Report to the basic AI problem in TW games!

[♔Mandelus♔]

The battle AI in ETW and presumably also NTW, and indeed of all the battle AI's in all TW titles is always criticized for their "stupidity" and their behavior. This criticism is entirely justified, without question. However, about 2 / 3 of all the problems can be explained due to a simple fact with far-reaching consequences:

1 unit = 1 complete regiment (or equivalents, such as cohort) in the game

Of course, most players have noticed that in ETW any unit is called regiment, or in corresponding cohort in the previous games like RTW, etc. But hardly anyone noticed how far reaching this issue is on the campaign AI and in particular on the Battle AI has effects!
Anyone who has doubts that any unit is really a regiment that will still look at this example:
The square formation against cavalry is and can be performed only by a single unit in the game! This corresponds to the original, because this formation was taken in by a whole battalion or regiment!
Also note, that all the units in the game are numbered as regiments and at least: Take a special look on the “famous” units in the game, f.e. the Black Watch. How often can they be recruited in the original game? 1 time, because it is a regiment and there were in original also no 2 regiments called “Black Watch”.

Conclusion and fact:
Each unit in the game is a whole regiment, or in fact represents a whole battalion!

We must explain here one point:
Each regiment of foot in this period had 2 to 3 battalions, depending from nation to nation and age and other ponts of difference. Each battallion had about 4 to 6 companies, difference of same reason.
Most times the battalions of a regiment rarely served together and were splitted to different areas. F.e. the 1. battalion of an british regiment could be in war of independence in north america, the second was garrision in Gibraltar.

Let me now in the following explain in detail which bad impacts this has in the game for the AI in their behaviour, because only by this long post anyone will understand it.


I. The behaviour of the player


The key question is:
Does the player look on a single unit that it is a regiment and does the player act with one unit like it is a complete regiment?
The answer is quite clearly "No”! He treats his units NOT like whole regiments or battalions!

Let us begin to explain it simply with this picture, which shows the basic establishment of a battalion in the linear warfare of the period (here a Prussian battalion of Frederic the Great):



Surely now most players recognized this formation well, because this is how most players deploy their units of line infantry in ETW!
But THAT is the formation of an entire battalion or sometimes a regiment with its companies, but NOT the establishment of many complete regiments in the battle. In this period there was never one regiments shoulder to shoulder deployed to the next regiment in a line!
Thus we come back to the beginning: What is one unit in the game? A whole regiment!

For yet another proof, take a look on this screenshot from a line infantry unit in the game:



Now compare this screenshot here with the views set out for the establishment of a battalion in the period, which falls on you?
Right! The standard bearer, drummer, and an officer of a unit is at the centre. Where is the flag and so on at the battalion as shown? Also in the centre!


Let us point out:

The player sets up his infantry units as the individual companies of a battalion in line formation. This does not compare to that what a unit is in the game: a complete regiment or battalion!
The player is therefore not acting with his 20 units like 20 regiments in term of handling, deployment and so on during the battle. Even here he keeps with the units the line and works with the individual units closely. He therefore treated his units as individual companies and NOT as regiments
Perhaps some people now start to understand the difference that is so important! But lets go on, because there should be in the end no misunderstanding left at anyone!


II The behaviour of the AI


Here too, the core question directly:
Does the AI in all their behaviour acts with the single units like a whole regiments or a battalions?
The answer is straight and clear "Yes"! The AI treats each unit as a regiment / a battalion in all ultimately impacts of the game!
This makes it quite clear what the difference is, take a simply look on that picture (pictures do sometimes speak a clearer language than words):

If we keep together:
Approx. 5 units of the player match in all respects with regard to the behaviour and use in battle just to a single unit for the AI. The players handles 5 units like a battalion and a battalion or regiment is for the AI only 1 unit!
For some, where the huge difference and its far-reaching consequences has not yet become clear, it is now perhaps clear or clearer. But we go further, because now comes the crux of why the AI gets a lot of anger!

III. The difference in the battle

We saw that the player use the units NOT like a regiment as CA wanted to have. We have also found that about 5 units of the player corresponded in handling only to a single unit for the AI in their behaviour!

What does that mean?

In any TW game, the AI decides on the basis of a pool of targets = scripts what, where, how and when to do, in conjunction with well defined priorities.
Such scripts are now specified on the basic that every unit = a regiment. This means that the AI treated each unit as a regiment, and stands in total contradiction and contrast with the behaviour of the player!
The effects are, as already stated, quite simply dramatic, and ultimately the main reason why the AI in ETW provides for so much anger!
To take a simple typical behaviour of the AI as an example for anger:
Often, the AI tries to run one or two units of cavalry in an arc around the front of the player in order to get it into his back. This behaviour has been criticized by players, for “what the hell again" will the AI object with that? One or two ridiculous cavalry units, which is already in the eyes of the player what? Nothing!

Key question: Why is it ridiculous for the player?
Answer: Because he would never act with such a ridiculous unit this way!

The AI provides a completely different, because for them this unit a whole proud cavalry regiment ant the AI is proud that she has placed in accordance with specifications (scripts) a complete regiment in the rear of the enemy and this is a serious threat for the player ... set in the perspective of AI!
In the eyes of the player is such an approach only a threat if they are there are 4 or 5 units in his back, not only a stupid single unit.

Key question: Why is only that a threat for the player?
Answer: Because he is not looking on a single unit as a proud whole regiment!

We see with this very simple example, on which we will come back again later, that the whole perspective of the player greatly differs from the perspective of AI. It can also be expressed by saying that the player sees the matter in an entirely different scale than the AI.
Let’s stay a moment at the word “scale”, because it shows the difference between the player and the AI very well! At ETW's the thoughts and actions of the player's view with 1 unit = 1 company in something like a colonel of a regiment. However, the AI "thinks" and acts according to their specifications (scripts) like a general moving here all the regiments on the field!

I think most people understand now, where the problem lies in all the TW games and also why the AI "so stupid" acts. But we should go forward and to point it out ....

[♔Mandelus♔]

IV The impact in the battle

We have previously determined that the player is in his whole way of looking more like the colonel of a regiment in the battle. The AI, however, by virtue of the elementary setting 1 unit = 1 regiment is playing the General.
We have noted that the scale of approach between the player and AI has a big difference and this difference has consequences!
As explained in the example of Section III, is a cavalry unit for the AI is about the same as it would do for the player like 4 to 5 units.

Let us examine once this original map of Waterloo, more precisely,


At the first glance, that's all very familiar from what we see here. The French and British are still here shown as does the player in ETW do ....

WRONG!

The difference is that the player is in complete behaviour only one or two unit of the red or blue unit symbols on this map with his entire army of 20 units! The AI is here, however, Wellington or Napoleon Bonaparte at the battle in terms of their total prescribed "ways of thinking and acting" in the scripts! It is again exactly what I call scale that distinguishes the player and the AI in all things!
As if to prove this even serve all the historical battles in ETW (and in future also in NTW), because if these are really only companies that are here involved, it seems ridiculous, without any question! But if there are whole regiments, then so it is not ridiculous and that's the whole point of view, as Creative Assembly did in the game and has therefore incorporated as a course of action for AI!
And just that now pops literally the entire game to the player's behavior as he leads the battle, because he plays for the AI to closely with the units during the battle. He placed 4 units line infantry in a line and wonders, or rather is annoyed that the AI here is making blobs with their units term of deployment with individual units and not in line and also in handling during the attack. The AI is determined to do so with the scripts, because why?
That what the players is making there with 4 or 5 units in a line that is in the approach of AI is only one unit in its handling!

And the icing on the crown: The AI makes it thus historically quite correct, actually! If ….
If it there is not now the "bad player", who cares a crap of the principle of 1 unit = 1 regiment and ignored this in all things!

Here, too, to illustrate still a nice picture because pictures often speak better than words:



This is a small scene from a huge diorama in 1:72 scale of the Battle of Waterloo. What we see here in the foreground, is a complete French battalion in column formation. The player will make this with 5 units in the game where the AI can’t do, because a battalion / regiment is only a single unit! And because a column was made by a single battalion with the companies and never by complete battalions, the AI will never make such a formation. It is the same with the line formation at least and this different scale causes conflicts and let the AI looking stupid with their blobs of attacking units!
The silly thing is, that the AI is forced to do so with the given scripts because the general point 1 unit = 1 regiment is here dominating the rules for the AI!

I think most people understand now the important difference between players and AI’s behaviour which causes all the anger! The reason is the different scale of viewing in the field. To make an other comparison:
Take a sandbox and give each side 20 toy soldiers. For the player is 1 soldier = 1 soldier and so he is acting with them in the game. For the AI each single toy soldier is a complete battalion. That the AI is acting completely different than the player with the soldiers is normally everyone clear!

But it still goes on ....

[♔Mandelus♔]

V. Priorities for the AI

We have now determined that the AI in battle really is not that stupid as it seems, but unfortunately because of this "too big" vision the AI has, according to the completely other behaviour of the players, it looks that bad and cause this anger in the community!
But there are more things going wrong, and these idiotic things I want to explain here too, because they round out the overall view of the player over the AI!
In addition to the default behavior in the scripts as shown, are also the priorities for the attack and the defense given. These priorities are not really so wrong at least and also necessary, but they were incomplete programmed, or there are missing decision-making criteria so that the AI is only at an unfinished point!

The best example, and what the majority of what players are rightly upset with are the suicide attacks of the cavalry to the artillery of the player. We will remember:
The AI sends out some single units of cavalry and tries to attack the artillery of the player with suicide behaviour at least. That this is be done by some single units is now clear, because 1 unit = 1 complete regiment and in the eyes of the AI strong units. But what everyone is wondering why the AI is doing it at all.
It is a priority for the AI to eliminate the enemy's artillery, and that priority is absolutely right in and of itself. It is also perfectly true that the AI takes for this cavalry, because they are faster and will not so much be hit by artillery at least as f.e. infantry.
The error is that the player has of course not deployed his artillery alone. It usually stands in the immediate vicinity of the infantry, often before or very close to her.
So the AI of course “see” the bunch of infantry in line, but because of a mistake in the scripts these bunch of infantry is not a treat for the AI, because the number does not matter. Only Infantry in square formation is implemented as treat for cavalry in the scripts! So the priority to destroy enemy artillery is dominating the rest and this is looking in the eyes of all players straight and only stupid in the result!
As everyone knows, the infantry will shoot the *peep* out of the attacking cavalry but this treat is not implemented or not good enough implemented in term of many units in the scripts!
It is clear error that Creative Assembly made here and this must be fixed by them at all!

As if to prove the whole thing we do it now the other way:
The AI has positioned their artillery behind and the player is riding around the formation of the AI with 4 to 5 units of cavalry, because he wants to destroy the artillery. Most of the AI starts to respond directly, when the player is in the same line as the AI formation, even when out of range of the rifles, but the AI at least respond when he is in the back of the AI formation / main formation. What exactly happened?
The AI gets into total panic, because if you stand with 5 units = 5 regiments of cavalry in the back of the AI, then that is a huge threat for them! Therefore, it is at the top priority to force this threat off the back! So the AI reformed their units and formation to do so and ….. this will look like a bunch of chickens in the barn when the fox is pure evil ... so comes that criticized chaos!
This makes the AI eventually totally incapacitated! The AI tries to defend the artillery, to reform against this top priority threat and if becoming attacked in front by the rest of the players army, being set under heavy artillery fire and the result is well known by you all. Then come to light exactly what Mike Simpson so aptly has described as the HAL 9000 Syndrome! The AI does not know what to do and is hesitant in everything and sits suspended in total chaos because afraid like a rabbit in the face of the snake!

Conclusion:
The battle AI in all the TW games includes an elementary and general mistake, made by Creative Assembly. The basic of all problems and anger with the AI can be found in the general system 1 unit = 1 regiment. This system is implemented to the AI behaviour in battles and even in campaigns too. Here in battles the AI tries to play the big General of the Army and handles with every unit like it is a complete full regiment and this is much bigger scale of acting in result as the player do with his 20 unit army! This collides with the view of the player and males all the anger as basic mistake.
But this major error made by Creative Assembly is not new, because it is the same way given in all TW titles!
But here the same basic error made by Creative Assembly does not cause the same problem and anger as in ETW. There are 2 major reasons why:
1.)
Surely it is the same different view on the scale of 1 unit between player and AI. But here the difference in formations, deployment and acting is not the same as in ETW. Let us take as example the pike units of Greeks & Co. in RTW:
1 unit is here again = 1 “regiment” for the AI and only 1 company for the player. But the deployment is in both ways the same – 1 line / wall of pikes, standing close together! As we know in ETW it is not the same!
Also formations or better different formations between player and AI are not so important!
2.)
In M2TW and RTW the melee is the general thing of fight and not the fire fight with rifles. It is a totally other fighting style in the games. Sure, in M2TW and RTW are also shooting units, but I think everyone knows the difference between a unit line infantry and archers. game.
The fundamental point of view 1 unit = 1 regiment has even a negative impact on the campaign AI! How is it with the "mini-armies" from 5 to 6 units for the AI, which make an attack on a province or even a make a naval landing? What does the player thinks about this behavior of the AI? Certainly not positive, on the contrary!
Let us again take a look on the principle 1 unit = 1 regiment in mind. When the AI makes an Attack or naval landing with such a small army it is for they AI also an other scale of attack as in the eyes of the player! To make a naval landing with 10 full regiments is for the AI a big treat to the player. But the player is thinking other wise about it.
But here again, the AI is it making not incorrect at least. Question: With how many regiments does General Wellington fight in Spain?
The answer shows again the difference between the viewing of the player and at least Creative Assembly in AI behaviour and general viewing on the game!

Solution:
The solution of the problem is actually quite clear and obvious:
1.) The AI has the perspective of 1 unit = 1 regiment in all areas get cleared and get inoculated with a view 1 unit = 1 company in the scripts. So they will behave more like the players with the units and in my opinion, in a far better way! This is a huge job to change, no doubt, but it is possible! As for the exact new behaviour and how the terms in the scripts with predefined patterns and formations has to be changed etc., there are plenty of literature of the original, which can serve as a basis for rational scripts!
2.) For the AI has to be made an AI Director (god father) which works if the AI becomes unable to make decisions what to do in battles. He has to “say” this script with this formation and so on and the AI has to do so! This will maybe in most ways the wrong formation in the situation, but I think even thousand times better then that chaos what is now the result of the inability to make a decision.
If Creative Assembly is aware of these facts and points and willing to make a general change in their AI, we will have as result a really improvement.
Sure, the AI will never be so smart as a human player. To make such demands is unrealistic, but if there are possibilities to give improvements, they should be used.
It shall be noted, that this points of problems are unofficial confirmed by 3 CA members. Maybe there will come an official confirmation, who knows!
I wrote this to inform the community about the basic problem and in hope to get an ear at CA to the problem and that thy try to change it.

Personal note:
I play since 8 years TW games and this report is the result of my accumulated knowledge, observations and experiences during this time.
I’m personally not a modder and so I don’t know much about that thins. Also I’m not a programmer and so I don’t much about re programming the AI and so on. But this is at least not my job, because I only will show where the problem is and what should be changed by the guys who have this knowledge!
I entirely hope to change things with this report at CA, but let it now finish with a german proverb:

The hope dies at last!

Mandelus

[Modestus]

Again with the regiments, you can call them whatever you want but as far the computer game is concerned they are blocks of individual soldiers that move together and fight together.

Looking at 5 blocks together and saying that the player threats them like battalions is fine but saying that the AI sees one block as a regiment is daft. There is no basis for this assumption except to say that the AI uses its blocks badly. You have for some reason jumped to the preposterous idea that because the AI uses a single block incorrectly it must therefore think a single block is in fact 5 blocks, why?

Its much more likely that the AI does not know how to coordinate a group of blocks together in a concerted attack, a simply explanation and almost certainly the real reason.

If we followed your assumptions to their logical conclusion every time I fight the AI it thinks it has an army composed of 20 regiments compared to mine of 20 battalions.

Now in the name of all that is holy what type of idiot would program a tactical AI to think like that?

In a nutshell all you are really saying is that the AI does not coordinate its attacks with the other blocks in its army because it thinks one is enough.

Its a completely new approach to AI programming for tactical warfare I will give you that and it must have come as quite a shock to CA when they found out that the AI units wanted to fight on their own.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Modestos, thats not true.

The differnece is, how the AI use this blocks in the field! This looks uncoordinated in the eyes of the player, sure, but what is the reason? The AI has implemented in the scripts how to use them etc., right?

Here is the mistake, because the AI had been implemented in the scripts to use the units or blocks or however you will call it like complete regiments as a General of the army in the field will set them as little flags on his battle map in his HG tent!
This is looking uncoordinated and silly in the eyes of the player, because he is completely otherway handling and acting or in short words: In his eyes 1 unit is NOT a regiment at all, never was and will be a complete regiment!

That what you told earlier about the blobs of units making and fighting uncoordinated has clearly this reason! There are no blobs in the game, because a unit = a regiment and this is mostly fighting independent, also in original during the battle. There was never a line of regiments going forward in the field shoulder by shoulder in this original period and this what the AI has implemented in the scripts! So the player is at least doing wrong with his action, but this shall not be a blming of players please...

The AI knows to coordinate things, but in a too large scale! If the AI sends a unit vavalry around your formation in your back, it is of course in your eyes ridiculous! But for the AI it is a complete regiment in the back of the enemy and not only a single worthless unit as in the eyes of the player.

This system is in all TW titles inside Modestos and so it is at least 8 years old and not really changed. Only and first time in ETW it becomes this apparent crap with the always different point of view of the players.
Modestos, was for you or anyone in RTW a unit romans = 1 cohort? I mean a cohort in original had about 400 men ...

In conclusion I will say, that there was since years a totally missunderstanding and differnece betwenn the players and Creative Assembly in this case. CA had the AI done things at an other level / scale of thinking etc. than the player has seen the game and its battles ...

[Modestus]

The AI knows to coordinate things, but in a too large scale! If the AI sends a unit vavalry around your formation in your back, it is of course in your eyes ridiculous! But for the AI it is a complete regiment in the back of the enemy and not only a single worthless unit as in the eyes of the player.

I am sorry but I have to strongly disagree with the above statement because the reality is the AI will have one isolated unit behind the enemy, its not coordinating anything except in your mind.

You cannot just pull an excuse out of the air and explain stupid behaviour as being in fact intelligent behaviour but the AI thought it had more units.

If the AI thinks a single block is in fact 5 blocks its got even bigger problems and the guy who programmed it should either be given a medal or shot.

[Blofeld2k]

Even if all your assumtions are correct it is still how the AI is perceived by the player that determines what is right and wrong. If CA had a different plan with ETW and how units are handled but this got misinterpreted by nearly everyone who plays the game then who's at fault? If this is the case then why doesn't CA explain this to stop people from calling their AI "stupid"?

Conclusion: The player sees strange behavior, interprets this as the AI being stupid, the AI is stupid.

No matter all the good intentions CA might have had, it is the players experience together with the silence from the AI's creator (CA) that determines the outcome.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Even if all your assumtions are correct it is still how the AI is perceived by the player that determines what is right and wrong. If CA had a different plan with ETW and how units are handled but this got misinterpreted by nearly everyone who plays the game then who's at fault? If this is the case then why doesn't CA explain this to stop people from calling their AI "stupid"?

Conclusion: The player sees strange behavior, interprets this as the AI being stupid, the AI is stupid.

No matter all the good intentions CA might have had, it is the players experience together with the silence from the AI's creator (CA) that determines the outcome.

This is agood question where I want to have also an official answer ....

But I think the reason is that: Because of the bunch of other problems with the AI in ETW, the HAL Syndrome, the leave of the battle AI programmer, bugs like the melee bug and so on, CA didn't had an eye on it and didn't understand it really ...
This is not any excuse and should never be one! CA has now time to have look on it and to move on it!

[Blofeld2k]

CA has now time to have look on it and to move on it!

This is what we as a community have been requesting all along, that CA acknowledge the problems and take action. This is the root as to why people are upset.

We have yet to get such a response, and as pessimistic it seems, I don't think we ever will.

[Blofeld2k]

What Modestus is saying is to the point. If the AI was programmed in a way where it fools itself then this is preposterous.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Modestos dude ....

I will not excuse anything with this report! I will only show the truth and where CA made a big mistake in programming all the AI's in their games!

Think about winning piositions for further actions why this single cav unit is in the back. It is really for no player (including me) logically to do so, but when you are trying to understand what the AI does for a crap and why, not to excuse it, then you have to make questions and to search answers. And that was the start at my job here.

Again: I will not excuse anything with this report!

[Plautus]

Modestos dude ....

I will not excuse anything with this report! I will only show the truth and where CA made a big mistake in programming all the AI's in their games!

Think about winning piositions for further actions why this single cav unit is in the back. It is really for no player (including me) logically to do so, but when you are trying to understand what the AI does for a crap and why, not to excuse it, then you have to make questions and to search answers. And that was the start at my job here.

Again: I will not excuse anything with this report!

While i strongly disagree due to already mentioned reasons i have to say that your post indeed sound like a excuse...!
And i really dont see your point and the motivation for the energy and time needed to make such a big post...you cannot analyse a program or function in the way you try without seeing the code.

[♔Mandelus♔]

While i strongly disagree due to already mentioned reasons i have to say that your post indeed sound like a excuse...!
And i really dont see your point and the motivation for the energy and time needed to make such a big post...you cannot analyse a program or function in the way you try without seeing the code.

Why do you think or read out that it is an excuse? .... an excuse for whatand whom?
I surely will not excuse the AI in their behavior or neither excuse Creative Assembly, why shall I do so?

The problem most people have is, when someone is trying to found out reasons why something is so made and so on, that it fast sounds like an excuse and this is, sorry to say, stupid!
Only because I'm not shouting on CA "the AI is crap, hell on you" and I give a damn on the reasons, this is surely not a search for excuses. Also I never wrote you have to accept it, I only wrote it is because this and that and this is an important difference!

The motivation is to a) to found out where the problem is and why, b) to name it to the officials and c) try to correct it by yourself. a) is done,, b) is done too here and before and c) is in work!
The 2. motivation is to show all those people who can always only shout on things, that it has maybe a rreason, so stupid the reason of trouble is at least like here and now. But I know, this is a stupid behaviour from me and maybe nonsense, because many people give a damn on reasons ....


But BTT:

....you cannot analyse a program or function in the way you try without seeing the code.

You can do so and this is not the first time I did, because in business programms I did too many times with a 95% quote of success in being right!
I don't know your experience with TW games, my is huge! If you as I all the historical things around battles of this age and of neing a trained in military staff things, because I made my master in history about ituring my army time, you see suddenly matches in the game. This are of course no proofs, but they are the start of everything as it was here!
And by the way, "only with code knowledge..." is only a bla bla bla, sorry! But be calm, this was proofed in meantime too by someone else and they proofed what I wrote!

[Modestus]

Modestos dude ....

I will not excuse anything with this report! I will only show the truth and where CA made a big mistake in programming all the AI's in their games!

Think about winning piositions for further actions why this single cav unit is in the back. It is really for no player (including me) logically to do so, but when you are trying to understand what the AI does for a crap and why, not to excuse it, then you have to make questions and to search answers. And that was the start at my job here.

Again: I will not excuse anything with this report!

Not accusing you of making excuses for the AI just pointing out that your argument is flawed because it rests solely on a belief that the AI is using units incorrectly because it thinks they are something else.

There is no evidence for this except the incorrect behaviour which could be attributed to many other things, the most likely is that individual units have basic commands that they perform regardless of the tactical situation.

The evidence for this is more evident than what you are suggesting and would suggest that instead of an AI that thinks units are regiments that in fact you have no high command level AI and that individual units are left to their own basic code which they act on even if the tactical situation demands the opposite.

I understand what your getting at but I see no evidence for what your saying.

[aeoleron9]

tldr, but I think (and I think Mandelus would agree) the simple problem with ETW BAI is that it always orders its troops one at a time, they never order several units in a formation group. It doesn't even have to be some elborate formation, a simple line of three line inf would do, but they just don't do it. The result is they're much more prone to run into each other when they're chasing after their targets on their own.

This happens in our own armies too, if we control them the wrong way. For example if we take two line inf and tell them to attack an enemy, these two will both walk straight for the target and start clipping into each other's lines. The way to avoid this is to not directly attack, but move them as a group towards the enemy and let them fire at will once they're in range. Maybe the AI should learn to play like this.

Or CA should just improve their attack order pathfinding so units can maintain their formation when they get an attack order. I think this shouldn't be too hard to fix, actually.

[karamazovmm]

Your argument is flawed by the solely reason that you're not a C++ programmer nor have access to any code regarding the BAI, although it was a amusing reading

[magpie]

I think Mandelus has put forward a valid theory to explain The BAI behaviour in the TW games. How many player,s of whatever TW game see a unit as a regiment?
How many player,s are happy with 20 unit armies, or complain that they cannot represent a realistic army.
I play RTW and mods, I have never seen a unit as a cohort or treated it as such. Only as a century, why! because most people judge by what they see before them. They do not as in a table top game say well this flag or counter is a regiment and treat it as such.
A good test maybe? would be to play a battle and treat each unit as a full regiment, So if the AI flanks you with a unit/regiment. Then match it with a unit/regiment and see how the battle plays out.
Saying Mandelus cannot be right, because he is not a computer programmer or does not have access to the source code is not a valid augument.
Most people when they get used to a game or any task, Can form a very valid opinion from observation and behaviour.
The ball rests with CA on this one.

[Xerrop]

An interesting post Mandelus. Will try to act different now and see if it works. +rep

Contrary to most of the other posters here, I think you are right on your assumptions. When playing MTW (the first one) I haven´t grouped the units to larger blocks compared to RTW onwards and the battles were much more challenging. The AI flanked my single units and the advantage in the battles went back and forth = long lasting and realistic battles.

[♔Mandelus♔]

@ Modesto

I know exactly why you are sceptical, and I can understand it. The thing that I see and explained here is very deep and also throws no good light at Creative Assembly.
What you'll need at least be a more convincing proof. I will try:

If you look during the battle at the menu box, then you have the option of using predefined formations (I am unfortunately at work and can not make a screenshot, but I hope you understand what I mean).
Look at these patterns more closely at times, because these are formations as used by a whole army of many regiments. A simple question: Do you use or someone else use these predefined formations in a battle? I would rather say very rarely or not at all.

The AI, however, use these formations very often if you take a closer look or at least they tried, if the player is not too aggressive, and thereby disturb the AI pressed too hard.
There is of course no commander in chief in the Al-minded, but they act within the predefined scripts and codes referred to as everyone knows. In these scripts, the set is made so that the AI has to use the formations too together with the negotiation of an army of 20 regiments. In other words, the AI acts according to the scripts like a general, because each unit = 1 whole regiment. This action is totally different in all areas compared to the player's behaviour. This difference leads exactly to what we have: The anger and frustration because of the AI and all the statements about stupidity of AI.

But again to be safe (not addressed to you Modestos):
This is only one explanation why this is so! There is no excuse and is not intended as such! The AI is wrong and needs to be corrected! I wanted to find out what and where the problem is and then to point it out to make a fix in the right things and not to make again a silly tinkering with useless patches as CA did in ETW.

@ Aeoleron9

The AI makes it, but very rare. This is because of these predefined patterns, which are also available to the player as I have said. They usually take these formations but only if in defence. The AI very rarely use them in the attack and then only if the player, does not make the AI too "confused".

But an example in comparison of what you correctly said::
If you take your 5 cavalry units formed to a single group in addition with that the function in the menu box, it can give a very nasty surprise during the battle.
Take this group and give it with your mouse an order to attack a single enemy unit and you'll be badly amazed! 2 units will attack this enemy unit, 1 unit of cavalry will attack something else of the enemy, 1 unit an other enemy and the last cavalry will do maybe nothing..
This is a known issue in all the TW games and not new, but also throws an explanatory light on the AI. The AI makes the same nonsense that is a sign that there is something running wrong!

@ Mr MM
Magpie said to what I need to add anything more.
It should tell you, however, that other people who are familiar with it, and who have "access" did confirm it. But I can tell more because of the rules in this board! Please have understanding for it!

@ Magpie

I need not to add to your comments any more! (+ rep)

Suffice it to say that this problem in RTW and M2TW also exists, but there was no impact. The different "mindset" between AI and players resulted in no major differences in the preparation and handling of the battle. Reason: The establishment of an army with the approach 1 unit = 1 cohort is similar to the approach 1 unit = 1 Century.
This similarity is not available at ETW and that causes the trouble!

I have made dozens of battles with the contemplation as 1 unit = 1 regiment. Of course, it took a few battles to become familiar, but the results were amazing! The AI was suddenly no longer so stupid in all respects.
However, this should be no excuse now, alas, on the contrary! Of course it is idiotic that the player needs to focus on the AI with his art of playing and to have fun, etc. The only acceptable solution can only be that Creative Assembly changes the AI to the player's behavior toward necessary corrections. And here we are again with your conclusion with which I will sign: The ball is at CA!

@ Xerrop

Thanks!

Greetings
Mandelus

[Ahlerich]

ok let me summon up our progress so far

"horsecrap"