AI That Knows Its Losing The War.

[weirdoascensor]

We all know too well that The AI like to declare war...just because...without any sensible reasons...against much more powerful foe...

...Then they got beaten up...But They Still Refuse To Surrender!

TW needs a better AI: AI That Knows Its Losing The War.

When The AI's Armies were Defeated in the Field, The AI have 2 choice: Keep Fighting or Seek Peace.

In That Situation, They should fight a war or Attrition though guerilla warfare: Small Raiding Armies that cuts supply lines and do Hit-and-run attacks.

In Battles, the BAI still do not understand that it could retreat from battle without casualties, to fight another day. If all the soldiers died attacking the wall, The General dont scale the walls! They should retreat!
Ambushes, if the hit does not break the ranks, The BAI should be able to slow down the pursuers, so the rest of the rank could escape.

The AI only would not try too seek peace if the Enemy wage a war of annihilation: Decimating Cities, Mass Prisoner Crucifictions, or Burn-Pillage-Rape. In Only That Case, it is understandable that they would fight to the bitter end.

A reasonless, losing war without any justification should trigger instability in the faction. A Coup shall ensues.

This may sums it up, and add some nonsensibility to this thread:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not very historically accurate...isnt it? Hmmm?

[✠Ikaroqx✠]

I agree with that. I'm having exactly the same problem in my ETW Austrian campaign - I took Saxony and offered it to Bavaria in return for them being faithful allies and all (they helped me fight Prussia), but they wouldn't accept. I had to threaten Sweden to become my ally and force Poland-Lithuania to come to peace terms after I took the Poland part.

P.S That's a very funny comic! Exactly how it happens with me!

[MasterBigAb]

This is so true; and nice comic

[MonkeyD]

I agree, too many time I was forced to wipe unyielding morons off the face of the earth when it would have been much more profitable to simply call it quits and let trade resume. I hope leaders play a bigger role in how factions deal with you in Rome 2. One very warlike leader will hate you but once his educated son takes over he proposes trade deals and even an alliance to get your forces to protect his lands.

Diplomacy has improved since RTW but it really does need some tweaking.

[Anna_Gein]

Yes that's why I want a warscore system.
It would give more importance to the battle fought too.

The AI shouldn't declare war on the player without reason. Even less when you are a faithful ally or when you are far more powerful.

[Humble Warrior]

In Battles, the BAI still do not understand that it could retreat from battle without casualties, to fight another day. If all the soldiers died attacking the wall, The General dont scale the walls! They should retreat!
Ambushes, if the hit does not break the ranks, The BAI should be able to slow down the pursuers, so the rest of the rank could escape.

The AI only would not try too seek peace if the Enemy wage a war of annihilation: Decimating Cities, Mass Prisoner Crucifictions, or Burn-Pillage-Rape. In Only That Case, it is understandable that they would fight to the bitter end.

A reasonless, losing war without any justification should trigger instability in the faction. A Coup shall ensues.

Very good points indeed. This is the Human element I often want to see. It`ll sometimes ask for peace in STW2 when it has one city remaining, but the battles it fights don`t make much sense to the overall campaign. It should fight battles with a `thought`, if you will, on the General campaign situation.

I went to fight the BAI in a losing Campaign battle. I faced it on the battlefield and realised, now reviewing the situation that it was pointless for me to fight and best to retreat and consolidate elsewhere, so I did.

Now, interestingly, in MTW and the original STW, the BAI would sometimes retreat without even fighting, even when it started the attack. I thought this was Human, realistic and great. It didn`t happen much but it happened. Problem, here is I think CA thought it `no fun` for the Player and it stopped. Ok, so it wasn`t really the BAI working with CAI, but it shows that the process could be made to work together.

As long as CA keeps doing everything it can to make warfare `fun` to a juvenile degree, ignoring the realistic human side of the Campaign and battle, I doubt we will ever get this kind of smart programmed AI routines, even though it would not be appealing the `no camp` `no retreat` predominantly MP crowd.

Because for some this kind of warfare`Is no fun.` CA has to stopped changing and watering down their TW games to appeal to an ever younger, finger--twitch impatient crowd and stick to what it should be about; the warfare of the times and how it worked and make that fun. Realistic warfare while grim in reality is fascinating and `fun` when you study it.

p.s. Nice comic. Seen it before, but nice and apt.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

We all know too well that The AI like to declare war...just because...without any sensible reasons...against much more powerful foe...

...Then they got beaten up...But They Still Refuse To Surrender!

TW needs a better AI: AI That Knows Its Losing The War.

When The AI's Armies were Defeated in the Field, The AI have 2 choice: Keep Fighting or Seek Peace.

In That Situation, They should fight a war or Attrition though guerilla warfare: Small Raiding Armies that cuts supply lines and do Hit-and-run attacks.

In Battles, the BAI still do not understand that it could retreat from battle without casualties, to fight another day. If all the soldiers died attacking the wall, The General dont scale the walls! They should retreat!
Ambushes, if the hit does not break the ranks, The BAI should be able to slow down the pursuers, so the rest of the rank could escape.

The AI only would not try too seek peace if the Enemy wage a war of annihilation: Decimating Cities, Mass Prisoner Crucifictions, or Burn-Pillage-Rape. In Only That Case, it is understandable that they would fight to the bitter end.

A reasonless, losing war without any justification should trigger instability in the faction. A Coup shall ensues.

This may sums it up, and add some nonsensibility to this thread:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not very historically accurate...isnt it? Hmmm?

Yes this is also fault of the poor Diplomatic options that we had ... indeed it was pretty annoying to have to fight up to the latest peasant unwilling to surrender ...
I coudl even understand if they where the arcienemies of all times, but most of the time where just allies that after a real division join the other side , switching from the mood that they like you to the mood that they hate you ... then even if you bribe them with gifts increasing their favour , the next turn they turn again on hating .. .making almoust the diplomacy useless...

I think that this is strictly tied to the diplomacy system that will need a total Overhaul and be redone by scratch bigger and better ... I personally hope to see dozens of options when dealing with foreign countries with multiple choices leading to nested sub conditions and results...

[Wowwars]

epic this should really get some more attention compared to some issues people chat about.

[Rasic]

This behavior is directly related to the overly simplified diplomacy that Creative Assembly insists on having. It's actually quite funny (not for the gamer) in that they purposefully limit the diplomacy of the game to not over complicate it and frustrate the player, but then in turn we have these incredibly frustrating scenarios because we can't effectively negotiate or bargain with the AI.

Client kingdoms/protectorates, war weariness, leader personalities/changing diplomatic opinions, posturing, predefined war goals and a "war score" to determine fairness of the peace conditions are all things that would eliminate these endless or idiotic wars in the game.

Paradox games and even civilization have done a lot of these features before and they aren't over complicated by any means. It's all about how to present the information to the player if he/she can understand it or not. If you have to dive into 5 different menus to set up a protectorate then yeah, but there is no reason those things couldn't be added to one cleverly designed diplomacy screen.

[Humble Warrior]

This behavior is directly related to the overly simplified diplomacy that Creative Assembly insists on having. It's actually quite funny (not for the gamer) in that they purposefully limit the diplomacy of the game to not over complicate it and frustrate the player, but then in turn we have these incredibly frustrating scenarios because we can't effectively negotiate or bargain with the AI.

Client kingdoms/protectorates, war weariness, leader personalities/changing diplomatic opinions, posturing, predefined war goals and a "war score" to determine fairness of the peace conditions are all things that would eliminate these endless or idiotic wars in the game.

Paradox games and even civilization have done a lot of these features before and they aren't over complicated by any means. It's all about how to present the information to the player if he/she can understand it or not. If you have to dive into 5 different menus to set up a protectorate then yeah, but there is no reason those things couldn't be added to one cleverly designed diplomacy screen.

Absolutely agree. If we just look at CIV4 Complete (one of my favourite strategy games), it has a raft of diplomatic options that allow for some quite good CAI actions and communication. Many of us have asked CA to have as many diplomatic options that you may have in reality (as possible) tied into the CAI and BAI actions.

Diplomacy is indeed too little and it is probably a big part of why BAI and CAI are not really working together as well as it could. IMHO.

[a tw player]

Do agree, a warscore system would be nice.

[joshko]

I think to fix this CA needs to include casus belli into diplomacy and with that some covert ways to creating it.
Though it fits more in the ETW diplomacy than in Rome. It can be argued that "you're weak" is enough of a reason to go to war in this time.

[Rasic]

I think to fix this CA needs to include casus belli into diplomacy and with that some covert ways to creating it.
Though it fits more in the ETW diplomacy than in Rome. It can be argued that "you're weak" is enough of a reason to go to war in this time.

I think people are too easy to dismiss Casus Belli in this era and it fits right in with the subject of this thread. Yes a lot of nations just went to war for the purpose of war, but there was still a certain level that you had to justify it to the common person. If you just set out to loot and plunder you could get initial support depending on the political climate, but after a few failed battles and x amount of turns without actually plundering anything the people should grow tired of your war and the game should reflect that with "war weariness" as something to cause discontent amoung the populace.

It would also keep the AI from constant cold wars. The AI declares war for a purpose, even if it's just looting and plundering, and it's either successful or it's not. There isn't much middle ground in a war.

[Krieglord]

One word...

Gotterdammerung

[AngryTitusPullo]

We all know too well that The AI like to declare war...just because...without any sensible reasons...against much more powerful foe...

...Then they got beaten up...But They Still Refuse To Surrender!

TW needs a better AI: AI That Knows Its Losing The War.

When The AI's Armies were Defeated in the Field, The AI have 2 choice: Keep Fighting or Seek Peace.

You peobably have not played Shogun 2. The AI usually offer you peace if you have defeated few large stacks of theirs and sometimes even accept to be your vassal if they only have one province left.

This is on Normal though so I'm not sure if this is still the same on harder difficulty but those that you are afraid of are old games already. I'm sure CA will develop from Shogun 2 onwards so hopefully all will be well.

[Rasic]

You peobably have not played Shogun 2. The AI usually offer you peace if you have defeated few large stacks of theirs and sometimes even accept to be your vassal if they only have one province left.

This is on Normal though so I'm not sure if this is still the same on harder difficulty but those that you are afraid of are old games already. I'm sure CA will develop from Shogun 2 onwards so hopefully all will be well.

Are you talking about modded or vanilla? I've only played 2 campaigns in shogun 2 (original and FOTS) both in the vanilla game and the AI seems to be almost exactly the same as it's always been in terms of accepting peace or declaring war for no reason. It holds alliances a little better, but I've been back stabbed before so it isn't off the table completely. This was also playing on normal original and hard FOTS.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Are you talking about modded or vanilla? I've only played 2 campaigns in shogun 2 (original and FOTS) both in the vanilla game and the AI seems to be almost exactly the same as it's always been in terms of accepting peace or declaring war for no reason. It holds alliances a little better, but I've been back stabbed before so it isn't off the table completely. This was also playing on normal original and hard FOTS.

Vanilla. On Normal. Yes they still declare war at will but more prone to even offer you peace if defeated a few times. Gone are the days where force diplomacy mod are a must in original Rome.

Backstab actually should be consider a feature, not a bug. Human players do that when it suits us so why double standard for AI ? Of course it's not perfect but much much better than the old games.

People are making comparison with the old Rome when speculating about Rome II. Granted that few people maby did not buy new games post Empire but many things that people are afraid of is no longer there, or at the very least minimal.

[Admiral Piett]

This is a very good thread with some really nice ideas. We should send them to Jack or Craig.

The crux of these issues we have may not be the AI coding itself, but the lack of resources for the AI to make judgment decisions and the lack of a good system to go by.

[Alpha TWC]

You peobably have not played Shogun 2. The AI usually offer you peace if you have defeated few large stacks of theirs and sometimes even accept to be your vassal if they only have one province left.

This is on Normal though so I'm not sure if this is still the same on harder difficulty but those that you are afraid of are old games already. I'm sure CA will develop from Shogun 2 onwards so hopefully all will be well.

yes, they probably have not played shogun 2. And from Napoleon we have important improvements...

... and many players here not know how to use diplomacy

pretend that the IA accept any offer without offering them anything seriously, cry cry and cry for the betrayal of allies when you, player, do it a thousand times against the IA, enemy and friend.....

but they would like diplomacy or yes man?

However these thinghs, diplomacy, battle IA, campaign IA etc. CA will always try to improve, title after title, because there is always something to improve in these things.

[Symphony]

pretend that the IA accept any offer without offering them anything seriously, cry cry and cry for the betrayal of allies when you, player, do it a thousand times against the IA, enemy and friend.....

I think this is the point that often gets missed. I think the majority of players that complain about the diplomatic AI don't want it to be more human at all...they want it to be more spohisticated in the way it plays to the human player's needs. Those are two different things.

I'm going to focus on E:TW simply because the posted cartoon focuses on it as an example of "what's wrong".

A human being sits down to play a TW game knowing that they're playing a game. When I play E:TW, I am not really Louis XIV. I'm a modern gamer, who has a list of rules and victory objectives and a knowledge of game mechanics. I'm playing to win.

That means that Spain may have been an important trading partner and staunch ally for years....but if they're holding a territory I need to win (or even if I have troops to spend and they have some juicy regions that will outweigh the trade I get from them), I'll DOW their sorry electronic asses....because they're electronic, and I'm not Louis XIV...I'm a gamer playing to enjoy and win a game.

That means that if I'm somehow drunk enough and a horrible enough player to let the Dutch take everything but Alsace-Lorraine, and they offer me protectorate status, I'm going to look straight through that 4th wall, realize that I've realistically already lost, that I can't possibly build myself back to a winning position as a Dutch protectorate, and I'm going to tell them to go pound sand, and fight to the bitter end. Well, I'd probably have loaded a new campaign long before that, but you get what I mean....not a chance I'd accept being a protectorate. I'm not concerned about the welfare of the French people, insofar as I'm able to keep a minimum level of public order...the "French people" are bits of data. I'm not concerned about preserving the French culture by any means necessary.

I've been frustrated too, when the AI is getting its ass kicked and won't accept peace under circumstances that a real-world ruler would seriously consider it. In those situations, I usually stop for a second, and ask myself if I thought I could feasibly recover and win the game with what I'm leavign the AI...the answer's usually "not a chance in hell". The AI can't resign and load a new campaign, so it plays the game and fights on.

The diplomatic AI in TW games has always acted like a human player that sees through the 4th wall and tries to win the game. As of E:TW, it values its own (assigned by rule) victory conditions, and tries to fulfil them. It's been a human player with varying degrees of sophistication and mental retardation through the titles, sure, but it's always acted in a manner consistent with what a human player would do, not what a real-life faction leader would do.


Now, the AI could be written to act more like a real-life ruler....it could be written to care about preserving national sovereignity, the welfare and survival of the people, etc. It could "logically" honor treaties, and care about their faction's prestige and standing among nations. That would be cool, and make us feel like the Ai was "playing properly", and all that....but it would be horribly unchallenging. We'd be asking the AI to consider and care about things we ourselves, as players, don't have to worry about....we'd be writing in a huge advantage. We could be as amoral, opportunistic, and aggressive as we like, and the "more realistic" diplomatic AI would simply wait for us to decide when and how to take them apart, because they'd care about things that we as players don't have to.

I'm not saying the diplomatic or campaign AI is perfect by any stretch of the imagination...there's a ton of room for improvement. but the complaint I see most often on these boards is that the diplomatic AI doesn't act like a real ruler would. My mental response has always been "yeah...but neither do you".