Is the battle AI really that bad in Med2?

[D.B. Cooper]

I've heard it was atrocious, but then when I played Rome it didn't bother as much as everybody else. How bad is Med2's battle AI?

[Oxberger]

In my opinion it is better than the Rome Total War AI. This can be seen on siege battles, and on the battlefield aswell.

The RTW Ai was too easily taken advantage of. There where so many tricks that you could use, and defending a city was easy(I recall the AI sitting there and getting shot once inside the walls).

[~Beren~]

The AI is not that bad. Except probably when moving around cities and fighting on top of walls.

[Roshak]

There are times when the AI is good and other times when its poor. I think they're the same in AI smarts. Both will do poorly from time to time and do good from time to time.

[homefry]

The AI is the worse when there are only 1 or 2 units or the AI doesn't have missle units.


If you increase the battle AI difficulty, does the AI use better tactics or does it just make the AI have better attack and defend stats?


When the AI has the higher ground, I can usually position my troops behind the AI so that I end up with the higher ground. I want to AI to defend the higher ground and stop my troops from going behind them.

[odrid]

the AI is much better, at least in sieges..
i remember in rome i've one lost of siege battles because the AI was so stupid that they kept their troops in the line of fire of my towers; they got decimated without me doing nothing;
that won't happen in MTW2 - still some troops of the AI will be in the line o fire of your archers, but they usually retreat when they are shot at (usually)

[rainkloud]

It's decent in open field battles with the exception that it likes to send its archers waaaay out beyond any protection with the effect that you can easily rout them with cavalry.

Sieges are pretty bad though. The enemy loves to hurl their entire force through the front door into your death traps. Where as they could easily send more troops to the walls they prefer to go through the meat grinder.

The bigger problem is with the campaign AI. The computer just doesn't do a good enough job sending quality opponents in the first place. Sorry but I'm just not too terribly worried when Captain Janky strolls on up to my citadel armed with only a ram and a couple of spear militia units. I mean I almost feel bad butchering the guy. He's probably pretty cool. I mean I'd totally have a drink with him if I wasn't required to terminate his existance...know wot I mean?

[Savage_Swede]

the AI is much better, at least in sieges..
i remember in rome i've one lost of siege battles because the AI was so stupid that they kept their troops in the line of fire of my towers; they got decimated without me doing nothing;
that won't happen in MTW2 - still some troops of the AI will be in the line o fire of your archers, but they usually retreat when they are shot at (usually)

Have to disagree with everything there. The AI hurl themseves at the walls and stay there like living targets in both Rome and Med2. And i have never seen the AI retreat because of arrow fire, ever.

The difference in AI between Rome and Med2 is minimal imo.

[delra]

Is the battle AI really that bad in Med2?

It's worse? :-)

Try getting Lusted's Battle AI and you will see what "difficult" battle means.

[Tubruk]

From my medieval 2 strategy guide:

High difficulty in battle gives the enemy bonuses to attack, defence and morale. This demands that your in-battle tactics, troop count, and quality are superior to your AI opponent to emerge victorious. It also guarantees that you will suffer higher casualty counts than on medium difficulty, which can slow down your progress on the map, as your forced to retrain or reinforce your forward armies.

Low difficulty has the opposite effect, giving you a substantial advantage in any battle that you choose to control directly. While it's normally possible to defeat superior forces with a numerically inferior army through solid tactics or highly experienced and well equipped troops, on lower difficulty, you can often win these engagements easily. In addition expect to rout the enemy much more quickly, making city defence especially easy.

It's similar with the campaign map. On high difficulty, other factions gain economic bonuses, you win auto resolved battles les often, enemy factions re more aggressive, and may pay take more persuading when offered diplomatic treaties. Lower difficulty makes the other factions weaker and you can expand and gain new territories much faster. Unrest within your settlements is also less common.

[trench]

MTW2 Ai better than ROME

[FailedCrusade]

The battle AI is just as bad as it was in Rome in my view. It can't protect its missle and artillery units for nothing and often waits too long to attack when it doesn't have missle advantage. And it doesn't seem to have much of a rock, paper, scissors mentality, as it often has its cavalry fight spearmen and its spearmen fight swordsmen. Also, the AI doesn't use the special formation of units as it should. The battle AI is just really bad, and I've won many battles I shouldn't have.

[King Bob VI]

Is the battle AI really that bad in Med2?

IMO, no.

[jsgx3]

It's a tough nut to crack making the AI match a human without jacking up its stats to compensate. I agree with most of the above, the AI is 'not bad' overall but has a few basic shortcomings. Here's my list.

Poor use of cavalry - This is the greatest weakness, the AI cannot exploit opportunities with its cavalry. It does not use it to flank, or to disrupt missile units, nor mass it to strike effectively.

No support of missile troops (or seige engines) - It allows enemy cavalry to charge and crush unsupported missile units.

No effort to strike at a weak point in an opponents battle line.

Poor seige mechanics overall.

[bungus]

Let's just say for anyone stupid enough to play unmodded M2TW the AI should be a challenge. In the same sense that the two-legged race at the special olympics is a challenge

[jsgx3]

Let's just say for anyone stupid enough to play unmodded M2TW the AI should be a challenge. In the same sense that the two-legged race at the special olympics is a challenge

I play the vanilla version all the time. What's probably lost in all this is how good the AI actually is as compared to the vast majority of games. It is even more evident when you consider games from 5 years ago. The whole thing is a learning process with incremental improvements.

[Војвода Драгутин Кесеровић]

Only the AI-Mongols/Timurids can be called a worthy oponent.
With everyone else I tend to engage slightly underbalanced if I want an
Interesting fight. Sieges, though, are a different story and
interestingly enough, the Mongols/Timurids tactics can only be mached in
a siege-battle.

All in all, what ****** me off the most is the fact that besides the Mong/Timur guys, nobody ever try
to outflank me, and they rarely react instantly to my moves on the field. I dunno why is that so??

And, YES, I do play VH/VH - mods: "Road to Jerusalem" & "DeusloVult"

Please do not bypass the censor.

~Sher Khan

[delra]

What a horrible metaphor.

[bungus]

It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy

[satthukaraoke]

Well, at least I haven't seen the AI's general do a kamikazi charge into a spear/phalanx wall like in RTW so that's a plus.

Everything else I think pretty much the same, except the path finding in MTW2 is really ... horrid. To be honest the only reason I play MTW2 instead of RTW now is because it has gun powder age which is fun to toy with, other then that I prefer RTW, which is a more solid game IMO.