Even out the 94% Win/ 6% Loose

[Kjertesvein]

I just took a random image from the Show me your Empire thread. Now, please face the area with "Battles Won: 256 Battles Lost: 17". This is all a very commen problem for most mods, but will B.C. - 3.0 mitigate the 94% Battles Won and what specific changes would it be?





~W

[wudang_clown]

It is too early to talk about specific changes.

Also, the issue you are addressing is a result of many factors, economy and EDU-stats being only two of them.

EDU is being reworked now and economy will also be reworked, though I can't give you more details.

Generally speaking, we will try to make battles more decisive and less frequent. This requires a lot of work, though, so it will take a while before we can say anything more.

[Kjertesvein]

Ohl'right then. Good luck with that, oh and by the way, Taji's BB is doing a terribly good job at kicking DLV-player's ass (and they love it). Maybe you can ask him for help on some subjects, specially with such generocity shown around the community latly .

[Strelac]

I may know one or two things here.

I always shared an opinion that battle difficulty results in not how many battle overall player has lost, but in how bad is players victory overall.

In general the total loss vs kill ranges to be about 1:3, I think it can easily be upped to 1:2 and better by utilizing the Separate AI Recruitment system which we derived for BC 2.
I have not been able to prove this as we launched BC 2 with very mild version of AI recruitment, which still allowed AI to recruit levies in large numbers. Deny them, and they will recruit higher level troops.
AI mechanics is MTW2 is so inadequate, that even if AI faction has 100's of thousands of gold, they will still employ some of the "cost saving" methods, and recruit lower cost troops if available. Allow them tier 3 and up troops and they will always field formidable army. Play with availability rates to tune down the difficulty.
Leave levies for player to balance his check book.

Later dudes

[Captain_Aramsham]

I may know one or two things here.

I always shared an opinion that battle difficulty results in not how many battle overall player has lost, but in how bad is players victory overall.

In general the total loss vs kill ranges to be about 1:3, I think it can easily be upped to 1:2 and better by utilizing the Separate AI Recruitment system which we derived for BC 2.
I have not been able to prove this as we launched BC 2 with very mild version of AI recruitment, which still allowed AI to recruit levies in large numbers. Deny them, and they will recruit higher level troops.
AI mechanics is MTW2 is so inadequate, that even if AI faction has 100's of thousands of gold, they will still employ some of the "cost saving" methods, and recruit lower cost troops if available. Allow them tier 3 and up troops and they will always field formidable army. Play with availability rates to tune down the difficulty.
Leave levies for player to balance his check book.

Later dudes

I have noticed this in Vanilla: even on VH/VH, the AI *never* seems to field highest level units.

[Kjertesvein]

I may know one or two things here.

I always shared an opinion that battle difficulty results in not how many battle overall player has lost, but in how bad is players victory overall.

In general the total loss vs kill ranges to be about 1:3, I think it can easily be upped to 1:2 and better by utilizing the Separate AI Recruitment system which we derived for BC 2.
I have not been able to prove this as we launched BC 2 with very mild version of AI recruitment, which still allowed AI to recruit levies in large numbers. Deny them, and they will recruit higher level troops.
AI mechanics is MTW2 is so inadequate, that even if AI faction has 100's of thousands of gold, they will still employ some of the "cost saving" methods, and recruit lower cost troops if available. Allow them tier 3 and up troops and they will always field formidable army. Play with availability rates to tune down the difficulty.
Leave levies for player to balance his check book.

Later dudes

Taiji solved this in DLV BB by attatching AI recruitment to the walls, and not the individual buildings. Then, armys in general have a healthy diversion of the units relevant to the that age. The AI will also (iirc) evolve their walls in acordence to the Player.

It sound very strickt and designed, but as good skilled armys fight, they also outlive battles and mix with newer armys. Also armys from diffrent citys are made. You could just ask the maker of BB.

[Strelac]

Taiji solved this in DLV BB by attatching AI recruitment to the walls, and not the individual buildings. Then, armys in general have a healthy diversion of the units relevant to the that age. The AI will also (iirc) evolve their walls in acordence to the Player.

It sound very strickt and designed, but as good skilled armys fight, they also outlive battles and mix with newer armys. Also armys from diffrent citys are made. You could just ask the maker of BB.

Separate AI recruitment is already in BC 2, team should just refine it.
Attaching AI recruitment to walls instead of individual building is not bad idea as supplement to the above.

[Aron]

I just took a random image

You liked it?

Saving/Loading games is one of the factors contributing in the unbalanced win/loose ratio, i.e. loading games after losing battles and re-fighting them.


Possible solutions?
-Allowing player to save game only once every three turns besides exit-autosave for instance.
-restricting the number of save files per campaign to one or two. For example the player cant have more than two or one restore point.
-disabling manual save/load game completely and relying on exit-autosave might be easier to implement and it will make the game more realistic.
-A simple attached submod that allows normal save/load will compensate for opposing players.

making sense to you pals?

[Tar-Narcano]

That does not make sense to me. If you don't want to save and reload, than do not. I think everybody should decide this for himself.

[wudang_clown]

That does not make sense to me. If you don't want to save and reload, than do not. I think everybody should decide this for himself.

I agree. Limiting player's saving/loading possibilities would be too much of interference into player's gaming freedom.

[Kavhan Isbul]

You liked it?

Saving/Loading games is one of the factors contributing in the unbalanced win/loose ratio, i.e. loading games after losing battles and re-fighting them.


Possible solutions?
-Allowing player to save game only once every three turns besides exit-autosave for instance.
-restricting the number of save files per campaign to one or two. For example the player cant have more than two or one restore point.
-disabling manual save/load game completely and relying on exit-autosave might be easier to implement and it will make the game more realistic.
-A simple attached submod that allows normal save/load will compensate for opposing players.

making sense to you pals?

It does not - saving games has nothing to do with the win/loss percentages, because the player will win land battles all the time, due to the AI defficiencies.

The real issue is the inability of the AI to use its units effectively, combined with the inability of the AI to force advantageous battles. In other words, it is usually the player that decides when and where battles are fought, and when they do get fought, the AI is mostly trying to engage its units in melee after a short arrows exchange, based on whether it has ranged units or not. Its tactical ingenuity is pathetic, not to say non-existant.

The only thing I can think of that may slightly improve the AI is to make it hold the city square in sieges with its best units and general, even when it outnumbers the human player significantly. Right now, large garrisons sally every time, and given how many of them in BC are made up of infantry, they tend to get slaughtered too easily by charging cavalry. This, combined with neutered cavalry charges may help a little, but only a little. Reducing the stats of spies and assassins and making forts verye xpensive may also help, as the AI has no idea how to use its special agents, and is baffled by temporary forts blocking rivers and passes.

The worst part is that in the screenie used as an example, I would guess that the majority of the battles lost were naval battles. This would bring the player win percentage to something like 99%. I am afraid that unless someone figures out how to create a game with a really smart AI that has a variety of tricks and maneuvers and is adaptable to the player, the AI is doomed to be stomped. It is sadly something modders cannot fix.

And this is why I only play in hotseats lately.

[Kjertesvein]

It does not - saving games has nothing to do with the win/loss percentages, because the player will win land battles all the time, due to the AI defficiencies.

To some degree, I agree.

The real issue is the inability of the AI to use its units effectively, combined with the inability of the AI to force advantageous battles. In other words, it is usually the player that decides when and where battles are fought, and when they do get fought, the AI is mostly trying to engage its units in melee after a short arrows exchange, based on whether it has ranged units or not. Its tactical ingenuity is pathetic, not to say non-existant.

I would disagree, for I don't belive this is about mostly related to BAI and such ballance there from. Although it's hughly importent altogather, the most vital (and easu) parts to a hard campaign is what is going on on the campaign map. If you are starting your battles with one leg in the bucket, then you are already long way towards loosing it.

If the AI can keep up the hardship you experience the first 10-20-30 turns of your game, then the player will be looking at a considerably amount of inconsistent battle statistics. One factor would be to limit mass recruitment of cavalry for the player, and let the AI recruit a respectable chunk via their walls. The player would be recruiting a limited number, but will therefor have to preserve more inorder to hold a supply of horses which can match the AI. This will also limit the players army movement and geographical expansion.

Several levels of infaltion, or similar scripts may limit the player from assembling vast amount of florins in their back pocket. So as an example, if the Player reach a economic point of lets say 30 000 - then it will limit taxes, increase unrest or a script will kick in to withdraw a number or % from your finances. The players economy will therefor always be custom to it's own size and wealth.

Let the entier campaign be one long anticlimax, while the player is always running for the white rabbit.

The only thing I can think of that may slightly improve the AI is to make it hold the city square in sieges with its best units and general, even when it outnumbers the human player significantly. Right now, large garrisons sally every time, and given how many of them in BC are made up of infantry, they tend to get slaughtered too easily by charging cavalry. This, combined with neutered cavalry charges may help a little, but only a little. Reducing the stats of spies and assassins and making forts verye xpensive may also help, as the AI has no idea how to use its special agents, and is baffled by temporary forts blocking rivers and passes.

I would disagree with everything which got to do with static AI force. It's like order all spearmen into a schiltron formations and "hope for the best". Offcourse the player will surround the 4 entry points and choke the AI town center. When it comes to the AI Siege defence, then I would hope the AI would stick to the walls as long as possible and de-active the timer. A timer in a medieval world is also exremly ahistorical.
I agree with the fort idea, and have no comment on agents since assassins gives attracts foreign invasions and spys have a habit to die in service.

In the end, offcourse the Player will win most of it, but dream when TWC users come crying into the BC forum that they are in shock by the terribly frighting new AI rabbit:

And this is why I only play in hotseats lately.

To be honest, hotseat is completly new to me.

[Kavhan Isbul]

I would disagree with everything which got to do with static AI force. It's like order all spearmen into a schiltron formations and "hope for the best". Offcourse the player will surround the 4 entry points and choke the AI town center. When it comes to the AI Siege defence, then I would hope the AI would stick to the walls as long as possible and de-active the timer. A timer in a medieval world is also exremly ahistorical.

You should try hotseats, as they will teach you a lot more about AI general flaws than single player could.

Take a look at the picture below:



This was me, taking Gorgan with just my heir and a unit of mercenary daylami tribesmen. Inside, there were 5 units - 2 Daylami tribesmen, 2 persian archers and 1 Daylami heavy Infantry. I was playing with small unit sizes, VH/VH.

What happened was they all sallied, except for the Daylami heavies, which as the captain unit took the city square. I used my cavalry to charge at the archers, routing both units one by one on impact, and capturing the survivors before they make it back to the city square. The Daylami tribesmen were more tricky, but I just used my infantry to pin them down in melee, and then routed them with my cavalry charging at their back. Finally, I sent my heir inside and after I used up all arrows, again used the remnants of my infantry to pin down the enemy unit in the city square, while my general charged from behind. They did not rout (city square!) and this is where I had 75% of all my losses, eventually prevailing, but it was close.

Now, imagine if all 5 units took the city square and I could not use my cavalry to rout them - I would not have won, as the AI had superiority in both ranged troops and in melee. But it did not, hence heroic victory.

So yes, your theory about never being stationary makes sense in the real world, but in the game the AI is so dumb that it fails every time it starts moving. It has little cohesion, it makes no attempts at flanking and generally, it ends up sending its men in a suicidal mission up a hill, not making any attempt to cover its lighter troops from enemy cavalry. It just has no clue, so planting it down in an area, where its units cannot rout, at least means that even if it loses, it will be at a high cost for the human player.

As for spies - consider the above image again. The battle happened after my spies opened the gates. There is a huge rebel stack next to Gorgan, but it never enetered the battle, as my heir was a night fighter. The AI will never attempt such a complex strategy, which calls for coordination between troops and special agents and requires a certain type of general. Humans though will, and that is why we tend to win 99% of battles.

To sum it up - the AI is clueless and lacks any imagination, so to make it at least close to adequate, its tactics should be simplified with emphasis on defending.

[Aron]

That forces the player to play realistically. And players will still be capable of saving reloading after downloading lets say a simple patch

[Outlawstar15a2]

That forces the player to play realistically. And players will still be capable of saving reloading after downloading lets say a simple patch

If you want to play realistically DON'T SAVE. I don't see why thats so hard. I don't like the idea, but only because I sometimes have to do troubleshooting and I don't want to HAVE TO play three turns in order to get to the problem spot again. Like I just solved a CTD issue with BC (I think) and it would be an even bigger pain to troubleshoot if we had the changes your advocating...

[Phosphoricus]

Indeed, I've always been critical of the 'ever-win' reloading playing style, but if players want to be lame, there is no point trying to stop them. This is a recreational one-player game, not an examination.

For discussions of balance, however, it is only helpful to look at statistics from players who do not reload so that they always have a winning record. I myself do not reload, so I've attached my Oman campaign overview.

It is still skewed, and this is on VH/VH. I /have/ lost some important battles, and lost towns. A human player tries to avoid battles that are likely to be lost. Also, politics has had something to do with it. For the first two opponents (Malikate of Sindh, then Ghaznavids) I had two allies who were also attacking, so the enemy had trouble presenting any particular front with enough armies. The Ghaznavids really threatened my towns for awhile, but then became vassals of Khwarazm; apparently, the focus on me meant the neglect of other fronts.

Still, perhaps it is too easy to win. The enemy armies already receive large experience bonuses. I can figure out certain measures that would give me a harder time. For example, if the Ayyubids were not my allies and decided to attack Yemen... I would hardly be able to defend myself. But I don't think they are inclined to break the alliance, either because it just doesn't happen enough in BC (I haven't played BC long enough to know) or because of wider alliances. Moreover, my state is still small and able to be serviced by armies from Oman proper, so maybe I will lose more as I try to expand.

[Phosphoricus]

I actually had a spy open gates against me recently, but it was with the RRRC compilation for Stainless Steel. In that mod I've noticed that they send spies into towns that they likely want to take. Generally a number of improvements to AI have been made for that mod; I'm not sure to what extend these could/should be implemented in BC.

[Dago Red]

I actually had a spy open gates against me recently

Just had that as well here, and it was on a game only at M/H. Great Seljuks are sending tons of spies at me as the Abbasids.

[Outlawstar15a2]

Just had that as well here, and it was on a game only at M/H. Great Seljuks are sending tons of spies at me as the Abbasids.

That's because their getting ready to invade. Watch your back.

[Bull]

Just sharing my thoughts...

My hardest battles I can think of was back in the days of Punic: Total War and Europa Barbarorum. Admittedly the game engine is Rome, but I think the two are similar enough.

I've lost many campaigns of Punic: Total War (I think that was the mod, it was about the Punic Wars), because legionaries were inexperienced conscripts who are prone to routing once things go sour against the Carthaginians. Their morale were so low that I once had a unit of lone hastati rout upon receiving a libyan spearmen charge.

Same story with EB. Units are very expensive and my borders were almost always poorly protected (AIs gets tons of cash via scripts), so my expansion was really slow because often I don't have enough troops to wage a expeditionary war and defend my borders at the same time. I can't even remember how many times I gave up a city that was almost mine because my other cities were attacked. To make things worse most units also had low default morale, so you really had to slowly build up an experienced army that actually fights.

So perhaps if BC3.0 just makes it more costly for the players to maintain a standing professional army (militia should be cheap however), and lower the morale of most troops (AI would be unaffected by their separate recruitment of chevroned units), I believe early campaigns can be very challenging. Players would have to play at their very best to survive, because you'll be outnumbered and outgunned.