Do AI generals still suicide?

[daviduk109]

Hello, last time I played this game some 8-9 months ago (with submod) there was a problem with AI generals keep charging in and killing themselves against my spears especially during sieges. This sort of ruined the game for me. Does this still happen regularly?

thanks

[JorisofHolland]

During sieges it will still happen (he will even throw himself on stakes) but I'm not sure about field battles.

[Navajo Joe]

Hello, last time I played this game some 8-9 months ago (with submod) there was a problem with AI generals keep charging in and killing themselves against my spears especially during sieges. This sort of ruined the game for me. Does this still happen regularly?

thanks

Why post this here and again in 6.2 RR/RC sub mod?
Do you want an answer for 6.1 OR 6.2?

[daviduk109]

I will compare the responses I get. If here it is said 'yes it is a problem' but on the sub mod board it is said 'no it is not a problem', then that will be useful information. Sounds like it is still happening though, a fatal hardcoded development flaw in mtw2. I guess if it was possible to fix this then it would have been fixed. I mean, am I the only person that thinks it would have been much better to have generals standing back from the main fighting during sieges and not charging in at the earliest opportunity, impaling themselves upon the front line of spears thereby causing their whole army to rout before the battle has even started.

[caspian]

I've been playing 6.1 and 6.2 and I haven't seen a general charge ahead of his infantry. His horse might charge if you have archer bait at the front. But mostly the general is still the unit you have to watch out for, kill him and you could turn the battle to your favor.

[daviduk109]

JorisofHolland (above) says the suicide general problem does still happen particularly during sieges and that was certainly my experience also when I last played this game 8-9 months ago as (England vs Scotland). That was with SS 6.1 and for me, that was one of the biggest problems of the game.

If the suicide general problem is still happening, then it needs to be asked if this problem can be fixed. If so, why has it not already been fixed.

[JorisofHolland]

I said I'm sure it happens during sieges, but not it that it will happen in the field. IIRC, it won't happen, unless the general is leading a cavalry army.

[daviduk109]

A big problem since the game comprises mostly of siege battles.

[JorisofHolland]

The idea behind SS is to create more field battles, by improving the map size (and thus the distance between settlements). But if you sneak past their armies (which is effective) it will be mainly sieges. For me, only a very small part of the game are defending sieges, so the AI only rarely has to assault the walls.

[soulson]

Germanic5 is currently working on a fix that should be out soon.

[daviduk109]

that is great news thanks. Should improve the game immensely, at least when it comes to siege battles. How will the fix be incorporated e.g. a submod? don't know why this fix hasn't been done sooner.

[soulson]

He would most likely update his AI so we could just copy paste it to the data folder as usual. This stuff takes time when people work for a living. Gotta remember they dont get paid for making this game better.

[Stario]

I play with 6.2 RR/RC BGRIV advanced compilation, on the hard setting so i CANNOT comment how the Ai is on easy setting, on hard its pretty good during battle. The General tends to sit behind his army. Though I always flank the AI with My general and another cavalry unit at which point the AI General does charge out with his bodyguards and usually an extra unit of spears; but hey its better than getting flanked. Although if you get some distance between the AI General he will turn his cavalry back; though the point is to keep just enough distance to keep him charging right into a ambushing spear unit I don't think this can be fixed the human factor will always prevail; anyways if the AI was to stay passive other tactics can be used. So back to the questions, No the AI General doesn't just suicide in battles though it can be forced to suicide. During sieges its a different story though; as the AI General seems to be among the melee way too early and often ends up cutdown/captured. Although, with that said during a siege (If I am the besieged) I often lead a Cavalry charge with my general and atleast another cavalry unit via one of the side gates. Usually flanking and catching the AI general still sitting in the back row while his infantry is assaulting/trying to climb the walls or ram the gates etc. Basically the whole strategy is to kill the general & either way its going to happen as the Ai is no match for the human factor.

I have also never seen he AI assault more than one side of the city/castle. Maybe a script can be added; based on army size, for the AI to assault more than one side of the wall. I've seen 3000+ army only assaulting one side of a castle/city while the other 2800 troops (without siege gear) just standing around doing nothing. With the correct placing of just 3 spear units, it is often enough to defend the front aspect of a castle/city while a few archer units in the back row (if they can deploy stakes even better) dump their s*^% on the 2800 troops just standing there. When the AI has a large army it should assault the walls on multiple sides.

A big problem since the game comprises mostly of siege battles.

Not entirely good strategy. Attacking the AI adjacent to a bridge can be just as effective. Similarly, catching the AI outside its fort/caste/city is better than besieging; I find I take less casualties in this way than trying to besiege the AI for example. Personally, I have as much if not more of battlefield skirmishes as i do sieges. With that said, and although the AI is not perfect it has come a long way in the last 8-9 months. The way I see it, unless the AI cheats (for example by getting a massive statistical advantage in its unit attributes compared to the identical human unit) it can never hope to win. However, at the same time I really hate for a peasant unit having the same discipline as a Knight unit for example.

[daviduk109]

I just remember one big battle I had when I last played earlier this year, where I had captured one of Scotland's castles and I garrisoned captured castle with a number of basic units. Scotland counter-attacked a few turns later with 2 massive stacks (2 separate armies and 2 generals). Since Scotland outnumbered me by at least 2-1 Scotland should have easily been able to recapture it's castle. However, Scotland lost that battle because both generals of the 2 attacking armies charged into my castle defences (or just stood there outside the walls and let me shoot them down easily) and got killed early on in the battle, causing the 2 attacking armies to rout shortly afterwards. This for me was a big disappointment and just killed the game. So I am glad that something is being done to address the issue of ensuring the AI takes more care of it's generals particularly during sieges. It is like chess, where the objective is to capture the enemy king (i.e. the leader of the opposing army). Therefore, you should always try to keep the king safe. The same principle applies.

[Stario]

While not a siege, had a interesting battle last night; playing on hard. Me as England (350 troops (spear militia + archers untrained in leather armour only) + 800 reinforcements (these were trained with plate armour and my King was leading them) arrived to the battlefield later. The Scots had 1800 men mostly in plate armour (as confirmed by my spies who intercepted the Scots as they were marching to York).

So picture this, I place my 1 unit of spear militia + x1 unit of archer on a small hill. While my x2 units of cavalry knights hide in the forest to the left of my army (waiting for ambush). So at this point all I got is a meager 4 units (or around 350 mostly untrained troops) facing an army of 1800 with better gear; at this point I was ready to run so I can meet up with my reinforcements. However, what does the AI do? does it charge with its general? No instead the AI retreats slightly and takes up position on top of another hill, just opposite of my massive 4 unit army, and just waits there. So i speed up the game wait for my reinforcements to arrive and set up my formations (at this point some of my reinforcement archers are exhausted form marching) does the AI lead an attack with its general? no he waits on top of a hill and does nothing. So once again I speed up the game until all my troops are fresh and ready for action. So here we have a situation of approximately 1200 English vs 1800 Scots, facing each other doing absolutely nothing. So at this point I have my main army of archers protected by spearmen + a total of x4 cavalry units. The AI's army consist of a mixture of troop - archers, spearmen, infantry and x3 units of heavy cavalry (as the Ai was using x3 generals including its king and heir/royal family). The Ai had its Archers in the front ranks and was waiting for me to come forward (but I kept my distance with my main army) and instead decided to harass the AI with my cavalry.

So now I have x2 cavalry units (120 men in total) waiting in ambush (hidden in forest) on my left while the other two units (my king included here) flank to the AI's rear on my right side (Ai's left). There one of my cavalry unit uses the forest to hide. The Kings unit can never hide (but is used as bait instead). So at this point the AI splits its army by dedicating x2 Skirmisher units and one infantry unit to face and march toward my x2 cavalry units flanking it (the AI) in its rear. This was a big mistake, basically as soon as the AI units made enough distance from the main army I charged form the forest and totally annihilated all 3 of the AI's units (who were not yet in full formation & still marching, the AI's infantry totally surprised by my ambushing cavalry and the x2 skirmisher units were then easy pickings). My cavalry suffered minimal losses whereby returning back to the forest (still flanking the AI). Thus, the battle was a bit more even now.

The next phase of the battle was critical (this was to go after his generals who were now exposed to my cavalry both to the rear and to his right (with my other x2 cavalry waiting in ambush). My next attack was a simultaneous charge of my cavalry from the rear and side & flanking the AI . While in the confusion simultaneously move my main army up so that my archers can unleash some arrows. The AI King bodyguards got charged from the rear and didn't even have time to turn around and got totally annihilated while his heirs heavy cavalry got charged from the side by my x2 units hidden in forest and totally annihilated them (the Scottish King and heir were thus both slain). In the confusion my main army moved up closer for my archers to be in firing range while his archers were running around all disorganised due to the cavalry attack. The AI's final general (on the Ai's very left side) charged after my cavalry but in a number of feints and attacks eventually got mostly taken out by my Kings heavy guards and my still very much intact cavalry before running into my main army and getting cut down by my spear units. Eventually my archers together with the continual harassment of his force from the flank and right by my cavalry proved too much for the AI. The AI's spearmen and infantry eventually charged my archers but were cut down by my spearmen (in guard mode) protecting the archer units + my Cavalry from the rear. The end result was a total loss of about 1700 men + about 100 captured for the AI, while my looses = around 400 men.

My point is in this case the AI was far from charging with his Generals; instead quite the opposite happened. With that said, I did enjoy seeing that atleast the AI's was smart enough to take up advantageous ground;following Sun Tzu's war manual maybe? of fighting down hill and in the sunshine (well it was raining actually). Although IMO, in this case it would have been better to charge outright (General Included) ; but this is just an example where the AI is following its scripts and where the human factor will always prevail. Also while not yet engaged, I made small changes in my formations in preparation for engagement & so did the AI (so I guess not totally doing nothing sitting on that hill) in reaction to me. Although separating his army in response to my cavalry was IMO a big mistake on the AI's side (this kind of thing does make the atmosphere/mood seem a bit more real to what it might have been like back then. This is much better than the early MTW days where the AI would just charge with no set up/strategy whatsoever and get annihilated. IMO the AI (short of cheating via beefed up stats) has come a long way. Again kudos to the modders *thumbs up*

[JorisofHolland]

It is like chess, where the objective is to capture the enemy king (i.e. the leader of the opposing army). Therefore, you should always try to keep the king safe. The same principle applies.

There are a few differences:
1) I often win battles after loosing a general/captain.
2) You can win without killling the leader.
3) Chess isn't ... realtime. But maybe we can release a patch to fix that?

[Mr. Tornado]

I remember a few days ago, I was playing SS 6.2. I saw an enemy king with only a few general's bodyguard left. I engaged him and sent only my general forward

The king literally starting one shotting my general's bodyguard. I tried retreating, but the king rode up and one shot my general.

[daviduk109]

very interesting but that is something different. I am referring only to the AI general bug that occurs when the AI is doing the sieging.

[daviduk109]

Again very interesting but the bug I was referring to is specifically to do with the situation in sieges where the AI forces it's general into combat very early on in the siege, thereby causing the death of the AI general and the whole army to rout shortly thereafter. Even if the AI general is not forced into actual combat, the AI general just stands there well within range of the defending missile units on the walls and makes an easy target.

This bug should be quite easy to fix, just change the line of code that says 'during a siege force AI general into combat', change that to say 'during a siege make sure the AI general keeps out of harms way'. If necessary, this can even say 'during a siege make sure the AI general keeps out of harms way and remains adequately protected'. The principles of chess should apply i.e. keep the king (or leader of the army) adequately protected and out of harms way (although I doubt many youngsters these days are that familiar with the game of chess in the age of computer games).

I have also noted there is a distinct lack of critical thought on this forum from the regular contributors. It helps to apply some critical thought to the game, instead of just accepting that the existing functionality is perfectly ok and cannot be improved (or fixed) any further (I believe the term 'fanboy' can be applied here). Without that critical thought, these problems would never be addressed and resolved.

[Caesar Clivus]

This bug should be quite easy to fix, just change the line of code that says 'during a siege force AI general into combat', change that to say 'during a siege make sure the AI general keeps out of harms way'.

You think it's just a single line of code? Can I suggest you take a look at the AI files involved. It is not anywhere near as simple as you suggest. Editing the AI is a very complex endeavour. Changing one thing can affect hundreds of other things which you then also have to edit. There are only a few people who even try to build better AI's and quite frankly I applaud their efforts. Can I suggest you download and try out the different AIs on offer in the submods forum.

I have also noted there is a distinct lack of critical thought on this forum from the regular contributors. It helps to apply some critical thought to the game, instead of just accepting that the existing functionality is perfectly ok and cannot be improved (or fixed) any further (I believe the term 'fanboy' can be applied here). Without that critical thought, these problems would never be addressed and resolved.

I disagree. I think there is plenty of critical thought when and where it is needed. For example, look at the long discussion thread about what factions should or should not be included. Or the Suggestions thread at the top of the forum. There is also a lot of discussion in the submods forum because currently that is where the main development of SS is taking place. That being said, yes there are fewer threads here where such discussions take place, but that is because the bulk of threads are people asking for help with issues or asking questions about gameplay etc, which is the main function of the forum.