Computer cheats!

[windspast]

Ever notice that none of the AIs have to pay any upkeep? There are so many nations, especially the minor ones, who some how maintains these HUGE armies when they only have 1 region. Some one regioned countries have two full stack of armies just some how roaming around.

I've also conquered Great Britain down to a couple regions left on America (I left them the two northern icy regions) yet they are still constantly raiding my trade routes with their massive navies.

Same with Denmark. I've wiped them off their initial regions and left them with only iceland yet when I visited iceland thinking it will be an easy conquest, they still have two full stacks of armies.

That is reeeaaal frustrating having to not play by the same rules especially when it seem to take me so many turns just to build up 1 full stack of armies and having my money completely whitled down by upkeep

[Lord Nova]

Congratulations for finding out the biggest secret in gaming (the AI cheats). You gotta admit that even with those cheat it's still super easy.

I believe Darthmod takes away the handicap files from the AI (probably so he can test his AI changes better). So you can try that out.

[Nikolai]

Yeah, AI is cheating with recruitment and upkeepcosts, I guess. But that's nothing new... the AI cheated in both Rome and Medieval II, especially on harder difficulties. I think, it's okay, otherwise the AI would have any(!) chance against human players.

[jaklei]

It's well known but there exist mods out there which takes it away. Darthmod for example removes the AI cheating and instead improves the AI's skills.

[Deathofjams]

I'm pretty sure it only cheats on higher difficulties, and if it still does so on normal then it's significantly less.

But remember, EVERY faction- including the player- gets a base income of 3000 (equivalent to the king's purse in Medieval), which is enough to support at least one army. Given that your average province generates another 2000-3000, keeping two stacks active isn't that extreme.

The AI definitely does pay upkeep, though, because I have forced several nations into bankruptcy by stripping them of all their territory and blocking their trade. The AI does seem to keep stockpiles of cash, though, because sometimes it has taken a few turns for that effect to kick in.

[Souvorov]

the more the better right?

doesn't matter anyway if you provoke them to divide, and then conquer obviously

I know what you mean though... still the AI usually keeps its armies on the border or next to the capital - which allows you to maneuver - for instance, I beat Ottomans on the border as Russia and then just sent a small army to Constantinople for three turns, and I took it! The had an army but I somehow beat it.

[Rorarii]

A small nation could still field a large army if they rely on militia, and milita can fight as hard, if not better, when fighting for one's home province! Paying someone to fight doesn't guarantee a better fighter!

Read the text regarding milita units, there's something about milita being only available for home defence but i don't know how that works in ETW?

R

[Razor]

Since the AI is cheating a naval blockade or or blocking trade routes wouldnot be very effective against the AI... Dang...

[Deathofjams]

Actually, blockades do work pretty well, especially late game when some factions are earning 20k+ through a single port. The "cheating" does stop you from totally bankrupting the enemy in that way, but blockades etc. still reduces their income and, therefore, the amount of troops they can produce.

[alpaca]

The AI gets some cheats on higher difficulty settings but what you describe is simply the effect of 3000 free gold per turn that everyone gets.

That said, no AI is competitive without cheats. Either you want to have a challenge and stop seeing the AI as an opponent that could be on par to you or you want to have an instant-gratification game where you can derive some feeling of pleasure from bashing an imagined opponent who just happens to be really quite stupid. Your choice but I'd opt for the former.

[Razor]

The AI gets some cheats on higher difficulty settings but what you describe is simply the effect of 3000 free gold per turn that everyone gets.

That said, no AI is competitive without cheats. Either you want to have a challenge and stop seeing the AI as an opponent that could be on par to you or you want to have an instant-gratification game where you can derive some feeling of pleasure from bashing an imagined opponent who just happens to be really quite stupid. Your choice but I'd opt for the former.

The way Total War works now the AI would certainly need cheats. Why? Because the game is so easy already that the human player can easily control and manage everything. What if CA decides to put in a lot more options and depth in their game. The game would be far more difficult for the player because it has so many options to choose from while an AI could quickly calculate what's the best thing to do for achieving something. If the player loses then it's because of his incapability to manage all the different options. A human player can easily overlook features and possibilities this way while a computer would not. In the end the human player will always win, but you'd have to be really a hardened veteran knwing what's best in a situation taking different things into account.

And if that doesn't work then it's clearly the fault of the computer or better said, the AI programmer. I'm not saying it's easy to have an über-AI, but it's possible with simple computer calculations.
The fact that CA wanted to implement character personalities into an AI adversary seems to me as if they are a few steps too far ahead. I'd rather have a perfectly calculating AI adversary first.

[alpaca]

The way Total War works now the AI would certainly need cheats. Why? Because the game is so easy already that the human player can easily control and manage everything. What if CA decides to put in a lot more options and depth in their game. The game would be far more difficult for the player because it has so many options to choose from while an AI could quickly calculate what's the best thing to do for achieving something. If the player loses then it's because of his incapability to manage all the different options. A human player can easily overlook features and possibilities this way while a computer would not. In the end the human player will always win, but you'd have to be really a hardened veteran knwing what's best in a situation taking different things into account.

And if that doesn't work then it's clearly the fault of the computer or better said, the AI programmer. I'm not saying it's easy to have an über-AI, but it's possible with simple computer calculations.
The fact that CA wanted to implement character personalities into an AI adversary seems to me as if they are a few steps too far ahead. I'd rather have a perfectly calculating AI adversary first.

Complex games can't be perfectly calculated, it'd take too much time. Also, it simply wouldn't work like that. I agree that it'd make the game more difficult to novices but as you say the "veterans" would know what works best without even thinking about it so it wouldn't be difficult for them. It's that way in Civ4 and in Europa Universalis and it should be like that in ETW but CA wants an "accessible" game so they won't make sensible but complex features you actually have to think about. That's probably more cost-efficient than making a good game and a good tutorial+manual instead

[Razor]

Complex games can't be perfectly calculated, it'd take too much time. Also, it simply wouldn't work like that. I agree that it'd make the game more difficult to novices but as you say the "veterans" would know what works best without even thinking about it so it wouldn't be difficult for them. It's that way in Civ4 and in Europa Universalis and it should be like that in ETW but CA wants an "accessible" game so they won't make sensible but complex features you actually have to think about. That's probably more cost-efficient than making a good game and a good tutorial+manual instead

Not even with dual core and quad core CPU's today? Okay, theoretically it would work. Since TW has a turnbased campaign it could work for the campaign AI. And I'm happy enough with the battle AI. I think it just needs tweaking and changing priorities...

[Mohamed612]

It was best in M2, the AI would only resort to cheating when really desperate, like, their capital or one of their last areas are being attacked and they're under or about to be under siege or something. Bankrupting countries was something I really enjoyed doing in M2, even without farms and trade routes.

[X_maniac_X]

The AI gets a payout every time they go <0 so the way to cripple them is to reduce thier income to as low as possible so that they cannot afford anything and cannot recieve the AI stupidity doll.

[tokaiser]

Medieval 2 was a flawed but fun game and the AI cheated a little. Empire on the other hand is a poorly designed rush job that relies on cheating AI for any slight challenge, yet then after 1720 becomes a steamroller contest where AI becomes pathetic speed bumps that make you feel a sense of "why" as opposed to not thinking and just playing a fun and deep video game. Anyone having fun with this game still should try cup and ball, way more fun. I had more fun being sick with the flu then playing this stupid bargain bin reject.

[Pfundner]

yeah, i worked this out recently too, its proving a right pain in the arse on imperial splendour vh/vh, which also massively increases the players costs. fiding it hard to create a full stack let alone maintain one