The solution to battlefield AI...

[Cadmium77]

We've all had our criticisms of battlefield AI but really, is the AI that much more stupid than human beings, thousands of human beings in the chaos of a battlefield? When you actually study the history of warfare a lot of times I don't think that people are really that intelligent themselves.

So if that is the case what is the solution to the entire battlefield AI/human imbalance?

General's Eye View + time delayed commands/reports from units on the field via a flip up map of the battlefield and all your units and all the visible reported enemy units.


This would allow you to make realistic decisions in a realistic time frame that would be much closer to the historical reality of such battles. And it would definitely make you clumsier so that the AI had a fair chance of challenging your level of intelligence. The field would be evened out, so to speak without any great improvements requiring massive investment by CA.

It would also make for a more straightforward way of placing your assets on the battlefield on a simple map...

Playing straight up general's eye view is sort of out of the question though since you would be completely unable to properly place your assets properly on terrain outside your sight lines..

[Legione]

Agreed. Also sometimes human players are actually dumber than the AI when you play online.

Edit: lol this reminds me, sometimes I used to play the whole battle from general's pov by pressing delete on him so the camera would follow him around and then by zooming in, it actually can be quite fun and cinematic...

[John I Tzimisces]

While ambitious, almost certainly impossible with the MTW2 engine. I guess a lot of individual formations would have to have some kind of control via AI...like facing and whatnot.

(I am however part of a game dev team working on a game of just such a description, ahem...but that won't be out for months and months and months ad infinitum. emphasis on the latin.)

[Lusted]

I don't like this idea. I like having complete control of my troops, and being able to see all the terrain and battlefield. Whilst this may be more realistic, and make things more of a challenge, i do not see it as a solution to the ai. Instead of improving the ai, your effectively handicapping the player. I would much rather CA do what they have been doing, making the ai use the battlefield battle, behave more cohesively and more co-ordinated, and generally be better. But i like also having an ai that will do stupid attacks some of the time, as humans can do that as well.

[hsimoorb]

Currently, most of the problem with the dumb AI is actualy the overease of manuvering in the game as a whole. Compared to real life, troops on the field in TW game smanuver like they're on a prarade ground, rather than on a crowded battlefield during a long campaign trying to coordinate mass movements of, at the best, moderately trained troops in an impromptou manner. IRL, flanking manuvers take time, effort, and don't always work. In TW such manuvers can be done in about three seconds with a few lazy clicks by the player, who can expect his troops to do exactaly what he ordered seconds after he orders it.

[Matty_P]

Currently, most of the problem with the dumb AI is actualy the overease of manuvering in the game as a whole. Compared to real life, troops on the field in TW game smanuver like they're on a prarade ground, rather than on a crowded battlefield during a long campaign trying to coordinate mass movements of, at the best, moderately trained troops in an impromptou manner. IRL, flanking manuvers take time, effort, and don't always work. In TW such manuvers can be done in about three seconds with a few lazy clicks by the player, who can expect his troops to do exactaly what he ordered seconds after he orders it.

do you want a game and entertainment or reality?

[Miraj]

When I play RTW I almost exlusively play without banners and in generals viewpoint. It just add so much more depth and loss of control. Its way more fun than the god like insta-control of your soldiers.

I really like your time-delayed command idea it would be so much more realistic and give battle waaay more dimension and intensity.

[Mythos]

The problem seems to be a complete lack of a coherent battle plan. A general would have some sort of plan even if that was "lets all rush to the enemy and hope to kill him faster than he can kill us". Without a battle plan, a centralised command structure units behave in an independent and incoherent way "seeing" only their immediate environment and the unit they have to attack. Undisciplined armies certainly behaved that way historically but disciplined armies would perform complex (sic) maneuvers and behave as their generals intended them to do. If such a mechanism can be introduced to battlefield AI, then it would be more than a match for a human player, especially if it was cautius and used the advantages of its troops.

[DaVinci]

Ehm, perhaps i misunderstood you, but actually the AI in Rome is able to effort something like the battlefield-plan and the movement of the human player's army, as well it is able to sort out which kind of units are a profitable attack victim, the engine and the possible codes provide all this, and you can improve the behaviour with the edu and the ai formations file.

Edit: To Mythos, well i read your comment once more, and yes, you are right, i agree in regard of the units behaviour that they are lack of any kind of intelligence according flexible and dynamic reactions/actions ... well, this would probably need a real AI officer in every unit which is able to learn and gets tactic-traits with experience and carries by default battletactic-skills, plus a sub and super command system with one main general and just the officers in every unit who communicate, but well ... this would need certainly a huge huge huge engine, but theoretical possible to program for sure, i assume at least.

However, what M2 would need by default, and what Rome has not, is the get rid of the suicidal behaviour of cavalry and the mounted generals charging head on into heavy spearmen and/or pikemen! So, this is an example for a bad battle AI, and actually isn't historical, as especially in medieval times with the growing up of pike-units and any kind of heavy spear/hellebard/andwhatever units, also the charge of the heaviest knights with armoured horses is ineffective.

So, if CA can design such a smart AI, that knows the outcome of those kind of charges would be great

[Scarlett Letterman]

I think this would be an interesting to play the game, by restricting yourself in such a way.

One thing that comes to mind: Lets remember the advantage we have over the AI in the ability to pause (cmon most of us do it). I know I'm guilty of pausing, surveying and issuing out commands. But this time around I'm going to limit myself moreso to not handicap the AI.

[DaVinci]

I think this would be an interesting to play the game, by restricting yourself in such a way.

One thing that comes to mind: Lets remember the advantage we have over the AI in the ability to pause (cmon most of us do it). I know I'm guilty of pausing, surveying and issuing out commands. But this time around I'm going to limit myself moreso to not handicap the AI.

Hmm, pausing is for TW beginners valid and necessary, yes, i did this too as everybody who is learning first how to fight proper (and easily defeat) the default RTW AI, but if you have some experience with the time, you would wish the AI would be able to pause and assemble its behaviour anew to a better plan :wink:
Actually, i always search for options to give the AI advantages for the strat- and the battle mode just to avoid some of their dumbness.

[Cadmium77]

The only thing that really militates against my plan is that you'd miss most of the glorious action sitting on the general's shoulders and playing by map command. Thus it would be essential, of the greatest importance for the battle engine, both in custom battle, online multiplayer battles and campaign battles to have saved battle replays. Then you could go back and gaze upon the carnage you'd unleashed over and over again, in the greatest detail, savouring all the infinite combinations of terrain, armed men and weather conditions in the majestic panorama of war...

The Lord is a man of war: Lord is His name.
Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath He cast into the sea;
his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea.
(Exodus 15: 3, 4)

from Haendel's Israel in Aegyptien

[DaVinci]

Cadmium, for some reason i don't understand the title of your topic, as it is rather a suggestion for the player, that you provide here, not a solution for the battle AI

That's the reason why i posted here, the title of this topic, but i don't intend to offend you, only my little hint, as i got the idea of this topic rather with the second look in your thread.

Well, the generals view camera is not a new thing, or? But perhaps to some people yes, however, it is a nice experience to play with the generals view, but as said not really a solution to strenghen the AI battle behavior or something like that, as it only a restriction to the player, and makes the battle outcome not really more realistic, as the AI is at least able to see everything of the battlefield, while you, if you as the general engaging/fighting in the battle-chaos can only "control" the closer field, while your dumb un-controlled units will be slaughtered senseless, unless you won't set them on AI controlled.

[Lusted]

DaVinci, Palamedes one of the CA devs mentioned at .com that with M2Tw they've added another layer to the ai so it now also thinks of its army as a whole instead of basing its battle plan on the rock/paper/scissor system used in TW. And if you've played the modded custom battle demos, you would have seen no more suicidal generals.

[DaVinci]

DaVinci, Palamedes one of the CA devs mentioned at .com that with M2Tw they've added another layer to the ai so it now also thinks of its army as a whole instead of basing its battle plan on the rock/paper/scissor system used in TW. And if you've played the modded custom battle demos, you would have seen no more suicidal generals.

Thanks Lusted for this info, i had and have atm. actually not much time to put into M2.
But i read Palamedes dev AI report, but only on the fly. And, i had not recently the time to play neither the demo nor the mod to it, as well i have not dl'ed it ... i will go with the release and the parallel patch to make my bigger picture of M2

However, it sounds all pretty well about the battle AI with the patch, hopefully they put also quite a lot energy into the strat.-AI by default, then there is actually a well new playground for the modding TW community

[Sinuhet]

DaVinci, Palamedes one of the CA devs mentioned at .com that with M2Tw they've added another layer to the ai so it now also thinks of its army as a whole instead of basing its battle plan on the rock/paper/scissor system used in TW. And if you've played the modded custom battle demos, you would have seen no more suicidal generals.

Ave Lusted!

You are talking nonsense as for the rid of the sucidal genral in MTW2, at least in the Demo with nonscripted battles it is not true..... Please, dont create agin the myth like DV has done for his purposes in RTW .... A lot of people still beileve int it and now if you will state such things a lot of newbies will state massivley the same nonsense for MTW2 too and we will not able to communicate objectively further ... It is exteremely danger sa for the future modding, interpretationss of results of modding and it will demotivate the several ones which are here table to do an analytical objective thinking ... Please, please, please, stop with this, try several battles and then write the true ...

Bye Sinuhet

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Actually Lusted speaks the truth.
In all the battles I have done in M2TW the AI always took care of his general and always had him in the back.
And they didn't send him into combat until the very last.

Edit: Wait, I remember one where the AI did send his AI in front and that was in Sinuhet's bridge battle and that was the only one.
All other battles the AI has used their generals perfectly.

[Ebusitanus]

Games like Mad Minute´s "Take Command: Manassas 2" has this feature where your regiments have their own AI unless you take command over them directly. Not that they do their own but they react to changing situations such as flanking fire, mele, better angles, etc...

[Byron Eastridge]

you can do that with MTW2 i believe its called put group under AI control

[Lusted]

I would only like this option if it was an option and not the default. This is only making things more difficult by restricting the player, instead of making the ai smarter.