"Excuse me, I need better AI!"

**Immortales** · May 24, 2009, 04:45 PM

From the "Suggestions for EB 2" topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warspite_TW View Post
Hmm... There are some modders who succeded in producing a better AI both in BAI and CAI (Lusted, Savage, Grand Viz for SS and BC). Maybe asking for help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iounas View Post
looks interesting.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgErfCum8VY

You guys are so damn right! It has been proven that it's possible to enhance the AI.

Please, Please include AI improvements!

Recently i reinstalled EB 1.2 after a long time. I enjoyed the unmatched historical exactness as usual but I was really turned down by the incredibly stupid AI. I don't want to even start to sum up all the failures it produced. Finally it destroyed my enjoyment almost completely. It is such a shame that the feeling of immersion is so drastically handicapped.

Does anyone feel the same? Is the EB team already working on it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Btw: Why is it so goddamn hard to program a challenging AI for CA?

Even a Mod-Team can do wonders.
Just bring in a sensible use of these standard tactics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics

Looking forward to reading your posts!

**eddy_purpus** · May 24, 2009, 06:56 PM

I do feel the same about the Ai...
but Hell...
EB Makes up what the Ai left out...
And even surpasses it by enjoyment ....
easily...

**we4kf00l** · May 25, 2009, 07:14 AM

EB really pushed the RTW engine to the limits in a lot of ways. I guess the AI is this version will be limited by the M2TW engine. I hope they can make something of it

**Space Voyager** · May 25, 2009, 07:49 AM

It was already stated that AI will be modified, but they want to do their own version. I'm sure they will check the existing solutions though.

**Tankai** · May 25, 2009, 05:42 PM

Hope so, last time with EB1 the team didn't do much for it.

**Mediolanicus** · May 26, 2009, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Tankai

Hope so, last time with EB1 the team didn't do much for it.

Well, they did all they could... That's what over half the EBBS script is for afterall.

AI in RTW is completely hardcoded and thus unmoddable.
M2TW has certain parameters that can be changed and thus can be modded within certain limits.

**hefa** · May 27, 2009, 03:56 AM

I completly agree with immortales. The AI in RTW ruins it all. The team of EB putted so much effort in reproducing the historical facts. The dynamics however is always bollocks in EB 1. In all my campaigns as well as all AAR's I've read on EB 1, I have never seen a plausible turn of history. The expansion and the diplomatic relationships of the factions always end up absolutely idiotic. A faction with the name romani with all realistic units, buildings, character names, etc., which simply doesn't behave as I would suspect from them (e.g.: expanding into germany but never into north africa) is not Rome.

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

Well, they did all they could... That's what over half the EBBS script is for afterall.

I'm absolutely sure they tried the best they can. As a result one must state that the RTW engine does not allow one to emulate history.

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

M2TW has certain parameters that can be changed and thus can be modded within certain limits.

True! I have played DLV and Chivalry II. Both allow some basic politics and with both one can create campaigns with some degree of historical plausability. Something I never had with any RTW mod. Taking the impressiv abilities of the EB team into account, I'm very eager to see what they will produce (I think everybody does). Maybe will see real politics and real diplomacy for the first time. At least I find this perspective much more interesting than some further corrections on unit statistics, graphical details and the like.

**Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus** · May 26, 2009, 08:58 AM

hope it will be easier to make peace as in Rome it was nigh impossible to have a ceasefire unless you gave them ridculos amounts of gold and settlements it was especially wierd that after reducing a faction to a couple of settlements and being massively more powerful they would still demand a lot of money and land. IA stupidity is something that i know cant be completely removed but is it possible to get them from declaring war a massively more powerful state?

**DraeKlae** · May 27, 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Immortales

Btw: Why is it so goddamn hard to program a challenging AI for CA?

Even a Mod-Team can do wonders.

AI programming is done by making the computer analyze its current situation and give a value to each of the possible actions, then performing the highest valued action. This is a good approach to simple games like chess or card games, but it's more ineffective in games with many possible actions (imagine how many possible moves are there on the campaign map or how many different ways can you arrange your troops in battle). There's also a lot of testing that needs to be done to make sure the AI isn't bugged (so players don't exploit its weaknesses). In RTW, mods like EB managed to handle the AI by increasing unit costs and upkeep, increasing building costs etc. These modifications, however, slow the game and CA apparently doesn't want that (maybe it's a bad image for the press having a game with a grand campaign that takes months to play).

**Immortales** · May 28, 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by DraeKlae

AI programming is done by making the computer analyze its current situation and give a value to each of the possible actions, then performing the highest valued action. This is a good approach to simple games like chess or card games, but it's more ineffective in games with many possible actions (imagine how many possible moves are there on the campaign map or how many different ways can you arrange your troops in battle). There's also a lot of testing that needs to be done to make sure the AI isn't bugged (so players don't exploit its weaknesses). In RTW, mods like EB managed to handle the AI by increasing unit costs and upkeep, increasing building costs etc. These modifications, however, slow the game and CA apparently doesn't want that (maybe it's a bad image for the press having a game with a grand campaign that takes months to play).

Thanks for your answer. One has to differentiate between campaign ai and battlefield ai. I admit that moving and attack decisions on the campaign map might be hard to program but diplomacy and sea expansion should be doable. Concerning the battles i believe that it could be possible to create decision rules that assess the situation and enforce one of the military tactics i linked above. That would greatly add to the game.