Do any of the Total War games have good battle and strategic AI?

[NoxNoctum]

I was scarred from my R:TW experience (original one), the AI broke the game in my opinion. Are any of the more recent versions better?

[DeathtoEgo]

AI will always be inferior to human intelligence so no matter how "good" it is, it will always be "bad". Mods do help to modify AI behavior, but the AI itself is always hardcoded. I might get a lot of tomatoes thrown at me by saying this but even though Rome 1 and Med 2 are my favorites, dare I say Attila and Rome 2 do have superior AI. ( ..... ducks)

[ccllnply]

The first Medieval Total War had AI which would blow every other Total War game to pieces (although I never played the first Shogun). I don't know if it was actual smarter or if it was just better suited to the game it was in but since that AI only appears in that game, the two are basically the same thing.

That's why I sometimes struggle to understand the massive love that RTW gets. Yes it was a good game, but the AI without mods was flimsy AF compared to the first Medieval.

[green tea]

I was scarred from my R:TW experience (original one), the AI broke the game in my opinion. Are any of the more recent versions better?

The BAI or battle AI has improved a lot in Shogun2, Rome2 and Attila. Especially in those last two, the BAI flanks with cavalry and generally behaves better in combat (compared to Rome1 and Med2). The diplomacy now actually works, not every nation is now randomly declaring war on the player, and there are a lot of mods that also improve it to fit your style (like a no civil war mod, or a better diplomacy mod, etc.). But some things are worse now. The province/building/food system is too complex for the AI. And at least since Attila, the AI seems to be no longer interested in nation building or defending its own territory. The CAI or campaign AI will never conquer an empire, instead your enemies will just annoy you with armies which you could not support if you had such an economy as the AI. So while the battles are generally better, the campaign gets boring very fast once you have conquered your second province, because nobody will then ever be able to stop you anymore. A very good TW game is in my opinion Fall of the Samurai for Shogun2, where you have a working BAI and nations that can actually grow bigger. I just wish that TW games were still moddable like med2 or rome1.

[Twido]

I'm not so sure. I think later games are designed in a way to compensate for bad AI. For example, the AI can't do sieges very well so the mechanics are changed to make it easier (this is where the whole throwing torches at a gate debacle comes in). Another example is that a human can move units around more tactically to create advantageous situations. The solution was to make troops move faster and fights end quicker so strategic play is limited while playing into the advantages the computer does have (able to order multiple units around simultaneously and doesn't need to focus on one area of the battle at a time).

While I am not a fan of this approach to making a more challenging AI, I can at least understand why these decisions were made. The truth is that good AI is really difficult to design and humans are very good at finding exploits. I think the big step forwards in AI will come when the computer can more effectively learn from past mistakes and hopefully deal with the said exploits.

To be fair, I think campaign AI has come on a long way. One could measure the quality of this AI by how much it needs to cheat to keep up with a human and in this I can see that there has been considerable improvement.

[JC Denton]

I've recently noticed the last update of Napoleon in some cases has decent BAI, although sometimes the AI still gets caught in the "chicken dance" (pointless rearranging their units back and forth) and they still tend to waste their cavalry in pointless assaults, and often poorly place their artilerly. Also, it seems like the campaign AI has improved a bit, in that they shy away from mindless assaulting bridge position (though this can be exploited to hold fthem off indefinitely) As France on VH/VH, with a "no navy" restriction (so as not to exploit the AIs seeming unwillingess to go after undefended trade points), and an additional self imposed restriction against invading the UK (which would be unrealstic with the "no navy" restriciton), I do find the campaign a challenge, although this mostly comes from their numeric superiority

[vini_lessa]

The "classics" Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 are the best in terms of AI, if only because the game was more simplistic and the AI knew how to cope with the smaller number of variables. From Rome 1 forward the game turned into little more than a tech showcase. Aka: There was no challenge, and as soon you were out the tutorial you would kick the AI butt easily and finishing the game was more a matter of patience than prowess. The appex of this is Empire, where the AI was so broken a monkey could finish it just by randomly clicking everywhere on the screen.

Shogun 2 managed to break out from that pattern and bring back part of the old classics challenge, even if we don't know for sure how much can be attributed to the AI and how much is attributed to the game narrower scope (it ports a streamlined economy, a streamlined "rock-paper-scissors" battle layer, and a smaller map). Whatever the answer, it is considered the best game from the new age by most critics, which I tend to agree.

I didn't play Rome 2 but heard that while it made actual advance to the AI its also ridden with questionable design decisions and remain full of problems years after release. Atilla seems a more polished version of it, but I didn't hear much about it.

TL;DR: If you wanna the best challenge, get Shogun 1 or Medieval 1. If you want a beautiful tech showcase, get Rome 2. If you want a midterm that's reasonably challenging and beautiful, get Shogun 2.

[AnthoniusII]

I was scarred from my R:TW experience (original one), the AI broke the game in my opinion. Are any of the more recent versions better?

If you were scared by the Rome I AI, I sugest you never bother play ETW, Rome II and Attila!

The first Medieval Total War had AI which would blow every other Total War game to pieces (although I never played the first Shogun). I don't know if it was actual smarter or if it was just better suited to the game it was in but since that AI only appears in that game, the two are basically the same thing.

That's why I sometimes struggle to understand the massive love that RTW gets. Yes it was a good game, but the AI without mods was flimsy AF compared to the first Medieval.

I would agree with Medieval I that its AI was focused mainly on campaign though.
RTW had some interesting AI battle features -espesialy in sieges- that NEVER overcommed by NO other TW game.
Even M2TW -my favorite game- had worst (much worst AI than RTW).

The BAI or battle AI has improved a lot in Shogun2, Rome2 and Attila. Especially in those last two, the BAI flanks with cavalry and generally behaves better in combat (compared to Rome1 and Med2). The diplomacy now actually works, not every nation is now randomly declaring war on the player, and there are a lot of mods that also improve it to fit your style (like a no civil war mod, or a better diplomacy mod, etc.). But some things are worse now. The province/building/food system is too complex for the AI. And at least since Attila, the AI seems to be no longer interested in nation building or defending its own territory. The CAI or campaign AI will never conquer an empire, instead your enemies will just annoy you with armies which you could not support if you had such an economy as the AI. So while the battles are generally better, the campaign gets boring very fast once you have conquered your second province, because nobody will then ever be able to stop you anymore. A very good TW game is in my opinion Fall of the Samurai for Shogun2, where you have a working BAI and nations that can actually grow bigger. I just wish that TW games were still moddable like med2 or rome1.

Shogun II was the last real TW game (as TW games should be).
Rome II and Attila were TW only by name...
Since both last TW games uses similar AI lets compare their AI with RTW's.
RTW long range naval invasions - R2/Att have AI based armies wondering in seas without an objective and without defending their own teritories.
RTW AI armies retreat if the battle is against them without having their armies destroyed. That never happend again in a TW game.
RTW Battle AI. 2 or more armies use difrent map entry points and manuevre individualy trying to take teh advandage over the player.
R2/Att Battle AI always try to connect its armies to one to have a huge blow over the player ussing OP unballanced units.
An example? Armored Cammels in these game do not only bring fear to horses -as they should be- but they are immune to spears also!
Siege AI is what made RTW a famous game!
Two or more armies besiege a city...The deploy their OWN siege equipment no matter if they have siege artilery or not.
They attack in diferent wall sections in the same time!
They use tunnels!
Also when a city is under siege 1st defenders sufair artition thanks to hannger , then the besiegers and walls remain intact!
In Rome II AI controled armies wait to use THE SAME siege equipment , their horsemen NEVER paricipate in wall assaults! At least Shogun II had that last feature.
In Attila things are worst.
CA developers (some famous RTW modders in the past) brought an other prospective in siege sience.
They FAILED to coppy the ancient RTW siege AI and they changed the game rules.
Now WALLS die from hangger and not people!!!!
Wallls fell of their own (suicide?) only to allow their totaly failed siege AI to enter a city without "think" to much.
Oh...I forgot...R2/Att Siege AI is so...failed that CA choosed to have cities without walls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you still wish to compare RTW and R2/Att, AI performances?

[Axalon]

I'll throw in some remarks on this stuff too (and I agree with plenty of things already posted by others)...
If memory serves, this kind of thing has been discussed in the past, little has changed since then. I think
the short answer to the question is basically: no...


Overall, I don't think any of the raw/unmodded AI in TW-games are supposedly "good". The best such AIs - from what I can tell, and this on general terms (both in battle and in campaign) - are probably (still) found in either STW1 and/or MTW1, as later AI have never seriously competed with that kind of performance, from what I have seen so far (STW1 to RTW2).

Later AI (from RTW1 and onward) performs in general poorer in combat and campaigns alike. The supposed "MTW1- and STW1-AI greatness" essentially rests upon the circumstance that they simply screw things up less and that in turn makes them generate better overall performance and challenge-levels as a result. Neither STW1 and MTW1 AIs are impressive nor magic somehow - they just don't screw things up as much as the rest (and they have less things they can screw up too).

It is possible to improve the performance of (at least) MTW-AI by extensive modding, that is my claim. It is not easy, nor is it any small task to do so, as there are none small or fast ways to get there. If that is done successfully however, we might have something that arguably can make a bid at being amongst the toughest and best performing AI's in all TW, or somewhere close to that. After all, the default MTW-AI by CA, is already as tough and good as it gets in TW basically - any AI that outperforms that, can also arguably make such a bid. Any later (non-MTW) AI (used as a base), will first have too face a hard uphill struggle before it is even on par raw MTW-AI performance levels, if that level is even possible for 'em (I don't know).

If we want a better AI then available in MTW1, then, we will have to start altering/modding the game (regardless of which), its designs and how the AI is built up and designed, this extensively. No small tweaks here and there but re-designing and rebuilding the entire game basically - or no serious results in AI-performance will be achieved, or so I would argue. I don't think there is a way around that reality. If there is, then its news to me...

- A

[Sirlion]

I want to contribute to the discussion as far as Medieval 2, Empire and Napoleon are concerned. I played too little of Shogun2 to judge, but it was generally very good both from a CAI and BAI perspective.

Sharing my opinion I think Medieval 2 had better .... well everything, not vanilla, vanilla games are always awful AI-wise. So yeah the short general answer would ben "No". However, Empire beats them all in terms of stupidity and unreasonable demands. Its so arcade and utterly unfinished that only thinking about it makes me sad. Napoleon improved it a bit, with more variables that could be modded, and the CAI in particular can become decent and even challenging somewhat.

So... to put it simply, without mods: Medieval 2 - BAI OK CAI - BAD Empire - BAI AWFUL CAI ABYSMAL Napoleon - BAI GOOD CAI OK

With mods: Medieval 2 - BAI GOOD CAI - VERY GOOD Empire - BAI OK CAI BAD Napoleon - BAI VERY GOOD CAI GOOD

I should also mention that Medieval 2 and Rome 1 have very in depth scripting on their side, something Empire and Napoleon (and Shogun2) dont really have aside from very minor bits.

Personal dream: one day, seeing a TW game with the CAI of a Paradox game. Impossible I know, but one can dream

[The Despondent Mind]

Let's assume RTW2 and onward the AI is better, but yet for the sheer fact that a lot of people disputes that, shows how little just how pathetically little it has advanced. That's often my biggest gripe with CA, they are making these games for over a decade, they should be freakin' masters of their art, not still trying to work out the basics and forgetting all the good progress they made along the way.

[Axalon]

Let's assume RTW2 and onward the AI is better...

Why? ...?... As I said before... "Later AI (from RTW1 and onward) performs in general poorer in combat and campaigns alike [as compared to STW1 and MTW1]." Its rather easy to see it, and my guess would be that most people that have actually played these two first games have seen just that. It is hard to miss... None of the later TW-games have AI's that are on par with that.... I have already (in previous post) forwarded some of the reasons as for why one can easily make such a claim and various things that would support it.

...shows how little just how pathetically little it has advanced.

I wonder if any progress have actually been made at all AI-wise since MTW2 basically (and that very AI is often considered poor to begin with), this on general terms... With stuff like ETW and RTW2 in mind, I kind of struggle to see how anything has advanced in terms of AI, as its easy to see that it has devolved rather then evolved (in terms of general AI-performance)... The exception could be STW2, as it is the only one that is clearly not worse then RTW1 and MTW2 in terms of AI (while still visibly inferior to STW1-performance levels, just as RTW1 and MTW2 always have been). I don't have a clue about NTW, I have not bothered with that ETW-expansion, despite I have owned a copy for years. They say its better then ETW, but that don't say much (to me anyways) as ETW ranks among the worse and dysfunctional games I have ever had the displeasure of playing (or trying too anyways)... It really was a blatant waste of time, my time... That really is as bad as it can get for any game, and them bastards at CA still charged full price for it (and they have never tried too compensate it either).... That circumstance and strategy is also extremely bad, on several levels, but I digress....

- A

[The Despondent Mind]

I personally have mixed feelings, Attila AI seems to be most aggressive and flanking one, I am pretty sure of that. But as I sad for a company who specialized and made a name of itself by making epic battles, their progress is pitiful.

[Axalon]

Well... I suppose its possible, at least...

Obviously, I can not tell as I have not played Attila (or Attila, the RTW2-expansion, if so preferred). All I can do is to take your examples and word for it, much in the same way I can take - say AnthoniusII - examples and word on it (in this thread), who clearly does not share your assessment and views on the Attila-AI (or yet anybody else's word and examples for it). Having said that... Flanking by the AI is routine in STW/MTW-battles and CAI-aggressiveness is certainly routine in STW1, at least (e.g. the Hojo-horde on the move). Purely in terms of battles, it is also common for both STW1 and MTW1, given various and certain circumstances (despite being defender at times). So neither of these traits (you mention) does strike me as distinctive, significant or impressive (given the universal TW-context here) to be perfectly honest with you.

In addition, I must admit that I find it highly unlikely (not saying its impossible) that an AI, which clearly have its origins and foundation from the RTW2-AI, suddenly (within some 2 years) have so drastically and radically improved, and this to such degrees, that it in effect would surpass all previous AI-work (for all previous TW-games) up to that point. If true, a feat that would be entirely unique and unparalleled in CA-development-history up to this day. And an unexpected surprise to say the least... Regardless, I do not doubt that Attila is to RTW2 what Napoleon was/is to ETW, but both ETW and RTW2 were by many considered hopeless disasters and pretty much anything will be a vast improvement over that mess. I am sure this goes for Attila as well, and obviously its good that it is way better then RTW2 but is it actually more then that?

Clearly, I don't know... AnthoniusII claims a "no" basically... You suggest a "yes" (or so it seems)... And, I can not tell on my own, as I have still no access to the game. At any rate, I do agree with you on the point that the general progress made on AI-work (its performance levels and designs) during the last 15 years of TW, have in most regards been pitiful - and that is putting it nicely. As for the (truly) epic battles, I am inclined to argue that these effectively disappeared in 2004 with the arrival of RTW1 - grand strategy/empire management replacing the previous focus on active war, battles and tactics (personally, I think battles never was the same or as interesting after that point and the BAI has seemingly never recovered from that shift either, but that is as they say, another story, for another thread)...

- A

[The Despondent Mind]

Well said. Got nothing to add.

[Iz_IP 8]

I played med 2, empire, napoleon, shogun 2, rome 2 all of them on H/H and VH/VH.. Med 2 had the best one. All the others total war have a broken ai, i wont say stupid or whatever soft word you usually use but BROKEN. ALL of them except med 2 have a broken CAI and BAI period. Stopped buying total war games since shogun 2 for this reason. Right now i ended up in this thread randomly by searching for a mod to napoleon total war broken ai in both campaign and battle. The sad reality is you can't fix the ai, it's hardcoded in the poor total war engine which is warscape total failure. The only thing modders can do is change some stats so he can behave like a stupid and not as a broken ai.