Will The AI Be Out To Get The Player?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

In a recent case of mine in FotS (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...nce-Every-Turn), I got to experience a little thing that has been around since Empire where the AI in order to "make the game more difficult" is programmed to go after the player. This is why in Empire and other games it's not uncommon to take a province only to have the faction next door suddenly declare war on you. We've made plenty of funny comics about it.

What I don't like is that it lasted as long as Shogun II's expansions. So, because I haven't heard it asked before, will the AI in Rome II also be geared against the player? Or will we finally be treated by the AI as simply another faction in a pool of factions? Because I believe in order to "create your own history", we shouldn't have to think while we're playing that the entire time the AI is just out to get us. It stops being a game where you are merely a player in the grand scheme of things and rather the grand scheme that the AI as a whole, every nation, is out to get.

So CA, while you're going around telling us why certain factions are this color or when this DLC will be out, can you tell us anything about this?

[CTD_or_Bust]

All I'll say is the faster you conquer your neighbors, the more the world pays attention to you. I recently completed a very patient game with Saga. By patient I mean bordering on glacial slow. Surprisingly, the AI didn't pick on me and jump at the chance to send an army my way. The faster you conquer your neighbors settlements, the more eager the AI is to limit your conquest. By 1871 (which is a year after I usually complete a long/domination campaign) I still hadn't triggered FotS Realm Divide and only 3 clans in the entire campaign had declared war on me.

The more you pace your conquests, the less others will see you as a threat and declare war on you. I'm not saying that it couldn't use some more improvement. But it's definitely come a long way from RTW and more than ever before- your own actions can explain why the AI acts the way it does. I'm worried about plenty of things in R2TW. Will they nickel and dime us with DLC? Will the more limited and constrained army system and agents take away from the strategy and make it feel like an arcade? But I'm not worried about the AIs diplomatic decisions.

I would like to see them fix the whole trade agreement business though. It was borderline impossible to convince the AI to just sign an agreement that would have benefited them.

[karamazovmm]

^thats my experience as well, the more aggressive you are the more the AI gangs up on you.

I find that very credible and based on real world scenarios.

I can manage to stay allied even with the realm divide triggered with the vanguard of the other team. In other terms I dont see this as a problem, off course the vanguard in some turns will declare war on me.

[kamikazee786]

i dont really like the realm divide feature, but if i was a neighboring province then i probably would do the same.

i mean think about it, you've just exhausted your troops and suffered casualties during your battle to take province X. You probably haven't had enough time to repair the the damage you did in taking the province whereas I'm in province Y with a well rested and well trained army which has ample supplies.

logic dictates that i take your province.

[DeliCiousTZM]

I disagree, if you learn how to expand,guard your border territory and maintain relationships the AI will never bother you. I also wanna stress the difficulty disparity the AI on easy is much more docile than the one on Legendary.

I cannot say if the AI focus more on the player than anyone else, sometimes it "feels" that way. But i also know that out of the 40+ factions in Shogun 2 only a couple of them end up on top, after 50 turns which would suggest that the AI sorta deals with everyone the same aggressive and sneaky. I would need to see AI behavior data to support the theory that the AI focus the player above another AI, based upon something else than the diplomacy relationship data.

[Huberto]

I recently tried out a game of FotS as the Choshu. After three years or so every power friendly to me and a fellow Imperial on the island of Kyushu declared war on me. I had four provinces, maybe five. I chalked this ridiculousness up to Darthmod's messing with the CAI, but perhaps I was wrong....

[chadwicknight]

I recently tried out a game of FotS as the Choshu. After three years or so every power friendly to me and a fellow Imperial on the island of Kyushu declared war on me. I had four provinces, maybe five. I chalked this ridiculousness up to Darthmod's messing with the CAI, but perhaps I was wrong....

One of the factors influencing how other factions look at you is your military power. It is a pretty common mistake to disband the whole army to focus on building-up economy, just because one is surrounded by allies or friendly regions. Don't do that.

Maintain a decent military power also in peace.

[King Philip II]

The 'Prestige' campaign in ETW allows for a normal behaving CAI. This is the only way I play ETW. In Shogun all bets are off after RD. Up until that point it's a pretty decent game.

The fact that you used ETW as an example makes you point moot. btw, was there a point?

One of the factors influencing how other factions look at you is your military power. It is a pretty common mistake to disband the whole army to focus on building-up economy, just because one is surrounded by allies or friendly regions. Don't do that.

Maintain a decent military power also in peace.

I assume this intelligence is deducted from a vanilla game?

The Campaign AI of all previous releases have been "fixed" by Germanicus, Lusted, Darth Vader et al.

[Huberto]

It is a pretty common mistake to disband the whole army to focus on building-up economy, just because one is surrounded by allies or friendly regions.Maintain a decent military power also in peace.

I don't disband units until at the very least I have better ones to replace them with.

[BroskiDerpman]

The more faster you conquer and aggressively try to take over other territory (Looting too), expect the ai to hate you and eventually gang up on you. I'd say keep it this way, if the ai treated you like an generic faction the game would be too easy and imo not immersive anymore.

For Shogun 2 I use HedgeKnights UAI mod if that matters.

[King Philip II]

It's a good point JFK, but it's related to the historic vs. balanced strategy map which has been discussed in many other threads already. CA has announced that they will go for a balanced map instead of a historic map where factions are placed based on historical evidence. I personally think this is a good decision as it ensures re-playability, but I hope they will include scripted events for some of the key historic events e.g. the punic wars.

I certainly hope that the AI will be going for the player as a top priority, but it should be dependant on the strategy map set-up and the difficulty level. For example, factions should secure a good operating base (i.e. capture local rebel settlements) before attacking.

[Coleus]

There are certain fights that must happen in R2TW if you want to win, I'd imagine - i.e. playing as Rome, you're going to have to deal with Carthage eventually and vice versa.

I have no problem with pre-determined historical animosity (we had it in ETW and NTS) as long as you're able to influence how others treat you. I don't like the idea of the AI automatically gunning for the human player. Fortunately it sounds like the AI will be flexible in that respect.

[Huberto]

Oh and I should also mention that before the crazy onslaught of fellow-Imperial, long-standing trading-partner hate, the only reason I had four provinces was from taking over or vassalizing factions who declared war on me for some reason (common borders?) in the first place.

I didn't feel all that powerful, in fact I assumed all my former friends ganged up on me because the game thought I was weak...really I wasn't all that weak either. I think it's a CAI flaw, like I said, maybe Darthmod.

[B. W.]

The 'Prestige' campaign in ETW allows for a normal behaving CAI. This is the only way I play ETW. In Shogun all bets are off after RD. Up until that point it's a pretty decent game.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

I hate this feature. It just means that you are a target no matter what. If I'm there minding my own business, just slowly building up my settlements and not expanding, I don't want to be bothered. I've already proven myself in combat by ripping apart enemy armies with ease but still, the AI always tries to hassle you for no reason whatsoever.

I want there to be 'cause and effect', not just AI constantly scheming against me. If I am minding my own business and see an army on my doorstep, what I do is spend a spy behind that army to see if that faction conquered all that land and if I'm in the warpath. Guess what? That's never the case. Some random army pops up in my borders every once in a while just because. Their land is a good distance away and this does annoy me.

I want AI to be thinking about who's next door and not about what the player is doing. I want an immersive experience. If there is a problem, like enemy army trying to attack, the reason for it has to make sense, then I won't mind.

I firmly believe CA have achieved this immersion. Army cap and better diplomacy are almost guaranteed to make the AI more diplomacy-dependant most of the time.

[Spartacus041]

I hate this feature. It just means that you are a target no matter what. If I'm there minding my own business, just slowly building up my settlements and not expanding, I don't want to be bothered. I've already proven myself in combat by ripping apart enemy armies with ease but still, the AI always tries to hassle you for no reason whatsoever.

I want there to be 'cause and effect', not just AI constantly scheming against me. If I am minding my own business and see an army on my doorstep, what I do is spend a spy behind that army to see if that faction conquered all that land and if I'm in the warpath. Guess what? That's never the case. Some random army pops up in my borders every once in a while just because. Their land is a good distance away and this does annoy me.

I want AI to be thinking about who's next door and not about what the player is doing. I want an immersive experience. If there is a problem, like enemy army trying to attack, the reason for it has to make sense, then I won't mind.

I firmly believe CA have achieved this immersion. Army cap and better diplomacy are almost guaranteed to make the AI more diplomacy-dependant most of the time.

This.

I want an AI that is focused purely on it's own self interest and survival. If the AI has one settlement left and is on the doorstep of destruction they should be able to make the logical choice of accepting vassalage terms without simply fighting to the death all the time. I want the campaign to feel as if each nation is vying for it's own piece of the pie in a rational and real-politik manner. I want to feel a sense of politics and spheres of influence and power for each faction. Immersiveness is everything to me.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

This.

I want an AI that is focused purely on it's own self interest and survival. If the AI has one settlement left and is on the doorstep of destruction they should be able to make the logical choice of accepting vassalage terms without simply fighting to the death all the time. I want the campaign to feel as if each nation is vying for it's own piece of the pie in a rational and real-politik manner. I want to feel a sense of politics and spheres of influence and power for each faction. Immersiveness is everything to me.

Great post
It just never seems to be the case. There is always some emphasis on the player when it comes to the AI, they need to mind their own business haha

Too many factions trying to pull a 'Sparta' when you've devoured every single army they've sent your way and when you have surrounded their final settlement. Nobody, truly, would rather face extinction than vassalage. Not even the Spartans. Rome 2 is looking way more different than anything we have seen before. There is just something about it that makes me think that.

However, we must prepare to accept the fact there will be some sort of stupidity in the AI at times. It's bound to happen as no one currently has good AI. This I am willing to accept, but I want the basic mentality of the AI to be sorted out with priority. Also, I firmly believe that AI should be able to judge after a battle or two, their chances of success against you in the long run, and should try to submit to you before you actually do irreparable damage to them, instead of making them an intact vassal.

[Spartacus041]

Great post
It just never seems to be the case. There is always some emphasis on the player when it comes to the AI, they need to mind their own business haha

Too many factions trying to pull a 'Sparta' when you've devoured every single army they've sent your way and when you have surrounded their final settlement. Nobody, truly, would rather face extinction than vassalage. Not even the Spartans. Rome 2 is looking way more different than anything we have seen before. There is just something about it that makes me think that.

However, we must prepare to accept the fact there will be some sort of stupidity in the AI at times. It's bound to happen as no one currently has good AI. This I am willing to accept, but I want the basic mentality of the AI to be sorted out with priority. Also, I firmly believe that AI should be able to judge after a battle or two, their chances of success against you in the long run, and should try to submit to you before you actually do irreparable damage to them, instead of making them an intact vassal.

One of the big problems back in the last few games was the stack-fest that you inevitably get with the AI being over-funded via background 'cheats' (ie VH/VH difficulty). I made another thread about generals being only allowed to have armies, which I think is a GREAT improvement. It makes every army a lot more important and reduces the number of stacks any given faction might have. If this is coupled with that fact that if you deliver consecutive overwhelming defeats against the AI in battle and annihilate their armies the AI should be able to make the decision to sue for a (temporary) peace and offer $$ to ward the victorious human player off. After all it's what happened in real life, wars never happened in clean 1-10 steps ending in enemy x's destruction. It happened in spurts with periods of peace and tribute paying so that each side could rebuild. Once again, to me games like these are beautiful depictions of an ancient world and the politics and warfare should represent that and immerse us in the game.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

One of the big problems back in the last few games was the stack-fest that you inevitably get with the AI being over-funded via background 'cheats' (ie VH/VH difficulty). I made another thread about generals being only allowed to have armies, which I think is a GREAT improvement. It makes every army a lot more important and reduces the number of stacks any given faction might have. If this is coupled with that fact that if you deliver consecutive overwhelming defeats against the AI in battle and annihilate their armies the AI should be able to make the decision to sue for a (temporary) peace and offer $$ to ward the victorious human player off. After all it's what happened in real life, wars never happened in clean 1-10 steps ending in enemy x's destruction. It happened in spurts with periods of peace and tribute paying so that each side could rebuild. Once again, to me games like these are beautiful depictions of an ancient world and the politics and warfare should represent that and immerse us in the game.

Those background cheats I never did like the idea or sound of! AI should be more intelligent and cunning on harder, not better funded. They should have better economical skills. Better battlefield skill. They should have all of our capabilities but with a better know-how on how to use them.

I feel that just giving the AI more cash just to be challenging is a pretty crappy thing to do. That's why I never played Shogun 2 on hard, because of this one feature. I like my campaigns to be fair to all players. If I get my rear handed to me, I want to know that it was because I was careless and not be cause the enemy was given cheats.

Definitely, the AI should be confident but calculating when going to war, but if they start getting demolished in open combat and their manpower is taking a turn for the worst, I want them to literally be spamming me with peace offers, vassal requests etc. I want to be appeased if I bring a nation to it's knees. Now, things like this would bring a "Human face" to Total War. But yeah, I really do think that the limitations that have been put on the campaign like army caps and things like that will really make this campaign more realistic.

Sure you could have this beast of an army come at you from a large empire, but if you defeat that army, it means more than just waiting a turn or two for their next stack to come to you. You have just opened a hole into their empire. In RS2, you could spend 50 minutes fighting a proper decisive battle, but guess what? The next stack just waiting for you will fight you right after you kill this one. RS2 made big battles boring as they happened so often but meant so little. RTW2 will make big battles mean the WORLD. If it takes 50 minutes to fight it, so be it. It WILL mean something. Good job, CA!

[chadwicknight]

This.

I want an AI that is focused purely on it's own self interest and survival. If the AI has one settlement left and is on the doorstep of destruction they should be able to make the logical choice of accepting vassalage terms without simply fighting to the death all the time. I want the campaign to feel as if each nation is vying for it's own piece of the pie in a rational and real-politik manner. I want to feel a sense of politics and spheres of influence and power for each faction. Immersiveness is everything to me.

I agree!