AI should have a higher unit stack limits

**ray243** · August 06, 2012, 11:00 PM

If the player's tactical skills is on par with Alexander/Caesar/Hannibal when he is compared with the AI, then it becomes difficult for players to find a challenge whenever they are playing a game on the campaign map.

Even if the AI have additional cash bonus, and have the means to build a bigger and stronger army than the player, the AI is still limited by the fact that there is a stack limit. Let's say the AI have a total number of units of 100,000 men compared to your army of 20,000 men, they cannot make use of their numerical advantage because they cannot stack them together into one grand army on the battlefield.

Thanks to the unit stack limit, the AI have to split its massive armies into 3-4 stacks. This essentially render the AI's armies to a divide and conquer tactic. The player can easily destroy one stack at a time thanks to the AI's lack of tactical intelligence.

Together with the fact that the Total war games have yet to implement the issue of unit fatigue on the campaign map, your armies that just fought 4-5 battles in one turn will be as fresh as the AI's newly formed army.

Hence in most total war campaigns, the player often end up having a better and bigger army than the AI. The player faced no challenges compared to the ancient generals like Hannibal, Alexander and Caesar. The player will never have their chance to play a battle of Cannae on the campaign map, where he is massively outnumbered by the enemy's army.

The AI should at the least have an advantage of fielding more units and men on the battlefield than the player. If a player can have a 30-35 units stack, the AI should be able to form a 50-60 units stack.

**West3634** · August 07, 2012, 06:53 AM

I personally would rather see that if there is going to be a battle then all armies within a much larger radius would be able to join the battle. Stacks would remain the same and move on campaign seperately yet in battle they can all be used if within a fairly close radius (not sure how big this radius should be)

**daelin4** · August 07, 2012, 08:46 AM

No. The AI does not need more handicaps and cheating. It's time they focus their efforts on making it better, period.

I mean they already coordinate multiple armies in ways the human player cannot. You might as well add boosting all their stats by x2 since players can STILL defeat them.

**DarthRuanek** · August 07, 2012, 09:20 AM

I dislike the AI getting extra bonuses. Preferably they could get the AI to a point where it doesn't need them.

**Sir Pignans** · August 07, 2012, 09:37 AM

I might support higher unit caps for different factions. Gauls might have a higher unit cap than the Romans for example. But not just for the AI.

**TheRomanRuler** · August 07, 2012, 11:42 AM

I disagree AI having 2:1 troops, HOW on EARTH are you gonna fight against Romans then...??? I think it should go something like:
Romans: 30 and more with technology upgrades
Gauls:55 units and more with tech upgrades
Germans: 45 and more...
Other barbarians: 40 ....
Macedonians: 30...
Minors: 20.
Etc

**DarthRuanek** · August 07, 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by TheRomanRuler

I disagree AI having 2:1 troops, HOW on EARTH are you gonna fight against Romans then...??? I think it should go something like:
Romans: 30 and more with technology upgrades
Gauls:55 units and more with tech upgrades
Germans: 45 and more...
Other barbarians: 40 ....
Macedonians: 30...
Minors: 20.
Etc

The thing is, these barbarians (Gauls, Germans, etc.) actually didn't have populations that much higher than Italy. And if things are similar to RTW they'll have more men per unit (generally) anyway.

Allowing the same number of units for every faction makes sense for balance.

**Greve Af Göteborg** · August 07, 2012, 12:12 PM

I'm not sure why people think that the Romans had a small pool of manpower, that is actually one of the reasons why Rome was so successful, they could field armies very fast and they could replenish them even faster because of the huge manpower.

**DarthRuanek** · August 07, 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Greve Af Göteborg

I'm not sure why people think that the Romans had a small pool of manpower, that is actually one of the reasons why Rome was so successful, they could field armies very fast and they could replenish them even faster because of the huge manpower.

I think it's because people knew the Romans (generally) had much better soldiers. And the assumption tends to be that it's either quality or quantity. Since the Romans obviously had quality, they must have lacked quantity (obviously not a good assumption to make).

**MathiasOfAthens** · August 07, 2012, 12:36 PM

I generally get

ing tired of late game RTR games where the world is reduced to 5 major powers. Huge Empires. These Empires with their massive empires and continued cash bonuses just raise stack after stack and invade. There is no end to it and its

ing annoying. In the real world the Cimbri raised a massive army and invaded Italy and were crushed and that was the

ing end of it. In Rome TW the Gauls raise a massive faction, invade italy, are crushed, and return after 1 turn or 3 months with an equal number of men.

CA do something to reduce these repeating stack invasions.

I wouldnt mind an option to play the game with aggressive factions that all expand or a game with only historical expansions of factions. So the gauls and the Germans might decide once in the game to raise a horde and invade Italy.

**DarthRuanek** · August 07, 2012, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens

I generally get

ing tired of late game RTR games where the world is reduced to 5 major powers. Huge Empires. These Empires with their massive empires and continued cash bonuses just raise stack after stack and invade. There is no end to it and its

ing annoying. In the real world the Cimbri raised a massive army and invaded Italy and were crushed and that was the

ing end of it. In Rome TW the Gauls raise a massive faction, invade italy, are crushed, and return after 1 turn or 3 months with an equal number of men.

CA do something to reduce these repeating stack invasions.

I wouldnt mind an option to play the game with aggressive factions that all expand or a game with only historical expansions of factions. So the gauls and the Germans might decide once in the game to raise a horde and invade Italy.

It's an issue of game mechanics, though. If they are large, they can raise large armies very quickly. The player can do the same thing. Why should the AI be handicapped when it is already inferior to a human player?

**Lord Baal** · August 07, 2012, 02:56 PM

The size of stacks should depend on the level of command of the general and certain logistic technologies, besides some cultural traits. For example some cultures would have women fighting too, that would increase the available bodies for recruitment.... but we should leave this debate, ask for 40 or 50 units and pray for a decent reinforcement system.

**CanOmer** · August 07, 2012, 03:50 PM

Increase the unit costs and upkeeps decisively to get rid off stacks after stacks. I did a submod (not published, just to myself) that triples the unit costs/upkeeps for Europa Barbarorum which is the highest unit costs/upkeeps according to income. The result: large empires which have 15-20 provinces can create one good army only.