A Real AI Review

A real AI review.

For all of those wondering. We hear a lot of how good the AI is compared to ETW in NTW but not in what aspects it is actually good. Based on my friend’s review on the game, who is a fan of TW games and Napoleon Era just like me but stay away from the forums, the AI has not improved much in any significant way. He saw that the AI is better off if it outnumbers you, you come up to meet it, has better morale units, you don’t stretch your units out, is superior to you in cavalry or none of the armies have cavalry, the size of both armies is small so you can’t choose to outgun and encircle it as easily as you could if both armies were big and you don’t use canister shot against its infantry. I intend on making a summary of the AI in NTW based on his experience playing the game and show why it has barely improved since ETW came out but shows that CA have been trying, they just haven’t gotten it right just yet.

I don’t have the game but I have a friend who does and he explained to me what some of the problems are. The main problem is the way the AI advances which is much, MUCH better than in ETW but still not quite there.
This should provide an idea of how the AI advances: I = player line, II = AI line

I - - -II
I - - - II
I - - - II
I - - - -II
I - - - -II
I - - - II

So you can see, that , if you’re facing the AI line the one to your far left is going to enter your firing range first and will therefore be for 2-3 seconds at a disadvantage because naturally, all the units in range will concentrate fire on this sole infantry.
a) This infantry is going to get decimated as soon as it enters the firing range and before it can even shoot. This would not have happened if every unit had entered in a perfect line formation. Because the reloading times and damage of infantry fire is unrealistic the AI infantry suffers a lot of casualties before it can react and by the time it actually forms a straight line many units are about to rout.
b) It is also a problem that the player will maximize his fire power by placing his units in one or two long lines so every one in his units shoot while the AI doesn’t and marches in 3 to 4 ranks deep meaning the player has already outgunned his opponent, even if the AI has guards.
Even if the player stretches his units to the limit the AI will not counter by stretching his units as well but continue to advance in the usual 3 to 4 ranks and WALKING. By now the player has already won.
c) The range is also a problem because the AI doesn’t guard its flanks very well. Sure it leaves some cavalry to defend its flanks but if you outnumber him in cavalry what is he going to do (which is mostly the case)? Larger range means it will take more time for your cavalry to encircle the enemy due to the fact the armies aren’t so close to each other and will give the AI more time to react.
d) For some reason, if attacking, the AI doesn’t start firing when they get into range but continue to walk into their deaths as if they were charging but through walking.
e) The AI infantry react to encirclement from behind by turning around and charging the encircling units but get shot from behind by the already firing units.
f) Lastly, probably the biggest problem is the if you outnumber the AI in infantry it will still attack you in the middle (not concentrating in one side while it protects the other side), allowing your units on your flank to simply encircle the AI and shoot from the sides, getting even more hammered by the player and starting to rout.

Those, above, are the problems concerning the Ai with infantry.

There are many other problems as well. These are some:
1)The AI places its artillery down as soon as it enters into range. Doesn’t matter if there is a hill in the way it will fire and continue to fire.
2)Many times the artillery of the AI will halt to fire while your camping but its infantry will continue forward creating a huge gap between these units and separating its army which becomes easy prey for your cavalry. If the artillery is going to stay there then let the infantry stay close, if the infantry move forward the AI should also move its artillery forward.
3)The Ai doesn’t use terrain. Rather it is oblivious of the advantages of terrain. In rivers, it masses all its men and walks (once again walks not runs) through the bridge or ford while your artillery decimate them.
4)The AI rarely camps but attacks, even when outnumbered, contributing to its own downfall.
5)AI cavalry seems to stay back and ‘defend’ the flanks and artillery if outnumbered by opposition cavalry. The problem is they rarely have many cavalry units and because the artillery is left far behind the cavalry are also left far behind and they can never reach your cavalry encircling the AI infantry line in time. And because the AI infantry doesn’t protect its flanks then you usually are have cavalry and infantry encircling the enemy meaning the cavalry there to protect it will get shot down and outnumbered.

What have they fixed in NTW in terms of AI?
Well you won’t find the AI infantry units overlapping each other anymore or forming the melee blob. That’s about it. Oh and apparently the AI knows how to change priorities which is actually happening but, like pointed above, its useless because once the AI gets surrounded it is really hard to get out of the mess without opening another hole for the player to exploit.

So why do many people claim the AI has been improved? Well, the melee blob is gone so that is a relief and in NTW you will still fight mainly small battles or skirmishes which mean the problems of the AI become much harder to manipulate or notice and will think your playing against a much better AI. So advice: If you play small skirmishes play against the AI, but if you play large battles, play drop in battles against humans.

Thank you for your time
PS: Thank you CA for trying. i am sure you'll get it.

Nice post. +rep

Originally Posted by spanish_emperor

There are many other problems as well. These are some:
1)The AI places its artillery down as soon as it enters into range. Doesn’t matter if there is a hill in the way it will fire and continue to fire.
2)Many times the artillery of the AI will halt to fire while your camping but its infantry will continue forward creating a huge gap between these units and separating its army which becomes easy prey for your cavalry. If the artillery is going to stay there then let the infantry stay close, if the infantry move forward the AI should also move its artillery forward.
3)The Ai doesn’t use terrain. Rather it is oblivious of the advantages of terrain. In rivers, it masses all its men and walks (once again walks not runs) through the bridge or ford while your artillery decimate them.
4)The AI rarely camps but attacks, even when outnumbered, contributing to its own downfall.
5)AI cavalry seems to stay back and ‘defend’ the flanks and artillery if outnumbered by opposition cavalry. The problem is they rarely have many cavalry units and because the artillery is left far behind the cavalry are also left far behind and they can never reach your cavalry encircling the AI infantry line in time. And because the AI infantry doesn’t protect its flanks then you usually are have cavalry and infantry encircling the enemy meaning the cavalry there to protect it will get shot down and outnumbered.

First, there are loopholes in any AI. This is nothing new.

1 is a problem though I haven't had it happen to me, ever, but 2 is pretty normal in any game. 3 is understandable as terrain ai is usually a pain in the ass for anyone. 4 is patently false as the AI spent 15 minutes trying to goad me into attacking by trying to hit my artillery with its cavalry. Only when it had no way to make my only option attacking did it come in. 5 I haven't run into so I can't comment.

What have they fixed in NTW in terms of AI?
Well you won’t find the AI infantry units overlapping each other anymore or forming the melee blob. That’s about it. Oh and apparently the AI knows how to change priorities which is actually happening but, like pointed above, its useless because once the AI gets surrounded it is really hard to get out of the mess without opening another hole for the player to exploit.

That last part is what we call a gamble. A player who gets surrounded would have to leave an easily exploitable opening if he's going to try to break out.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

First, there are loopholes in any AI. This is nothing new.

Of course. i am sure there will never be. I am satisfied with the AI as long as the drop in battles work alright. I am sure there will always be loop holes in the AI but i believe everyone should get an informed review of the AI to see if it's what they like. I would hate people buy the game thinking its what they dreamed off but are dissapointed because they listened to opinions without any real investigation.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

1 is a problem though I haven't had it happen to me, ever, but 2 is pretty normal in any game. 3 is understandable as terrain ai is usually a pain in the ass for anyone. 4 is patently false as the AI spent 15 minutes trying to goad me into attacking by trying to hit my artillery with its cavalry. Only when it had no way to make my only option attacking did it come in. 5 I haven't run into so I can't comment.

I can assure you that i do not lie. No. 4 is what i told happened in one of the 4 big battles my friend played. Maybe i misinterpreted it but i doubt it since i took a lot of time to see if everything was right.

That last part is what we call a gamble. A player who gets surrounded would have to leave an easily exploitable opening if he's going to try to break out.

Yes, it is a gamble. However i was just stating how important the infantry positions to prevent outflanking were and if that problem is fixed then the AI wouldn't have to gamble so much.

Originally Posted by spanish_emperor

Of course. i am sure there will never be. I am satisfied with the AI as long as the drop in battles work alright. I am sure there will always be loop holes in the AI but i believe everyone should get an informed review of the AI to see if it's what they like. I would hate people buy the game thinking its what they dreamed off but are dissapointed because they listened to opinions without any real investigation.

Stories of the AI doing stuff correctly aside, as there are a lot of those(we know the stuff the ai does wrong so we really haven't needed to tell them for Napoleon), I think your last line about listening to opinions without any real investigation is...ironic. As good/bad AI when you're making a game to have the computer opponent play on a human level with human style errors is a lot more opinion based than just having the AI go all out and win. It's also a lot harder to implement than WIN ai. The idea of a human level AI that's prone to simple errors of coordination also justifies the slightly uncoordinated unit advance you speak of at the top of your first post.

I can assure you that i do not lie. No. 4 is what i told happened in one of the 4 big battles my friend played. Maybe i misinterpreted it but i doubt it since i took a lot of time to see if everything was right.

I'd suggest playing it yourself and making sure you didn't misinterpret.

Yes, it is a gamble. However i was just stating how important the infantry positions to prevent outflanking were and if that problem is fixed then the AI wouldn't have to gamble so much.

Never managed to surround the AI yet unless I had enough troops I could just charge them and win with minimal casualties.

The AI may do some dumb things every now and then, but more often then not it puts up a very good fight. I think we're over trying to split hairs here, if someone wants a TRUE test of ability, the only answer is a multiplayer match. For someone who has the game and already played it for +12 hours, I'm saying that AI is more than a challenge. Coupled with the how the CAI will work together and beat you back if you expand too quickly! You may beat one army, but if you don't conserve your troops in one battle, that next will not be so easy. I don't really see the point of these schematic detailed threads on how the AI reacts to every situation. Turn the game to H/H and you will find a very entertaining challenge. Compare it to ETW and you may just poop your pants in surprise.

@deeptrance83
There are players here who actually would buy the game solely on the AI's performance and there are many here who appreciate knowledge of what the AI does right and what it does wrong. You might not think it is necessary and i respect that but you should respect other peoples' opinions who think it is.

The attacker is always at the disadvantage. This has nothing to do with the AI. Even in multiplayers vs a player its hard to get your armies timed right to actually have the AI not concentrate of the first unit it has sights on. Trying to think that the AI can handle this is a far step above what I think anyone expects from the AI.

The AI is better then ETW its that simple. In lines up to fire at you. And it actaully fires at you instead of doing a dance of death. Nobody on this forum with any real experience expect a computer player to be able to beat them no matter what they build into the AI routines. The thing most people were looking for was to face an AI that actually fought you with Line tactics, and not Empire total wars version of a ball of death. Or melee TW. Sounds like to me you want a HUMAN player. And thanks to NTW new Drop in feature if thats what you want.. You can get it.

And trust me. Plenty of guys like me waiting for guys like to to ask us to your battle. Give it a go.

True and I do respect that, especially after the dibacle of ETW. I'm feeling more and more confident that when they put out a demo, it will give everyone a chance to test the waters, and those waters are good. The game is good, we should rejoice.

I have not seen that line problem you stated, if the AI attacks they are usually hitting one of my flanks hard while using a token force to keep my other flank from diverting to help. I have never seen the enemy use a full line of troops to march straight into my full line.

Yes the enemy keeps it's artillery back at range, and sometimes does have problems with hills. I do the same thing. I don't tend to march my arty up into musket fire range to keep them close to my army instead of getting those extra few rounds in to help support my infantry as I advance.

You don't like that the AI tries to get out when flanked? Would you prefer they stand in the middle and get shot from two sides?

I have never seen the AI send a smaller force directly into the center of my line. Even when outnumbered the AI still tries to flank or hit weak points.

I think you really need to play the game yourself, or have your friend come in to post about his experiences instead of it all coming second hand with things that at least I have not seen at the end of the first two campaigns.

Enemy cavalry has been great from what I have seen so far. They are constantly flanking and going for weak spots in my line. Also, the AI does use them pretty well to defend their arty when I try to get units around to take them out. How is defending their artillery a bad thing?