The biggest problem with the AI is not difficulty

It's the lack of illusion. In previous TW titles the AI scripts gave the illusion that you were facing a general/war leader in the game's era. Whether it was a Japanese warlord, a Roman general or a Medieval knight, the scripts were more or less adequate. Players will find a way to break the AI, either by tactical thinking or with a 'playing the engine' gamey approach. Difficulty is not the main issue here.

In Rome, The AI gave you the impression that you were looking at a Roman legion formation, Greek Phalanxes or Persian Horse archers. They were moving more or less 'historically'. The same can be said with respect to medieval's AI battle deployment. Now, in ETW and NTW you don't 'see' pseudo-historic deployment, formations and troop movements but an arcadey and frantic situation not very dissimilar to contemporary micro-intensive RTS games.

You take the field not against Napoleon, Blucher, Wellington or a famous general. You're pitted against a teenager high on energy drinks who's APM is close to the 150 mark. It's not the difficulty, it's the scripts themselves. Add to that the huge map, small number of units and you have a recipe for destruction.

Originally Posted by Nastyvale

It's the lack of illusion. In previous TW titles the AI scripts gave the illusion that you were facing a general/war leader in the game's era. Whether it was a Japanese warlord, a Roman general or a Medieval knight, the scripts were more or less adequate. Players will find a way to break the AI, either by tactical thinking or with a 'playing the engine' gamey approach. Difficulty is not the main issue here.

In Rome, The AI gave you the impression that you were looking at a Roman legion formation, Greek Phalanxes or Persian Horse archers. They were moving more or less 'historically'. The same can be said with respect to medieval's AI battle deployment. Now, in ETW and NTW you don't 'see' pseudo-historic deployment, formations and troop movements but an arcadey and frantic situation not very dissimilar to contemporary micro-intensive RTS games.

You take the field not against Napoleon, Blucher, Wellington or a famous general. You're pitted against a teenager high on energy drinks who's APM is close to the 150 mark. It's not the difficulty, it's the scripts themselves. Add to that the huge map, small number of units and you have a recipe for destruction.

What's "arcadey" about 19th century line infantry forming into a line, with artillery on the flanks, and cavalry covering the flanks/artillery? I've seen the AI form up with its crap infantry in a front line, engaging my line, and its decent infantry as a mobile reserve, exploiting holes in my defense.

Like you said, the AI is certainly not Wellington, or Napoleon, but its clearly better than previous titles. Are you serious about this?! One of the biggest complaints about RTW was first, just how historically inaccurate it was, and second, the fact that the Roman legions didn't deploy, or attack, in Roman fashion. And Rome's unit movement speed was insane. Matter of fact, I made a detailed post in the Total War forums saying something very similar to what you're saying, only describing Rome! I even used the word "arcadey!" Lol. Shogun had some interesting preset formations that were a lot of fun to play with. But I never actually saw the AI use these properly.

I think the AI has a big problem with advancing and deploying through unpassable terrain. And also seems to have a problem with marching towards you in good order. This is an aspect of the game that needs considerable work. But saying Rome, Medieval, or Shogun had more authentic formations, and moved as a more cohesive formation together! What?!

At least in these games it was capable of forming a line and advance, using skirmishers up to a point. Now, it can't even hold a line at times. Perhaps I was wrong about Rome as I have lastly played it five years ago. From what I can remember, the erratic behabiour present in ETW/NTW was not there. Sure, we weren't seeing Roman checkerboard deployment from what I can recall but now we see infantry turning face far too often, no 'real' focus and the ever-present 'cavalry round the outside' and constant reshuffling to avoid musket firing zones. This is not musket warfare.

If you honestly believe that ETW/NTW's AI is good enougn in terms of immersion and believability, I guess that you'd belong to the M10 circle-strafing crowd of CoH that found it perfectly viable and historically accurate.

P.S. Don't get me started about the AI's artillery management...

Originally Posted by Nastyvale

At least in these games it was capable of forming a line and advance, using skirmishers up to a point. Now, it can't even hold a line at times. Perhaps I was wrong about Rome as I have lastly played it five years ago. From what I can remember, the erratic behabiour present in ETW/NTW was not there. Sure, we weren't seeing Roman checkerboard deployment from what I can recall but now we see infantry turning face far too often, no 'real' focus and the ever-present 'cavalry round the outside' and constant reshuffling to avoid musket firing zones. This is not musket warfare.

If you honestly believe that ETW/NTW's AI is good enougn in terms of immersion and believability, I guess that you'd belong to the M10 circle-strafing crowd of CoH that found it perfectly viable and historically accurate.

P.S. Don't get me started about the AI's artillery management...

Lol, deploying behind houses? Haha, I love that. Arty is quirky. Sometimes the arty does pretty incredible things like maneuvering and deploying perfectly onto hills, other times it hides behind a house. Lol. That's why I think the impassable objects are a huge impediment on the AI. It seems like every time they try to deploy, any obstruction causes them to go into massive confusion. Whether it is the edge of the map, a house, a cliff, whatever.