The Impatient AI

**Toshach** · June 04, 2010, 04:07 PM

When it comes to conducting sieges, the player has a big advantage over the AI. As the player, I have the option of assaulting right off, or if my force is not that strong waiting until the AI sallies or succumbs. On the other hand, the AI is impatient when conducting sieges. It always assaults. I am 150 or so turns into a Gondor campaign and after dozens of sieges conducted by the AI not once does it wait me out. Sooner or later it assaults. Knowing this, I am much more likely to defend a city or castle forcing the AI to assault at a disadvantage, than I would if I thought my army might be trapped there, and whither away.

If the AI was sometimes willing to wait the defenders out, it would make garrisoning cities and castles much more risky and help to balance play a bit.

Has anyone else have any thoughts on this?

**IrishBlood** · June 04, 2010, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Toshach

When it comes to conducting sieges, the player has a big advantage over the AI. As the player, I have the option of assaulting right off, or if my force is not that strong waiting until the AI sallies or succumbs. On the other hand, the AI is impatient when conducting sieges. It always assaults. I am 150 or so turns into a Gondor campaign and after dozens of sieges conducted by the AI not once does it wait me out. Sooner or later it assaults. Knowing this, I am much more likely to defend a city or castle forcing the AI to assault at a disadvantage, than I would if I thought my army might be trapped there, and whither away.

If the AI was sometimes willing to wait the defenders out, it would make garrisoning cities and castles much more risky and help to balance play a bit.

Has anyone else have any thoughts on this?

well if its an evil opponent then being hasty makes sense, when have orcs EVER shown patience and restraint lol

**Lioncross** · June 04, 2010, 04:50 PM

Well, I don't know why they should wait for me, is not like I'm gonna exit the fortified keep, with ballista towers and high walls for easy sniping, and go fight on even ground. The AI does have some restrain by using their ballsita/catapults first, what would really tick me off or have me rofl, is if the AI placed ladders at the wall while firing with catapults at them.

**Lordinquisitor** · June 04, 2010, 05:21 PM

Starving a city out usually takes three or more turns.. Enough time for the player to bring reinforcements. Thus it woulnd`t make the a.i stronger.

(If it can even be forced to wait you out.)

**Loomx** · June 04, 2010, 05:31 PM

TBH, the game would be pretty boring it they did the opposite wouldnt it?
Also when you get a massive empire towards the end of the game you're bound to overlook one city and then lose it simply because your A.I. its pointlessly patient

**Deus6783** · June 04, 2010, 07:32 PM

If the AI was smart enough to just starve you out if they didn't have an overwhelming advantage, the game would be so much harder. I'm not sure why they don't, probably the AI can't be made smart enough or something.

**Toshach** · June 04, 2010, 11:17 PM

As the defender, I welcome 2:1 odds or even greater, since I know the AI will assault, and that I will be able to defeat him. But if I thought there was a chance that the AI would try to starve me out, I would not garrison the city at all, since once beseiged, it's a big disadvantage to get out. Instead, I would move out and meet the enemy on the field, where I would have a better chance. In this respect, a patient AI would actually encourage more fighting in the open.

Certainly the longer the AI waits, the more likely it would be that you could send reinforcements, if you had them. Even f you did, it would still initiate an open field battle.

I guess the point I am making is that 90% of my battles revolve around beseiged cities and castles. A battle in the open is a rarity, which is a shame, since defence of a city or castle can get tedious.