behinde the lines helping the enemy rout faster, and slaughting the enemy when they did turn their backs to rout back to the plaza.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This continued until I was at the plaza itself, with my guys "warmed up" and "eager" the enemy units couldn't step outside of the plaza without going "steady" "shaken" "wavering" "routing" quickly. Their general came out, but didn't do too well against my spearmen and archers. They were literally trapped within the plaza at that point, surrounded and couldn't leave to even try and fight without routing. My archers took out the rest of their archers first and then I simply rotated my archer units until their army was dead.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I am focusing on siege battles because 1. They are the most decisive battles, 2. They are, to me, the ones in need of the most attention. Let's check out siege #2. This is a bigger town, with stone walls!

Here is my army's make-up. Catapults up front (out of the missiles' range) with everything else lines up behind. The enemy didn't spread their units out at all of the entrances this time, just two.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I pick a section of wall, and start shooting at it with both catapults. At 38% health on the wall, the archers run off the wall. I'm going to need an entrance so I finish blowing up the wall. Gates, I don't go for with catapults because their trajectory makes actually hitting the gate itself difficult, that and you need to take out the gatehouse as well.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I repeat on the other side of the gatehouse, at 38% the archers and spearmen (why would spearmen even be up there. I don't have ladders.) retreat form the wall. For whatever reason when they retreat from the second half of the wall, their towers suddenly are able to reach my catapults and start shooting at them like crazy, I lose a few guys but back them up ASAP.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now their walls are vacant. This makes my approach much easier, since they have no missile units on the walls at all.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and the siege continues...

You don't even need to be "on" the walls to activate the towers. You just need a unit nearby, archers work fine too.

Another thing I've noticed is my units in melee spread out quite a bit. The melee units will have 2 guys fighting each other while the rest of the units is backing away, this goes for mine and the AI's units. Happens the same way when in "defense mode" too.

[xeryx]

@ Clietanios: Wow that is bad..Have made some changes from that version, but would you try the old F version and do a comparison, just for fun. The tell us what you see. Very wierd about the archer ammo??? You would fave killed those archers anyway wit the artillery!! or got them stuck on the walls.
I also noticed the Gates and breaches have not been defending as well

@ Tharn, Wow..it looks like we have gone from one extreme to the other..THAT is GOOD!!

[Cleitanious]

@ Clietanios: Wow that is bad..Have made some changes from that version, but would you try the old F version and do a comparison, just for fun. The tell us what you see. Very wierd about the archer ammo??? You would fave killed those archers anyway wit the artillery!! or got them stuck on the walls.


@ Tharn, Wow..it looks like we have gone from one extreme to the other..THAT is GOOD!!

You mean 3.2F? Is that for KGCM?

On Campaign AI, I noticed most factions immediately called a ceasefire with the factions they started at war with, England & Scotland etc... I guess it's "smart" but It's kinda weird if you know what I mean. More comments coming soon.

EDIT: Can you check to see if I have artillery ammo left? Maybe if I'm out of ammo they will run back onto the walls even if they're damaged, if that's possible. As it stands now I just need to damage the wall a little bit and they will just not use it at all.

[THARN]

when it comes to catapults.. i dont find it a bad thing that they retreat from the walls..
spearmen on walls without ladders near.? 50/50 ill put up non archer units if i have too just to get the towers to fire.. is this why the ai does it?..

:note on the 1.5 patch you all probably know this already but i just found out when i tried updating my U.S. version of kingdoms.. seems you need to over write the pak files with the UK version- theres an upload somewhere.. then the patch installs fine..like I said before you probably already know this.. but I didnt even know there was a 1.5 til today.

guess ill try another campaign now...

[brousell]

Hi xeryx,

The previous feedback I left was actually for Beta 3 (sorry sould have said). I've got this weekend to give beta 4 a good playing and hopefully leave some good feedback. What file in KGCM do I need to place the Beta 4 XBAI final to get it working?

Sorry if stupid question...

[Hunter_PT]

Hy Xeryx, made another good test on beta 4 h/vh Denmark 65 turns no interfering.Im going to tell you just the things that need repair.1 This Diplomacy isent working as expected all the chatolic factions are ally with each other,against muslism or orthodox factions ,catholic factions just dont declare war against other catholic.2 Disenbarks almost dont hapend, 3 england and irish always stuck in their islands ,dont disenbark and dont go by bridges PLZ DAVE fix this,no vassals .The rest are 100% keep up the good work
Crusades are ok now, ai expanding well against their enemys.

[xeryx]

At Cleiteanious:
Are you ready for my constructive criticism of your testing methodology?

#1 you are using a force that is 2 to 4x larger (for a city) than the defending force of course you are going to win and dominate!
#2, What was that defending force composed of? Spearmen and peasant archers?
#3 your JPEGS are very fuzzy, what's the point of going though the trouble of posting them.( I prefere thumbnails anyway)
#4 What level of difficulty are you playing on?
#5 Would you stay on a wall if it is going to start collapsing?
#6 You are the only one that can use artillery at this time, the AI can't
#7 If you choose to destroy a whole bunch of walls to get the archers off, that is your prerogative, because you will have to pay for the repairs.
#8 where did those archers move? to the next wall right?
EDIT; #9 You didn't post what version of beta you are playing with.

I appreciate your feedback, I do..But more thought need to go behind it. Also you need to work on your testing methodology. Take a look at the feedback that Ranting Heretic and others have posted. They thought out many of their conclusions. I did get a few good things to apply out of your feedback.

You asked "Why would spearmen and archers be at another gate house?" due of multiple armies, or a sneak attack. I could make it guard only one, but then all you would do is complain about that I can sneak a unit around, or the gates not covered for the second army?

Here is one last observation from your postings. Over half of your army is comprised of archers. #1 the game is flawed in many aspects. Shooting at units behind walls should be practically impossible, and very inaccurate (Says Glabro ). EDITED Due to new intel!.

On Campaign AI, I noticed most factions immediately called a ceasefire with the factions they started at war with, England & Scotland etc... I guess it's "smart" but It's kinda weird if you know what I mean. More comments coming soon.

EDIT: Can you check to see if I have artillery ammo left? Maybe if I'm out of ammo they will run back onto the walls even if they're damaged, if that's possible. As it stands now I just need to damage the wall a little bit and they will just not use it at all.

Think about it? If the Pope says stop fighting, and you are in good standing..you are going to do it.

In reality terms, a City is should only be able to stop a force that is equal to and no more than 50% bigger. Castles and such should be able to stop 1.25 to 1.75 stronger forces, and that will be the eventuality of the BAI. In my opinion, Walls only slowdown the opposing forces, in most situations.

With all that, you need to think in terms of how far we have come. Also think of all the things that can affect one aspect of the game. Think about areas that can be improved, but really think about what can cause influences on the area.

The final word of Xeryx on your battles: I have gotten beaten on VH sieging castles, but I used equal forces. This is the way it should be. It used not be that way if you remember. You could easily conquer a castle with 1/3 the troops. At least I could. I also could win 98% of my field battles, even when outnumbered 2:1 You cannot even come close to that now, can you? What does irritate me is your setup and lack of information. What I see is that you just use archers in your armies, because you know it is the easiest way to win in Dave's mod? That is a balance issue, not an AI issue.

I know some you do not know the "limitations" that are in the BAI, but there are limits. Sometimes you guys forget that. I also realize some of you don't know the first thing about coding AI. However, many of you guys want an instant fix to something, and well it isn't that easy. There are tons of factors to consider by changing one number sometimes, because it can affect many areas. What I have to do is compromise, for overall game play. Those are the limitations, I face. This is not a rant, just so you know. I simply need well thought out posts, in order to really improve this game. Also if you have any doubts about how far this BAI has come, go plop in a vanilla file and just play one siege. I have to look at how well the game "OVERALL' defends all of it's cities and Castles. So, if you are testing just one type of battle (siege) over and over..your testing is flawed. You need to test more than just one battle, before posting. The same holds true for the CAI. Like I have been saying, there is no real such thing as "Plug & Play" because every mod is different, in thousands of ways. How those changes can affect the BAI and CAI are out of my control.

Now, I had a very busy weekend, and did not have time to work on the mod much. I have put out a dev testing version, but it will be next week before I come out with the next 3.2X version. But, if I feel that it has not improved enough over this version, i will not release it. it will stay as is, and I will be moving onto the next project. I have a schedule to keep, on integrations.

[Glabro]

#1 you are using a force that is 2 to 4x larger (for a city) than the defending force of course you are going to win and dominate!

It's true (for gameplay purposes, realism set aside). However, it's important that these victories also feature attrition and a hard fought victory: since the defenders cannot escape, they will be fighting desperately! That's why some sort of bonus for units fighting close to the square is in order, in addition to a hearty morale bonus.
Blood on the streets!

#2, What was that defending force composed of? Spearmen and peasant archers?

A garrison script that ensures the AI has suitable troops for defending the walls is a good thing.

#5 Would you stay on a wall if it is going to start collapsing?

#7 If you choose to destroy a whole bunch of walls to get the archers off, that is your prerogative, because you will have to pay for the repairs.

I'd go as far as saying that battering a wall with siege engines but stopping when the enemy vacates the walls on purpose an exploit. Simply continue as you were doing, and break down the wall.

#6 You are the only one that can use artillery at this time, the AI can't

Now that you mention it, it's true. It might be that the game will be more fun and balanced if you leave out artillery until the AI can use it too - otherwise it's yet another unfair advantage you have over the AI, and one which decreases your own enjoyment. It's unfortunate it's like this, but I'd definitely want an even playing field and missing a feature (but having more fun and bloody sieges!) than keep using siege engines.

Here is one last observation from your postings. Over half of your army is comprised of archers. #1 the game is flawed in many aspects. Shooting at units behind walls should be practically impossible, and very inaccurate (Says Glabro ).

Considering you only see the enemy units on the courtyard because you have a bird's eye view of the battlefield, and the archers don't....well, make your own conclusions. Additionally, the trajectories the archers use to shoot at the units behind the walls are impossible.
These things need fixing - but it's not the BAI's fault that the missile units are flawed.

#2 I bet you haven't set up the defending armies fairly have you? Do they have as many archers as you? and why not? Because you know the game has to have the units stay where they are, so you exploit that.

You mean the siege BAI can't respond to player deployment in any way? That is indeed unfortunate. Hopefully there's a chance to fix this.

Some seem to think that the defending armies should not sally forth and stay safe behind the walls, but as this testing proves, even though it is unfair, it shows it is not safe behind the walls. I however think, that there are needed times to sally forth.

Yep. Any sort of reactiveness is good. That includes the possibility of sallying out if the player leaves missile units vulnerable to a counterattack. Hopefully the AI will know how to defend the gate when the sallying unit(s) tries to flee back inside the castle, though.

In reality terms, a City is should only be able to stop a force that is equal to and no more than 50% bigger. Castles and such should be able to stop 1.25 to 1.75 stronger forces, and that will be the eventuality of the BAI. In my opinion, Walls only slowdown the opposing forces, in most situations.

Well, according to Sun Tzu, you need an attacking force three times the strength of the defending force in a defended position. A walled city might or might not count as more than a defended position in Sun Tzu's book.
Still, we have to make allowances for gameplay, but it's good to keep in mind.

I have put out a dev testing version, but it will be next week before I come out with the next 3.2X version. But, if I feel that it has not improved enough over this version, i will not release it. it will stay as is, and I will be moving onto the next project. I have a schedule to keep, on integrations.

Unfortunate to hear that there's a chance 3.2X for KGCM might not see the light of day. Surely a small improvement would still be better than none at all, though - just ignore further complaints on it and move on.

[Cleitanious]

Are you ready for my constructive criticism of your testing methodology?

#1 you are using a force that is 2 to 4x larger (for a city) than the defending force of course you are going to win and dominate!

You should need 3x as many troops to defeat a fortified settlement such as this. Having 3x as many units should make it "likely" not "guaranteed". Besides, this is a very typical situation where I have a larger army than the enemy.

#2, What was that defending force composed of? Spearmen and peasant archers?

The same thing as my army, it the very beginning of the campaign. The enemy and I are both using very low level archers, light infantry, spearmen and general's bodyguard units. If the enemy is using a bad choice of units, that isn't anything I've done.

#3 your JPEGS are very fuzzy, what's the point of going though the trouble of posting them.( I prefere thumbnails anyway)

They aren't "fuzzy" they are photoshopped to look more artistic. I like them better that way, you can still see what the point of each picture is, that being the % of health on the wall as the archer's vacate, etc.

#4 What level of difficulty are you playing on?

I'm playing on M/M

#5 Would you stay on a wall if it is going to start collapsing?

They don't just vacate the part that is collapsing, they vacate the entire wall and then run to the plaza...

#6 You are the only one that can use artillery at this time, the AI can't

So, what, to use your AI I'm supposed to not use artillery?

#7 If you choose to destroy a whole bunch of walls to get the archers off, that is your prerogative, because you will have to pay for the repairs.

I wasn't destroying them to get the archers off, I was destroying them to make an entrance as I explained in my post. The archers abandoning the walls is just a bonus.

#8 where did those archers move? to the next wall right?

No, they moved off of the walls entirely and ran to the plaza.

I appreciate your feedback, I do..But more thought need to go behind it. Also you need to work on your testing methodology. Take a look at the feedback that Ranting Heretic and others have posted. They thought out many of their conclusions. I did get a few good things to apply out of your feedback.

My testing methodology is simple. Play the game as I normally play.

You asked "Why would spearmen and archers be at another gate house?" due of multiple armies, or a sneak attack. I could make it guard only one, but then all you would do is complain about that I can sneak a unit around, or the gates not covered for the second army?

Well, Is it possible for the defenders to move to where attackers are and not guard against nothing?

Here is one last observation from your postings. Over half of your army is comprised of archers.

Gaelic Archers are the best unit available to my army at the time, so of course I'm going to use many of them. Actually they serve to finish of an enemy when they are trapped in the plaza, my Archers are on "Hold Fire" until that point.

#1 the game is flawed in many aspects. Shooting at units behind walls should be practically impossible, and very inaccurate (Says Glabro ).

I never shot at any enemies behind walls. Did I say I did? My Archers were "holding fire" for almost the entire battle. My spearmen did almost all of the actual fighting.

#2 I bet you haven't set up the defending armies fairly have you? Do they have as many archers as you? and why not? Because you know the game has to have the units stay where they are, so you exploit that.

I didn't set up the defending armies at all....

Now if you would have tested fairly, that would bring me to this logical conclusion, Archers are probably too powerful, accurate, or have too much ammo in Dave's mod. Especially if all those units you destroyed were knights?

You assume way too much.... 1. My archers were not shooting at enemies on walls or behind walls. 2. My archers only shot at enemies when they were very close, with only my spearmen between the archers and their targets. 3. The spearmen killed the general's bodyguard. In the streets there is no room for the general to manuver to flank or anything, so their only choice is to attack my spearmen head on.

What were those inferior units you put on defense anyway? Some seem to think that the defending armies should not sally forth and stay safe behind the walls, but as this testing proves, even though it is unfair, it shows it is not safe behind the walls. I however think, that there are needed times to sally forth.

I usually keep all of my units on "defense" so they hold a tigher formation and don't chase fleeing enemies.

Think about it? If the Pope says stop fighting, and you are in good standing..you are going to do it.

I've been excommunicated before, nothing 10,000 Florins can't fix.

In reality terms, a City is should only be able to stop a force that is equal to and no more than 50% bigger. Castles and such should be able to stop 1.25 to 1.75 stronger forces, and that will be the eventuality of the BAI. In my opinion, Walls only slowdown the opposing forces, in most situations.

Well, real life castles tended to have around 50 troop garrisons and could defend against many hundred attackers succesfully... maybe all my books are wrong.

With all that, you need to think in terms of how far we have come. Also think of all the things that can affect one aspect of the game. Think about areas that can be improved, but really think about what can cause influences on the area.

It's a lot better than vanilla, that's for sure. I can aknowledge that, but I figured you already knew that much.

The final word of Xeryx on your battles: I have gotten beaten on VH sieging castles, but I used equal forces. This is the way it should be. It used not be that way if you remember. You could easily conquer a castle with 1/3 the troops. At least I could. I also could win 98% of my field battles, even when outnumbered 2:1 You cannot even come close to that now, can you? What does irritate me is your setup and lack of information. What I see is that you just use archers in your armies, because you know it is the easiest way to win in Dave's mod? That is a balance issue, not an AI issue.

Battles are a lot closer with your AI than Vanilla, yes. But, at least for me I have more trouble when using Lusted's Battle AI.

I know some you do not know the "limitations" that are in the BAI, but there are limits. Sometimes you guys forget that. I also realize some of you don't know the first thing about coding AI. However, many of you guys want an instant fix to something, and well it isn't that easy. There are tons of factors to consider by changing one number sometimes, because it can affect many areas. What I have to do is compromise, for overall game play. Those are the limitations, I face. This is not a rant, just so you know. I simply need well thought out posts, in order to really improve this game. Also if you have any doubts about how far this BAI has come, go plop in a vanilla file and just play one siege. I have to look at how well the game "OVERALL' defends all of it's cities and Castles. So, if you are testing just one type of battle (siege) over and over..your testing is flawed. You need to test more than just one battle, before posting. The same holds true for the CAI. Like I have been saying, there is no real such thing as "Plug & Play" because every mod is different, in thousands of ways. How those changes can affect the BAI and CAI are out of my control.

Whoa whoa whoa, say what? What do you know about my experience in coding AI? Seriously? If my testing is "flawed" then I just won't bother wasting all of that time writing about my experiences anymore. That's fine with me. I didn't know you had to be "flawless" to be worthy of posting.

[Glabro]

You should need 3x as many troops to defeat a fortified settlement such as this. Having 3x as many units should make it "likely" not "guaranteed". Besides, this is a very typical situation where I have a larger army than the enemy.

OTOH, even though I said as much myself, Sun Tzu didn't give his advice based on creating even battlefield conditions, he gave advice that helped ensure a victory, therefore the 3:1 is not necessarily "fair and even", more like a "very probable" or likely, as you put it. Therefore, a 1.75-ish to double advantage in strength could be about even.

If the enemy is using a bad choice of units, that isn't anything I've done.

I didn't set up the defending armies at all....

To be fair, I'm not sure Xeryx meant by those comments myself. Setting up the enemy...? Does he mean in the mod files, or not having a garrison script, or possibly deploying in a manner that the AI can't respond to? If the latter, it's a bit of a problem. Perhaps the solution would be to deploy only in the pre-set locations in a siege, as the AI expects it, and then move freely. Unbalanced deployment can unfortunately wreak havoc here - the AI should be able to see your deployment and then deploy his troops.

I'm playing on M/M

Then you should know that according to Xeryx, that difficulty is meant for those people who think the AI should be smarter than original, but not quite as aggressive and prepared to fight as in the real XBAI (VH battles)

They don't just vacate the part that is collapsing, they vacate the entire wall and then run to the plaza...

That's a legitimate issue.

So, what, to use your AI I'm supposed to not use artillery?

It means that to use ANY AI and expect a fair fight you shouldn't use artillery, just like the AI never does. Sad but true. You choose: use artillery, gain an unfair advantage and have less fun and bloody battles, or the other way round. Blame CA for this, not Xeryx.

Well, Is it possible for the defenders to move to where attackers are and not guard against nothing?

That's what I was wondering, but it might be another engine limitation. At least that's what I assume based on talking to Xeryx. Another fine mess by CA...

Well, real life castles tended to have around 50 troop garrisons and could defend against many hundred attackers succesfully... maybe all my books are wrong.

Your books are right. Castles are capable of holding off armies many, many times their number, it's the reason sieges were so prevalent compared to assaults and why castles were built in the first place. Still, for gameplay purposes, again, the number can be decreased to less than half of that - perhaps 2.5 to 3 times the number to make winning likely.

Whoa whoa whoa, say what? What do you know about my experience in coding AI? Seriously? If my testing is "flawed" then I just won't bother wasting all of that time writing about my experiences anymore. That's fine with me. I didn't know you had to be "flawless" to be worthy of posting.

I'll let Xeryx answer this himself, but cut the man some slack, he's worked like a dog for the mod lately.

[xeryx]

You assume way too much.... 1. My archers were not shooting at enemies on walls or behind walls. 2. My archers only shot at enemies when they were very close, with only my spearmen between the archers and their targets. 3. The spearmen killed the general's bodyguard. In the streets there is no room for the general to maneuver to flank or anything, so their only choice is to attack my spearmen head on.

I had to assume, and you know what that mean!! Because you did not explain the situation, and how you were playing?? See now you have defined everything down, I see better as to what the situation is! You did not explain that in your original posts, very well did you?

Whoa whoa whoa, say what? What do you know about my experience in coding AI? Seriously? If my testing is "flawed" then I just won't bother wasting all of that time writing about my experiences anymore. That's fine with me. I didn't know you had to be "flawless" to be worthy of posting.

But yet you expecting the way the AI acts to be perfect! and flawless. So, why should I not expect your postings to be perfect? You assume that because I have my own forum, that I should just be super nice because you did not think before you spoke. You have this ideological sense of what should be for the AI, but that has never been. So how is that fair, to the way you have tested and the for what you have said? You need to fairly compare to how the game has performed in the past. Not to what you think, it should do. I'm trying to let you know you are being unrealistic, in your expectations of this game engine at this time.

I know the BAI is not perfect, and it will ever be. Nor, will the CAI, but yet you still play the game! But the great news, the team and I are always coming up with new ideas, partly due to your feedback. I don't mind if it's critical!! You just need to think out all the factors, and I have to have good details in the posts. That is why I got irritated, lack of detail!

The final word of Xeryx on your battles: I have gotten beaten on VH sieging castles, but I used equal forces. This is the way it should be. It used not be that way if you remember. You could easily conquer a castle with 1/3 the troops. At least I could. I also could win 98% of my field battles, even when outnumbered 2:1 You cannot even come close to that now, can you? What does irritate me is your setup and lack of information. What I see is that you just use archers in your armies, because you know it is the easiest way to win in Dave's mod? That is a balance issue, not an AI issue.

Battles are a lot closer with your AI than Vanilla, yes. But, at least for me I have more trouble when using Lusted's Battle AI.

Now why would you say something like this? That makes me wonder about much of the purpose of your posting anyway. Have you played any open battles yet? I think it might be better if you play awhile before posting.

I have never seen them go to the plaza in any of my games (not sayings it's not possible either), unless they are below 50% strength, which is what they are suppose to do. They will flee to the square once 40% the troops are through the perimeter or outnumbered by the enemy. Archers typically are not good at melee. I have taken steps to refine this as well. Artillery, is not made in Dave's mod by the AI at the moment (Recruit priorities). This is because of how the all AI's had issues with making too much artillery before. Choices of units for the AI, has noting to do with the XAI, that is a mod balancing issue..and quite honestly..Dave's works pretty dang good for army composition.

Which BTW DAVE Thank you for your public support of this project! It is very much appreciated!!

JFYI for all of you! I have quit smoking..so I will use that as my excuse for being "easily irritated" for today and maybe tomorrow.

Glabro you misunderstood. It will get released. I just doubt I will have anymore time to work on the BAI, because right now there is only two of us working on it. KGCM and XAI will get released, within a month's time frame. I just have to get moving onto another project while this one tests. The next project I will work on small XAI enhancements, based on feedback.

Remember don't confuse me with a member of Creative Assembly, I do this of my own free will, and just about 75% of my free time. I don't get paid for it, I do it for my satisfaction and to better the game for the community. I have accomplished my goal as far as I am concerned. Ultimately, I end up making the design choices and compromises. I try and do this based on feedback, and this is why I hold open Beta's. Everyone needs to remain realistic, and understand there are people that make the mods of their free time. We aren't a game company, we have put in alot of time to modding.

[Cleitanious]

I didn't expect the AI to be perfect, nor did I complain about it all. I said nothing but that it's good AI. I pointed out some specific flaws and I made suggestions to make it better. That's all.

[xeryx]

@ Cleitanious :Now, the two things that you reported that were important.

1) Enemy loosing their ammo! I have never seen that before. I would assume it is a bug..but have no idea where it would be.

2) The guards not engaging at the gates. That is fixed in my next version.

[Cleitanious]

Is there anything you can do about...

1. Archers abandoning ALL of the walls because one spot was damaged? Can't they just avoid the damaged spot?

2. Fleeing to the square. If you can make them flee there (which is easy). It's very easy to get them surrounded. ((Many "Fresh" "Impetious" troops makes them rout as soon as they leave the square.)) Could you make the whole city count as "the plaza" for the sake of retreating and not "winning"? If you know what I mean. They should want to fight tooth and nail for each street.

[pwf224]

Or, if possible, give defenders in a siege a slight morale boost, as I imagine they would fight to the death if the only way to win involved them all dying anyways.

[pwf224]

Sounds like you are coming along just fine. I would like to congratulate you and your team for all their sacrifices in free time and the effort that has gone into XBAI and XCAI so far.

Xeryx, if there is anything you want me to test in the BAI let me know, any specific situations such as sieges with artilley, sieges without artiller, sieges on multiple fronts, sieges with equal numbers, sieges with overwhelming odds, or any combination or variaton of those.

[xeryx]

Is there anything you can do about...

1. Archers abandoning ALL of the walls because one spot was damaged? Can't they just avoid the damaged spot?

Actually, In all the games I have played, and tested. I have never seen all the archers just abandon all the walls until some forces have penetrated the walls. If it is doing that to you, hopefully the next version will fix that for you. It maybe the numbers in the BAI, with you overwhelming forces made them cower. I had them set too low..Try beta 4 as that is the most current..I fixed that in that BAI.Reporting on the older beta's really doesn't help that much.

2. Fleeing to the square. If you can make them flee there (which is easy). It's very easy to get them surrounded. ((Many "Fresh" "Impetious" troops makes them rout as soon as they leave the square.)) Could you make the whole city count as "the plaza" for the sake of retreating and not "winning"? If you know what I mean. They should want to fight tooth and nail for each street.

You forget the most important thing about the square, it has a huge morale bonus for the troops, and they also rest there and recover faster. Unless the enemy has tons of archers like you do, the square is easily defensible. I have lost plenty of VH battles...maybe you should try some, it sounds like you are at that level of play! You are also just thinking about that battle, in the city. I also think that it is the older BAI that you are playing with that is giving you the issues.

@ PWF224. I really want stacks looked at, and how well the AI is besieging. on the Campaign map. I also need the claims verified of all Christians allying later in the game. Those rules I put in the CAI may be too powerful.

OK here is a million dollar question, for you guys to answer. On VERY HARD Battles, sieges specifically. How much of a morale boost and defensive bonus should the defenders get. This will be an AI only bonus. it is currently at 20% morale, and 10% defense bonus on a non-suprised (spies did not open gates)siege. Of course there is lower bonuses as you go down in difficulty.

[Glabro]

Lost the reply. Stupid browser.
Increase hit rate by 10-20%. Morale by 30-50%.

Increase firing angles of towers, but see if it's possible to make it so that if captured, towers will not fire for attackers.

Increase other castle defences: every settlement could be able to drop rocks on the attackers, and have more hot water / oil around.

Make the AI deploy both archers and melee units on the walls, then when the enemy gets close, let the archers retreat on the ground level and shoot at the attackers from below when they are fighting on the walls: I've found it very effective (as it will hit their flanks).

Is the case such that the AI is able to man the walls if an enemy scales the wall if the AI unit is on the courtyard, but it's not able to move around on the walls to meet attackers? In that case, deploy most of the forces on the ground.