The AI and what is wrong with it.

[Elmar]

When discusssing the RTW AI it is hard not to be unkind. Why? I do not blame it for not being challenging. I am, afterall, a big brained human being with immense tactical and stategic ability. *cough* No, what I detest about the AI, both tactical and stategic is that it does not allow me to suspend my disbelief. I can forgive the AI for not finding the weakspot in my lines or not seeing the impending doom waiting to happen on its borders. But when it does things so boneheadedly stupid and insensible... AAAAGH! On several occasions it is all the more dissatifying because we saw STW/MTW do it well.

So maybe it will be helpful for a M2TW AI if we put together a catalogue of stuff then just are not up to snuff. Here are my observations:

On the stategic side I expect the AI to:
-To know when it is beaten. If an empire is being trodden on by a player and has no army, navy left, and has only a few provinces left... sue for peace. Please. Atleast try not to kill my diplomat offering it. That the AI insist on fighting to the death when I have all along gone out of my way to be nice is particularly galling.
-Declare war if you really must. Really, if the players mighty empire has not ever commited an act against you, perhaps it is best not to block one of its ports just for :wub: and giggles, eh?
-atleast try to have its armies in place when it declares war. Or even to have an army. Really, when declaring atleast have the ability to hurt me in the initial surprise attack if not in the long term. It will not do to send your armies over my borders in drips and drabs. Mob my armies! Overwhelm my defences!
-replenish depleted armies. Upgrade them if you can. For the AI not to do replenish a under-strength army in a location when it can easily do so is inexcusable.
-have your best general in command of your best army. Though any general would do. Seeing a stack of commanders and a stack of units without a commander nearby is just bad.
-realize peasants are a liabilty. I havent build them for frontline duties since STW days. Really, if you havent the money to build a proper unit then keep the coin in your pocket until you do.
-not wander about in some obscure location. I understand it might be hard for the AI to make up its mind as to where to go but the frighteningly large number of powerful armies I have found in the weirdest places is too much. It has gotten slightly better but it's still far to frequent. When in doubt, send them towards the closest enemy province/army. Advancing towards the sound of guns is not one of the most famous military doctrines for nothing, you know?


Tactical AI should atleast:
-do something when being shot at. STW and MTW knew a fair bit about skirmishing. It couldn't win a skirmish to safe its life but atleast it tried. It fought back. Too often in RTW even missile units do not respond to my units pelting them, despite being in range. Seriously: WTF? I do NOT want to see this again. It's the biggest flaw in the tactical AI IMO. It turns what is supposed to bethe exciting opening skirmish where opponents look for an opening into one sided murder.
-resist charging cavalry and/or general into a formation of heavy infantry head on. Soften it up prior to doing so, if you absolutely must.
-Hold the high ground. Any high ground. The MTW AI had the good sense to re-locate if you turned its flank and got onto more advantagous terrain then the AI held. The RTW AI simply rotates its army to face you, often moving its army off the ridge that had some value and into the valley where it now is certain to be slaughtered.
-use all available units should it start out with only a hand full! No good to hold a unit or two in reserve when those in the frontline are being flanked and slaughtered.
-Match the length of the enemy battleline, especially if it has more men. Wrapping around the AIs flanks with an extended line is like taking candy from a baby. This basic tactic should not feel like an exploit yet the AI is utterly helpless.

When in a siege:
-My entire army is scaling the North walls. Could the AI please stop guarding the East, West and South walls? Really, more effort should be made to repel an attack with all available units. Having lots of combat power scattered in places not remotely under attack makes no sense. This includes the town square, should that make a comback (let's hope not)
-make a focused attack when assaulting. No good frittering away valuable troops and siege engines along the entire frontage of my defences, that just allows every defensive tower of mine to get a shot off. No, instead reduce towers, walls and the men defending them in a single area and then exploit the gap. Too many AI armies have died at the feet of my walls in futile, unfocused and limp wristed attacks where I could easily have breezed through the town had I had a quarter of their siege engines and men. And that's without any gamey tactics.

There are many more points where the AI needs to be looked at so feel free to desribe the follies the AI strings together in an attempt at tactics. Please keep in mind though, even the best AI is basic. It just isn't capable of responding to anything clever. But any other example of exceedingly stupid things the AI does in RTW that shouldn't reasonably be in M2TW, please share.

[Sarge_Scot]

You nailed it dude. You're absolutely right. The AI in Medieval was better than Rome's, and Rome is 2 years newer. The Dev's shouldn't only be working on new graphics and the like, but actually making competent AI. AI will never have the capacity for thought that a human does, but that doesn't mean they have to be retarded. AI should really be the dev's focus this time around. And not just AI on the battlefield, but on the campaign map as well. I hated when I had conquered almost all of a nation's cities, annililated their armies, and yet they wouldn't have peace. Hopefully, this will be changed.

[ywingpilot]

The AI was better in MTW than RTW, I don't think that it was just the AI that caused RTW's problems and made it too easy. In RTW your troops never tire, so you could fight larger armies easier. Everyone knows about the the moral and faction balance issues.

[Libertine]

From a personal point of view - I got Shogun TW from the bargain bin and...well...I love it! Its so much more challanging than RTW, and from the sound of things MTW is the same - I just hope CA live up to the efforts their first 2 games provided!

[mike^_^]

hit it right on the button Elmar.

nobody is asking for a perfect Alexander AI, all we would like to see is, a decent AI that doesn't routinely make decisions that are distinctly to their disadvantage.

all of Elmar's points are valid and not even asking for that much. I hope they have listened and taken to heart all of the complaining about the absolutely retarded AI in RTW

[Maximus I]

good post totally agree with it.

[HorseArcher]

Another thing I have noticed in RTW is siege equipment rarely used by the A.I., other than those stupid rams against a large stone wall.

Especially in this era (medieval) sieges were very common so much, there is why there were forts, castles, bastions, strongholds, medieval times is known by sieges. So please, If i don't see at least an effort to use tactics trying to capture my forts, I will chuck the game out my window.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, here're my thoughts:

CAMPAIGN MAP
- The AI really MUST upgrade its economies and upgrade its armies. If an army is out of date, it should be disbanded and replaced with a fresh one. I thought it was stupid to go into the Roman Civil War with my legions and fight hastati and velites (they barely ever even had principes or triarii!).
- If the AI is losing money, it should disband armies and focus on restabilising its economy (through raiding and conquest if necessary, or at least through diplomacy). In RTW it just spirals into a never-ending round of debt, and I annihilate them.
- How about not sending diplomats off to the Alanni tribe and instead focus them around more relevant factions? Why should the Scipiones WANT to know what's in Russia? Shouldn't they be negotiating with the Iberians and the Carthaginians?
- The AI would also do well to use assassins to assassinate people. It also ought to sabotage my infrastructure.

BATTLE MAP
- Pathfinding! That drove me up the wall! I would scream at the computer! "WHY IN :wub:S NAME WON'T YOU JUST CHARGE THE B*STARDS! NO, NOT THE PIKE PHALANX, YOU :wub:S! GET OUT OF THERE, YOU..." etc. etc. Why would a unit try to manoeuvre through the middle of another unit? In real life they would go AROUND it, especially if that unit is engaged with an enemy that you're trying to flank. Cities were particularly bad. Units would wander in bizarre directions whenever they neared the plaza, and when exiting a gate to deploy before a wall they'd wander two hundred yards out before turning back again. I once had a unit try to enter a gate that I hadn't even captured when there was one that I had captured RIGHT NEXT TO THEM!
- The AI should stop deploying in straight line formations that I can easily munch through and start trying to use a little depth. Maybe the odd wedge, or crescent formation?
- The AI ought to do SOMETHING. There have been times when they've tried to attack me (particularly from cities) and just not done anything.

There are a few. More will undoubtedly come to me later.

[Sarethi]

- Pathfinding! That drove me up the wall! I would scream at the computer! "WHY IN :wub:S NAME WON'T YOU JUST CHARGE THE B*STARDS! NO, NOT THE PIKE PHALANX, YOU :wub:S! GET OUT OF THERE, YOU..." etc. etc. Why would a unit try to manoeuvre through the middle of another unit? In real life they would go AROUND it, especially if that unit is engaged with an enemy that you're trying to flank. Cities were particularly bad. Units would wander in bizarre directions whenever they neared the plaza, and when exiting a gate to deploy before a wall they'd wander two hundred yards out before turning back again. I once had a unit try to enter a gate that I hadn't even captured when there was one that I had captured RIGHT NEXT TO THEM!

This is one of the biggest problems in RTW, at least in terms of how mad it can drive you...

[The True Roman]

You guys complain about how bad the AI was for RTW compaired to the AI of STW and MTW. I dont no if you no this but those games were much more basic then RTW was. For one you were never able to put troops on the walls in those games so the enemy could walk around your walls all they wanted to in the other games and only have to worry about towers. There were no rams or ladders in those games only seige wapons like catapluts and Trebushits. The AI could attack a gate with a unit to open it. It didn't need a ram to open it. They could attack a woden wall with a unit and knock it down. There was no path finding problems in a Segie sence there was no citys to attack only small Forts. Sure there were some big ones but the most they had in them was 4 buildings tops. Then the province map was easier for the AI to use sence as soon as you put troops in a provice you attack who ever was there. They took that out for a more realistc map. Give CA time I garente that this New TW will be the best one yet.

I no I spelled many things wrong but i got my point across.

[-=MordeN=-]

I agree with the true roman, the truth about the AI is that it did not improve at the same rate as maps (both campaign and battle) did, walls and building became difficult for the AI to handle, as did the use of siege engines since before they never had to use it.

However there are also many.. and I mean really many situations in which the AI does thing which are completely beyond idiotic, charging cavalry directly into the phalanx? sounds wrong to me, especially if you count that they dont charge cheap light horsemen into the pikes, the AI is happy to send his general to the next life, even faction leaders. Plus, in open field battle the AI has no idea about terrain advantages, forest ambushes or any other similar tactic, and MTW's AI seemed to do it quite well.

Speaking about sieges is completely redundant since the AI cannot handle even the easiest of them, particularly when defending, I believe although, that the CA will make a huge improvement in the AI department, seeing as though each new game has brought big improvements over the previous ones, RTW meant a huge leap in graphics and environment and improving on the AI seems like the logical step to take

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Well, here're my thoughts:

BATTLE MAP
- Pathfinding! That drove me up the wall! I would scream at the computer! "WHY IN :wub:S NAME WON'T YOU JUST CHARGE THE B*STARDS! NO, NOT THE PIKE PHALANX, YOU :wub:S! GET OUT OF THERE, YOU..." etc. etc. Why would a unit try to manoeuvre through the middle of another unit? In real life they would go AROUND it, especially if that unit is engaged with an enemy that you're trying to flank. Cities were particularly bad. Units would wander in bizarre directions whenever they neared the plaza, and when exiting a gate to deploy before a wall they'd wander two hundred yards out before turning back again. I once had a unit try to enter a gate that I hadn't even captured when there was one that I had captured RIGHT NEXT TO THEM!
- The AI should stop deploying in straight line formations that I can easily munch through and start trying to use a little depth. Maybe the odd wedge, or crescent formation?
- The AI ought to do SOMETHING. There have been times when they've tried to attack me (particularly from cities) and just not done anything.

There are a few. More will undoubtedly come to me later.

Allthough I agree with the rest, maneuvering the units is one of the players tasks imho - it's one of the few things that can provide a little challenge in the game.
E.g. "do I manage to squeeze my cav unit through the gap in enemies phalanx units in time without disrupting my advancing infantries formation?"
I admit that pathfinding, especially in cities could be improved, but as long as you give them the proper arrangement to march in, it's not that bad.

The AI in RTW was something that made the game unplayable for me - it was no fun at all - the best thing it ever did in 1.0 was nothing - if it did anything on the battlefield, it was to its disadvantage.

I especially hope that generals will be used as generals and not as flank - err - phalanx charging - monkeys anymore. A general is supposed to be protected at all costs and remain in a overseeing position still close to the troops, so he can give orders.
Most ppl playing with the general cam enabled (like I do) will know what I'm talking about (besides I roleplay my games - so I'm only allowed to fight battles with the faction leader or his heir myself - as soon as he is killed in battle, I fefrain from giving any order and put my army under AI assistance for the rest of the battle.

No one can tell me that a general on his charge into pointy long sticks is able to coordinate his army in a proper way (which kind of makes the AI acting completely uncoordinated look realistic - who is ought to tell them what to do? the guy chrging? most likely not...).

In MTW1 I was actively trying to take the enemies general out to give them that morale hit - wasn't too hard, allthough he remained in a protected position and was a jedi, but in RTW, I don't even need to try taking him out - most of the time he will most efficiently do that himself.

[sera]

-To know when it is beaten. If an empire is being trodden on by a player and has no army, navy left, and has only a few provinces left... sue for peace. Please. Atleast try not to kill my diplomat offering it. That the AI insist on fighting to the death when I have all along gone out of my way to be nice is particularly galling.

Ahh! This brings back memories of the opening scene in Gladiator; Maximus' aide Quintus exclaims "People should know when they're conquered" after the beheaded Roman diplomat is sent back by the Germanic tribe. For some people accepting defeat is simply not an option and an 'honorable death' preferrable. The game and the AI should leave room for such moves as well. War isn't a chess game.


Would be nice...and more realistic...if the actual skill of the general affected strategic troop maneuvering and not only provided special bonuses though.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Ahh! This brings back memories of the opening scene in Gladiator; Maximus' aide Quintus exclaims "People should know when they're conquered" after the beheaded Roman diplomat is sent back by the Germanic tribe. For some people accepting defeat is simply not an option and an 'honorable death' preferrable. The game and the AI should leave room for such moves as well. War isn't a chess game.

Only few states fought to an 'honourable death'. Most signed a ceasefire/surrender with the enemy after they'd been defeated several times and when their capital/farms were devastated.

[smoke]

I would love to see the AI not ganging up on you ALL the time. I can understand them trying to halt your advance united when you've grown to top dog position, but other than that i'd like to play a part in the whole scene; not center stage. I think the original MTW did this perfectly. You would have games in which you could pull off politics and war and not be fired at directly by all the AI factions.

[The Dane]

With any luck CA will work on the RTW BI 1.6 AI and use an much improved version of it in M2TW. Main focus should be on battle AI and Diplomacy AI.

Also the AI should:

-Unite against me when I grow to strong, or when two AI faction are weak they should team up.
-Use some basic tactics and formations. e.g. flanking, deeper formation, keep distance to towers, put spearmen on the sides of it's formation to help counter cavalery. Just some very basic stuff that is effective and simple to use so the AI can handle it.
-No when to skirmish and when no to do it. It does not help skirmish with me when I have 5 units of archers and it have 1 or 0, then it should attack me instead of being killed.

But basicly fix all the small things first, like archers not shooting and so on, when all thoes things are fixed the AI will actualy be improved a lot, then you can start making it use flanking manuevers and so on.

[andymate]

Yeh the rome campaign map ai was pretty horrible, i hated the diplomacy, however battle map has been fixed considerably in 1.6, providing the ai is using custom formations.

[iKossu]

Yeh the rome campaign map ai was pretty horrible, i hated the diplomacy, however battle map has been fixed considerably in 1.6, providing the ai is using custom formations.

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree.

Something about Battle map AI
Pontus besieged a settlement of mine many times. Every single time, I made 2-3 "counter attacks": I simply deployed my Cretan Archers on the walls and showered its army with arrows, killing hundreds of men. You call that smart AI? Of course there has been slight improvement but AI in STW & MTW still is way much better. That kinda makes me sad...

Something about Campaign map AI
I played as Julii couple of weeks ago. I conquered Caralis on island Sardinia from Rebels. Then I annihilated many Carthiginian armies, conquered Carthage and Thapsus, both from Carthage. I totally won every battle with same tactic, causing many many casualties to its armies. What does the AI? It offers peace but demands Caralis, Carthage and Thapsus. Since it didn't agree to peace, I destroyed the whole faction.

[Taiko]

Well said I couldn't do it better.

[DavidtheDuke]

Not to mention the archer bug/feature found by Darth and lt. I'm not buying this game unless I got alot of extra money and/or they got alot of good AI. I wonder how hard it really would be for them to make the AI heavily moddable; would be quite excellent for mods.