Dumb AI and Easiness of Battles

[nlovertoom]

Problem: I play VH/VH and it is very very very hard to LOSE a battle.

As long as you have some artillery, the battle outcome is inevitable (a human victory). I have noticed that the AI, no matter whether you attack or not, comes straight at you, right into your guns. I slaughter armies left and right, losing 2000 to their 17000. At first this was awesome but the joy wears off as you realize that EVERY battle is the same...

France and Russia seem to build some artillery but they rarely utilize it effectively. I just destroy their batteries with my canister fire. PLUS the rest of the nations in Europe rarely even have any artillery.

I have one major point of emphasis. If I attack, I should have to ATTACK! Then I might get slaughtered every once in a while. This would maybe make things more balanced. Instead the AI comes right at me in a disordered mob in every battle.

As Germany, I conquered Denmark, Norway, Holland, Brussels, Lithuania, Estonia, northern Italy, AND northern France (including Paris, which nocked France out of the war) ALL in 1914!!! I enjoy the mod but I just worry that battles are too monotonous and simple.

A smarter AI is necessary, and tanks will make a difference (I hope). Until then what is there to do? Turtle for all of 1914??

[Achea]

As long as you have some artillery, the battle outcome is inevitable

Artillery is a gamebreaker. End of story.

[cottontail]

1) take off that cannister shot for your artillery. You're making it too easy. Use only explosive shells ( doesn't apply to experimental howies)

2) don't hide behind the trenches. Attack!

There, your game is now harder.

[Audacia]

1) take off that cannister shot for your artillery. You're making it too easy. Use only explosive shells ( doesn't apply to experimental howies)

2) don't hide behind the trenches. Attack!

There, your game is now harder.

Well I see where he is coming from. It doesn't matter if you attack, because the BAI attacks you every time. So if you move forward, you usually meet them somewhere in between the trenches (which the BAI RARELY ever set up correctly ) and it ends in a firefight...which is alright I guess.

But ideally I would like to have to actually attack someone once in a while, behind their trenches. I guess it just has to do with the BAI not knowing how to handle such strong artillery, better rifles, and other technological advances we have implemented into the game.

However, Josst is the AI guy, so if you have any questions, he's the guy to ask

[cottontail]

Well I see where he is coming from. It doesn't matter if you attack, because the BAI attacks you every time. So if you move forward, you usually meet them somewhere in between the trenches (which the BAI RARELY ever set up correctly ) and it ends in a firefight...which is alright I guess.

But ideally I would like to have to actually attack someone once in a while, behind their trenches. I guess it just has to do with the BAI not knowing how to handle such strong artillery, better rifles, and other technological advances we have implemented into the game.

However, Josst is the AI guy, so if you have any questions, he's the guy to ask

yeah, I wasn't saying that the AI didnt need any work ( and its not the team's fault the AI doesn't know what its doing, its CA's ). I was just giving advice how to make the battles more difficult and entertaining.

Personally, I find waiting behind my trench boring. Battling using terrain and towns/ buildings as cover is much funner than waiting for the AI to come towards my machine guns ( although I do that alot too ). Reducing those towns to rubble with artillery while yours and their men are battling is even funner ( evil, but fun)

[King Sama]

My own list (though what cottontail was completely correct)

1. We're trying to implement a new gameplay strategy, and part of this will include much more varied, evolving, and tactical battles throughout the campaign.

2. Using different strategies and emphasizing certain arms of the military over others (such as using more cavalry and less artillery, or more snipers/flamethrowers over huge militia units) can make your game much more interesting.

3. Josst's UAI is meant for vanilla, but i believe it is compatible with TGW and may help with the offense/defense thing a bit. I haven't used it for TGW before though, so I don't know the side-effects.

[Prince of Darkness]

Ok, the AI MUST attack you whether you are on the offensive or defensive because you have superior artillery.
If they stand to their ground they will be destroyed.

[Aanker]

Ok, the AI MUST attack you whether you are on the offensive or defensive because you have superior artillery.
If they stand to their ground they will be destroyed.

This is quite true; if the AI has artillery superiority it will rarely attack, this is based on my own observations, at least. The core issue here is thus that the AI seems to recruit too little artillery (which, even if the AI keeps its aggressive pattern of action, would at least inflict serious losses).

[alhoon]

This is quite true; if the AI has artillery superiority it will rarely attack, this is based on my own observations, at least. The core issue here is thus that the AI seems to recruit too little artillery (which, even if the AI keeps its aggressive pattern of action, would at least inflict serious losses).

This seems a good solution then. The AI should build more artillery. If you make the artillery 50% cheaper for the AI, wouldn't it recruit more?

[King Sama]

This seems a good solution then. The AI should build more artillery. If you make the artillery 50% cheaper for the AI, wouldn't it recruit more?

No, the player would recruit more

I think there may be a way to make artillerty a greater priority for the ai. Plus, startpos v2 will have a much greater number of ordnance factories so the ai has more possibilities to recruit them.

[alhoon]

This seems a good solution then. The AI should build more artillery. If you make the artillery 50% cheaper for the AI, wouldn't it recruit more?

No, the player would recruit more

PS. I think that if it's cheaper for the AI (again, the AI ONLY), it will recruit more.

[King Sama]

PS. I think that if it's cheaper for the AI (again, the AI ONLY), it will recruit more.

How? There's a chance it is possible through scripting, but considering the ai already (correct me if I'm wrong)g ets huge financial bonues on hard or very hard, that might not have that much effect

[eugenioso]

im looking forward to getting NTW so i can dl this. i found it online for a bargain 10 bucks (with conversions applying) so ill buy it soon and play this.

[Kaunitz]

Hi!

Does this mod use any kind of ground- and troop-"scale"? If you choose a scale, the battle field grows in size whereas weapon ranges, unit sizes (thus also casualties) and movement speed decrease. In my project for ETW, for example, I use a 4:1 scale, which means that 12pdrs with a "realistic" range cannot shoot across the whole battlefield anymore ("almost" though). For a WWI game, I'd probably use an even extremer scale to get really big battlefields and long range bombardements. I don't have a clue about WWI-warfare though . This way, tactics should become a bit more differentiated - If there's just "run against this machine gun!" there's actually not much room for tactics and decisions, I suppose. But if you think: "phew, where to send my reinforcements?" or "On which part of the (big!) battle field am I supposed to lay my artillery fire?" it's a hard decision! And, if you consider multiplayer battles, you can also implement a fog of war, which is where the tactical aspect of warfare "really" sets in: "Damn, his reinforces are over there!? Stop the attack in the center, delay on the right! Artillery over there!" etc.

The backdrops are, of course, 1) battles need more time (slower movement rates), and 2) models will be too big. But this only comes into play where the frontage of units is of importance. Eg. consider a machine gun. You can circumvent this problem by adjusting the arc of fire (lower arc of fire). Last but not least, you'll need battle maps with terrain that fits your scale. Have you thought about implementing trenches as "ground textures" like, e.g. woods, that bestow a "cover bonus" on troops?

And it also means that there would be a bit more "abstraction" (lower casuatlies, lower movement rates, etc.), that not everybody will like. But immersion-wise, there are some possibilities how to pimp up the game. E.g. you could use "WWI-engagement-sounds" whenever a single musket goes off, instead of just a single "pop". When two units are engaged, it will represent a bigger action with lots of noise, etc. - remember the scale!

But this was just an idea. I don't know if you already use a scale or if you've already thought about it.

Kind regards and good luck,

Kaunitz

[Joshua the Bear]

Problem: I play VH/VH and it is very very very hard to LOSE a battle.

As long as you have some artillery, the battle outcome is inevitable (a human victory). I have noticed that the AI, no matter whether you attack or not, comes straight at you, right into your guns. I slaughter armies left and right, losing 2000 to their 17000. At first this was awesome but the joy wears off as you realize that EVERY battle is the same...

France and Russia seem to build some artillery but they rarely utilize it effectively. I just destroy their batteries with my canister fire. PLUS the rest of the nations in Europe rarely even have any artillery.

I have one major point of emphasis. If I attack, I should have to ATTACK! Then I might get slaughtered every once in a while. This would maybe make things more balanced. Instead the AI comes right at me in a disordered mob in every battle.

You know, what I read here actually sounds quite accurate to what the generals of early WW1 were doing. Especially those at Sommes.

[Prince of Darkness]

Do not recruit artillery.
Have fun in N/N.

[Dago Red]

Do not recruit artillery.
Have fun in N/N.

These are NOT solutions. You cold maybe argue for compensating for a weak AI in an 18th century mod by highly limiting your artillery, but in a WWI setting?? That's like playing a classical mod and saying do not recruit any phalangites (phalanx). Ridiculous.

Worse than that even, it's less fun too, not using features of the game. I suspect the arti is a major aspect to the atmosphere (and SOUND) of any WWI mod worth it's weight in dead bodies.


I don't have the mod because I have not bought NTW yet since ETW was so bugged out. I was considering buying NTW for this but this has me thinking I'll wait until the gameplay is figured out. Glad to hear there are flamethrowers though.

[Nyxos]

well WW1 was easy from our point of view, at the time they did just what the AI does in the mod => charge head on and die.

[Dago Red]

Really? How did it last so many years then......
What nlovertoom is describing is not a fun game. Maybe at first, but not as the turns roll on. Take a look at APE:TI, they created a game that is incredibly difficult and challenging, and on N/N (which they designed it for)! This guy is saying he's playing on VH/VH, there's no where to go from there.

[Nyxos]

Really? How did it last so many years then......

because both sides did that