Good AI

[Navajo Joe]

At present in my first proper campaign on SS as the Danes and had my first large field battle against Lithuania. You read so much here about bad AI, but I was really impressed. About 3000 on the Field, me the Liths and my allies the Poles. The Poles were closer to them, so naturally the AI attacked them and drove them from the field. Then they took me on 3 separate Lith armies, which duly got beaten. A strong fight really it was not a walkover, they fought hard, but not good enough. All the Units acted the way they should.

Very Impressed

[caralampio]

Yes I agree that the Battle AI does a good work. It will never be like another human playing against you, but then if the AI were too smart that would frustrate a lot of us and many would seek other games because this one was "too hard".

I believe what most of us want is a good challenge, the AI to make us sweat or even beat us on occasion, but which OTOH we can take on most of the time confident in our superior skill.

I play on Hard (it used to be VH in vanilla but I found this AI more challenging), I can usually beat the AI in battles with odds up to 2:3 vs single armies. When I have gone in against greater odds I might pull it off but there is a good chance that the AI will win. Against multiple enemy armies, even odds of 1:1 or 3:2 have proven to be risky. I think this is adequate.

[Tetsu]

Hehe yeah the AI is good... just not that great in seiges. I beat a 3/4 stack portugese army attacking my wooden walled city with three units of longbow + 4 levy spear units.

But in field battles... they sure know how to use cavalry

[Barser]

Yes the battle ai is acceptable for me.
The campaign ai however is driving me nuts.

[Vasquez]

I want an AI like Kasparov, is that asking too much? :hmmm:

[delra]

I usually play on VH/VH and often autoresolve to increase my losses in battles. Cause every time I play a battle myself, it's like beating up a fat guy in glasses at school. And if I play too many battles myself, I expand so fast that before I have a citadel, there's noone left to beat anymore.

We really need ETW and its new generation AI (M2TW is a very old game already after all). I hope they are cooking something Kasparov wouldn't beat on VH... Or I will move out to EU games for good.

Anyway, by M2TW standards, what's currently in SS is a few eras ahead of what was in vanilla, both tactically and strategically.

[Chevalier IX]

I haver come to find that the majority of really volatile complaints come from those that believe every officer placed at the head of command that we face in this game should be a military genius of some sort unrivalled throughout the ages,that uses the most avante garde and cutting edge strategies to ever befall the battlefield..this simply was not the case,and I am glad to see it is not an issue within the confines of the game to be forced to face an armourclad Napoleon at the head of every militia.

[Vasquez]

I haver come to find that the majority of really volatile complaints come from those that believe every officer placed at the head of command that we face in this game should be a military genius of some sort unrivalled throughout the ages,that uses the most avante garde and cutting edge strategies to ever befall the battlefield..this simply was not the case,and I am glad to see it is not an issue within the confines of the game to be forced to face an armourclad Napoleon at the head of every militia.

Fair comment.

[delra]

The problem is there's zero connection between AI in the field and AI on the campaign map except them having sometimes a bigger morale bonus from their general.

It'd nice if AI knew if it's an offensive or defensive battle, if it's their final stand so they have to fight till last soldier or just a preliminary battle of the war to wear down enemy by destroying his siege equipment or missile units. In every case tactics would be different.

Player plays towards goals. Like killing off enemy general goal. Or killing enemy gold-chevroned cavalry goal. Or taking their trebuchets and archers with cavalry-based army so in the next battle they are helpless against an army based on missile units...

I wish AI could do the same. It would be hell lot more fun to figure out what AI is trying to achieve and work throughout the battle to counter it.

[Chevalier IX]

@delra
try running the game using Lusteds CAI.It actually rather thoroughly attends to the issues you have stated,resulting in the AI playing a much smarter and reactionary game.For example,one of the prime things I have noticed is that the enemy will fortify its borders and play defensively if it has been defeated in a few open battles that rendered its armies in the field devastated,but on the same note,will press on to your capital if you are falling back,opting to cease fire under grounds of your vassalage or destroy you outright depending on your faction standing,and the AI knows when it has been beat,acutally accepting vassalage under your terms and showing a willingness to sacrifice different regions for the ceasefire if their backs are actively against the wall.Give it a try

[delra]

I think Xeryx, Lusted and other guys have done all that could be done to aid M2TW AI in at least challenging the player. But despite their efforts, the game is still dirty easy. Byg and Point Blank try to make it more realistic but without shining toys like Gothic Knights, this game is even less attractive. Who has patience to play for 200 turns to get his best units while after 100th he can have half of the map conquered with militias?

I think it's high time we were given something new. :-)

CA promise a much better AI for ETW. They have proven already how much they can fail in this field, but I hope all those snarky comments about armies composed only of ballistas have woken some professional pride in them. Also, this time they have Lusted so it should be better.

I hope vanilla ETW will at least be playable until some good mods for it pop up.

[Tsarsies]

I would have to agree with all of you. This game does need better AI (among other things), and in the form of Kasparov, that would be rather grand! But i don't think the majority of M2TW players are even half his standard, let alone reaching 1500 on the chessmaster series... At the same time, i would almost wager that the people writing all these mods are not playing them half as long as the fans who download and eagerly await each induction, meaning its far more challenging to play an entire game then it is to play 100 yrs in the game. I would have to agree with Ikusa IX regarding being forced to fight an iron clad napoleon at every turn, its a little unrealistic. If every german military front had hitler himself leading them into battle the allies never would have stood a chance, that man made beggars do great things even if he was evil!... But yes, the AI in M2TW is still left to be desired, Is it because we are all seasoned professionals at this game now? we can only hope that empire total war delivers the goods, or atleast has the capability for this modding community to fix! Because regardless of how any of us feel about this game, we love it, thats why we are here, and Stainless Steel has made warriors out of beggars!

[Pious Agnost]

Hitler would've been beaten on the Russian front And if he was leading every border, Allied command would have many oppurtunities to both kill him, and manipulate his overly sensitive manner

[delra]

I don't want to start another "what if" historical thread but Hitler was an insane idiot. If Stauffenberg managed to kill him, we would be writing this posts in German now. If Hitler was leading each army into combat, they wouldn't probably even get past Poland. It was geniuses like Guderian or Rommel who did the real job for nazis and Hitler was making it harder and harder the more he was devolving in his insanity. I'd kind of prefer this situation though. Nazi winning would be the worst thing to happen to Europe since Rome conquering Greece.

Now on topic: AI general should act according to two things:

1. Orders from his King, President, whatever. Imagine autoresolve with "task" dropdown menu where you have "destroy enemy cavalry", "kill enemy general", "decimate enemy archers", "seize enemy artillery" and so on. If AI was aware of its situation on the strategic map, it could pick the most suiting goals per each battle. Also player could just demand some result from his general instead of having to play it himself.
2. His skill. A dumb general would be more likely to fall for traps, smart one would be more likely to use them. Smart one would ordered a pretended withdrawal to lure enemy into breaking his formation, a dumb one would fall for that and so on.
3. Army he has. Each task would require certain army composition.

If AI used this system to preset each battle, it'd be much more fun. Also player would have some control over autoresolve which would be more fun. Every time I see "severely wounded" I pray for a "protect own general at all cost" option. Really.

[Navajo Joe]

I agree the Campaign AI is what needs changing and made more smart, however what has surprised me in my Campaign, is that I have taken Caernarvon and now Exeter, from the English and they are throwing everything they have against me, thats is what I would expect to happen. However on the negative William Wallace event has happened and I would expect the Scots to attack York, on the basis I have the English occupied in the South.
One point of insane madness, A Novgorod Princess came to me last night, give me 180 florins or we will attack. I payed it did not want the hassle, but what is that all about, more like 1800 florins!

[Warspite_TW]

One point of insane madness, A Novgorod Princess came to me last night, give me 180 florins or we will attack. I payed it did not want the hassle, but what is that all about, more like 1800 florins!

I cannot belive, that **** got you too!!! She is not a novgorodian princess, trust me. She is a farmer girl from Poland making some easy money. I invest heavlly in DNA testing technology to unmask her.

[King phaerlock]

wow nice

[Caesar Clivus]

I am very interested to see the AI in Empire now that CA have Lusted working for them. If it's crap, at least we'll know who to blame (and who to lynch)

And totally agree re:Hitler. He was not a good general by any means. He made many poor military decisions all throughout the war.Later in the war he took the first jet-fighter (the Me-262) and ordered that it be used as a bomber. If it was kept as a fighter, it could very well have prevented the D-day landings.

[delra]

Yeah. Will burn the witch! :-)

[Navajo Joe]

Warspite
I haven't stopped laughing since you responded, if I had an assassin I would have executed her for her insolence, cheeky .....!
On the subject of leaders, they would mostly be poor Generals. On the other hand most Generals make poor leaders. e.g Eisenhower, not much of leader as I can remember