AI factions' objective/survival instinct

[ray243]

While Shogun 2 TW have a much less suicidal AI compared to RTW, I still feel that the actual desire of the AI to survive till the end of the game is still quite low.

The basic thing that concern any nation, be it during ancient time or modern time is simply the desire to survive as long as they can. Sure, conquering more lands is fun and all that, but those things pale in regards to trying to make your nation survive.

So I was wondering, should CA code the AI to ensure that any weaker factions would often try and cut deals with stronger powers to survive? If a Spanish faction is almost facing destruction by Carthage, they should try and find Rome and become her protectorate. We should see some timid behaviour from the AI as well, when they decide it is too risky to wage war against their neighbours.

AI should be more happy with surviving as a protectorate state than being wiped out off the campaign map.

[Maklodes]

Perhaps this would make the game too easy for a coldly calculating human player to beat the AI, but I think that AI factions might occasionally (maybe even usually) be dominated by political factions or personalities which have priorities other than pure survival. Maybe there will sometimes be a king who is obsessed with his popularity among the people, so reduces taxes dramatically, even if that means compromising the military.

Maybe sometimes a king just doesn't trust the military (fears coups), and reduces the power of the military for its own sake. (This was the policy of the Song dynasty in China. It worked until the Mongols came.)

Maybe sometimes a faction of religious fanatics takes power, which puts spreading the faith over national survival.

Maybe sometimes a politician might start a war that's not in the national interest because he wants a glorious military record to run on the next time there's an election. (Crassus's invasion of Parthia so he didn't look like a wimp next to Caesar and Pompey?)

I do think that maybe there needs to be a bit more reasoning behind how the AI acts, but maybe sometimes factions could act a bit irrationally, both because sometimes people are irrational, and sometimes what's rational for leaders isn't always rational for the nation.

[ray243]

Perhaps this would make the game too easy for a coldly calculating human player to beat the AI, but I think that AI factions might occasionally (maybe even usually) be dominated by political factions or personalities which have priorities other than pure survival. Maybe there will sometimes be a king who is obsessed with his popularity among the people, so reduces taxes dramatically, even if that means compromising the military.

Well, you can always create issues whenever the player tried to turn their protectorate into their own lands. All you need is some faction leader to whip up their people into a frenzy and you will be dealing with a large scale rebellion, something like what happened to Caesar in Gaul and what Boudica did to the Romans.

[username1903]

Most small factions were not some cohesive whole that tried to survive. Individual villages want to survive and as such pay whatever or have taken by whatever is the strongest local force. Most rulers ruled by whatever they thought best, you get a ruler that is belligerent or full of pride and they will hold out till the bitter end. You get a ruler that cares only about the citizenry then they might go for your protectorate option.

With that said sounds like a good idea, just might need some fleshing out.

[MonkeyD]

I'd love to see this in Rome II. In general I just want diplomacy to actually have a bigger impact than in past TW titles.

[Ultra123]

this certainly has my support, i know its a 'total war' game and not a paradox but SOME common sense for ai nations would be very useful indeed, perhaps make this in vanilla to be basic and then modders sort it out? for example gaul holding out to the bitter end greece worried about the people, carthage caring only for trade and mercs up when attacked, and rome being well, rome

[zg0301zg]

To say at least, AI should be more balanced in a sense it should be more responsible towards money, and fighting war in a sense of pros and cons, I am not saying to be predictable but just more sensible

[BENDELIANI]

I want see rome2 with new factions and with new 3 caucasian states Colchis, Iberia and Albania....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberia ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania ...

please important this message

[krisslanza]

In my experience in RTW the AI already does this. They may not protectorate out that much, but they do seem to start grabbing allies if you start beating their face in. Worked the same in M2TW, and even Shogun 2 I'm pretty sure.

It's just the AI would never try to let YOU be it's owner. The AI was fine with anyone else, except you.

[ray243]

In my experience in RTW the AI already does this. They may not protectorate out that much, but they do seem to start grabbing allies if you start beating their face in. Worked the same in M2TW, and even Shogun 2 I'm pretty sure.

It's just the AI would never try to let YOU be it's owner. The AI was fine with anyone else, except you.

THAT is the big problem! The AI is so fixated on the player that they often ignore their own survival if they can destroy one of your stacks.

The main reason why people complained about the AI is the fact that people don't play the game in the same manner as the AI. Human beings would first and foremost look out for themselves before caring about their enemies. Even if player A really hates player B, there is still a chance that player A would choose to take care of his own empire before caring about what player B is doing.

The AI behaviour in RTW is unrealistic and unhumanistic.

[krisslanza]

THAT is the big problem! The AI is so fixated on the player that they often ignore their own survival if they can destroy one of your stacks.

The main reason why people complained about the AI is the fact that people don't play the game in the same manner as the AI. Human beings would first and foremost look out for themselves before caring about their enemies. Even if player A really hates player B, there is still a chance that player A would choose to take care of his own empire before caring about what player B is doing.

The AI behaviour in RTW is unrealistic and unhumanistic.

That's because the AI only has one goal in mind:
To make sure the human player doesn't win.

The AI CAN'T win, it has no victory conditions. Therefore it's only goal is to make sure you don't win.

[ray243]

That's because the AI only has one goal in mind:
To make sure the human player doesn't win.

The AI CAN'T win, it has no victory conditions. Therefore it's only goal is to make sure you don't win.

Which is why it spoils the mechanics of the game if you also want the player to conduct diplomacy with the player. If the only way to stop a player from winning the game is to throw factions after factions at the player, then the game will become rather boring after a while.

There should be other ways to prevent the player from winning the game. After all, even an empire as big as Rome fell in the end, so why can't CA find a number of different ways to stop the player.

Let some old factions survive, as long as the game is able to generate newer and more powerful factions for the player to face.

After all, who wants to play an entire game fighting small time enemies. You would want to face bigger and more powerful enemies as you approach the end of the game. Facing zerg rush after zerg rush gets boring after a while

[Austrian Cuirassier]

While I would love to have this feature in the game, it is not entirely true for all factions... When the ancient Germanic armies marched to war they brought their women and children with them, parking them at the very fringe of the Germanic side of the battle. The thought process was it would instill great courage and ferocity in the men to protect to their families. It often worked incredibly well, giving the Germans a reputation to fight more ferociously then any other people the Romans had ever seen. The down side to this strategy however is that if and when the tribe lost; either the men were all killed, captured, etc. the women and children were captured and sold into slavery effectively exterminating the tribe. Talk about an all in! The most famous example was with the Cimbri and Teutones tribes. They were from modern Hanover and the Jutland peninsula, (where i'm from actually) over crowding in a harsh land caused the majority of these two tribes to travel south in search of land and loot. They crossed pass eventually with the Romans and although won many battles at one point threatening Rome itself, they were finally defeated at Vercellae and hearing of the Romans cruelty and to avoid a life in chains the women and children strangled themselves, virtually wiping out all but the very few Cimbri and Teutones who remained in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.

Sorry for the long post however I feel that not all factions need to have a survivalist attitude. However I do not disagree that more countries in the face of certain destruction should not choose to fight it out then surrender. I want certain factions such as the Germans, the Spartans, and even the Romans themselves to have a programmed AI attitude that represents that they were a warrior people hell bent on killing and dying for their honor.

[Ariovist]

While I would love to have this feature in the game, it is not entirely true for all factions... When the ancient Germanic armies marched to war they brought their women and children with them, parking them at the very fringe of the Germanic side of the battle. The thought process was it would instill great courage and ferocity in the men to protect to their families. It often worked incredibly well, giving the Germans a reputation to fight more ferociously then any other people the Romans had ever seen. The down side to this strategy however is that if and when the tribe lost; either the men were all killed, captured, etc. the women and children were captured and sold into slavery effectively exterminating the tribe. Talk about an all in! The most famous example was with the Cimbri and Teutones tribes. They were from modern Hanover and the Jutland peninsula, (where i'm from actually) over crowding in a harsh land caused the majority of these two tribes to travel south in search of land and loot. They crossed pass eventually with the Romans and although won many battles at one point threatening Rome itself, they were finally defeated at Vercellae and hearing of the Romans cruelty and to avoid a life in chains the women and children strangled themselves, virtually wiping out all but the very few Cimbri and Teutones who remained in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.

Sorry for the long post however I feel that not all factions need to have a survivalist attitude. However I do not disagree that more countries in the face of certain destruction should not choose to fight it out then surrender. I want certain factions such as the Germans, the Spartans, and even the Romans themselves to have a programmed AI attitude that represents that they were a warrior people hell bent on killing and dying for their honor.

Well, the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were tribes that wanted new lands to settle in. That was the reason they had their families with them.
Same but in much smaler scale could be said for the Suebian confederation under Ariovist against Julius Caesar.

BUT:
The germanic tribes were not dumb and also not brutes or savages as some people want us to believe.
If they fought in larger battles like the campaigns against Germanicus they naturally don't brought their children and wives with them. The chance that if they had to retreat to let their relatives fall in slavery was much too great.

Nonetheless germanic women had a tendency to stay near the battlefields, but that also had a simple reason: to tend the wounded - this was also described in later times about the goths by the way.

[Austrian Cuirassier]

Well, the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were tribes that wanted new lands to settle in. That was the reason they had their families with them.
Same but in much smaler scale could be said for the Suebian confederation under Ariovist against Julius Caesar.

BUT:
The germanic tribes were not dumb and also not brutes or savages as some people want us to believe.
If they fought in larger battles like the campaigns against Germanicus they naturally don't brought their children and wives with them. The chance that if they had to retreat to let their relatives fall in slavery was much too great.

Nonetheless germanic women had a tendency to stay near the battlefields, but that also had a simple reason: to tend the wounded - this was also described in later times about the goths by the way.

I do not find them dumb haha I am from Germany with mixed German, Norwegian, and Danish ancestry. They were however brutish and savage in battle. In the campaigns against Germanicus led by Arminius(Herman) the German armies were combined forces of a many tribes not just the Cherusci, there are accounts from Germanicus's campaign that his scouting parties would come back from far head reporting fighting between the different tribal women! The women were of course rarely if ever involved in battle (screeching women unit i'm looking at you) however they were close enough to the field of battle to where it had an impact on their men's courage to protect them.

[Ariovist]

I do not find them dumb haha I am from Germany with mixed German, Norwegian, and Danish ancestry. They were however brutish and savage in battle. In the campaigns against Germanicus led by Arminius(Herman) the German armies were combined forces of a many tribes not just the Cherusci, there are accounts from Germanicus's campaign that his scouting parties would come back from far head reporting fighting between the different tribal women! The women were of course rarely if ever involved in battle (screeching women unit i'm looking at you) however they were close enough to the field of battle to where it had an impact on their men's courage to protect them.

Sorry, but would you please give a source for the description about the account on Germanicus' campaigns that involved women near the battlefield.
I definately never read or heard that before.

It was rather the other way, the germanic warriors sent their relatives in the hidden parts of swamps and forests and left their villages whenever the roman army was approaching.
Sound definately more logical.