So many broken things regarding the campaign AI + Power system

[Arksa]

It is really making it hard to enjoy the game overall. I like the mechanics and all but the Campaign AI is really ruining it. I'm playing on Legendary difficulty

1) They are unable to defend their provinces. They always go off to fight some faction far away and leave their provinces undefended so that I can just walk in and take them. Many Barbarian factions are usually busy going off to fight WRE so all their provinces can be taken freely.

2) If at some point they come back from their journies and I let them retake their cities (just to see what they would do with them), they sack/raze their OWN homeland and then runaround in circle for 5 turns just chilling in raid stance while they lose attrition
It really feels like all factions are coded like they are Huns. They have no regard for regions, sack/raze their own lands seemingly at random when they actually bother to come retake them. No faction with this mindset will ever get strong enough to actually fight against human player (that will actually grow larger in power/regions/armies).

3) Great power. You can never lose it. Even if you have 0 provinces and 1 unit army left (I tested this). I had nothing left and I was still Imperium and everybody hated me.
I'm not sure it's supposed to work this way.


I'm really surprised this is not talked about more. The attention of the community seems to be more directed at torches and gates, which pretty much has no effect on my gaming experience when compared to working on the campaign AI. This is not just me, I've watched some good streamers play this game and make a joke out of the Legendary campaign because of how the AI is at the moment, walking through province after province with couple of stacks taking everything (for example check http://www.twitch.tv/etup currently steamrolling AIs without any challenge on Legendary).

I would be interested to know what are the goals of the individual AI factions in the game because I don't think the goals have anything to do with a) surviving b) expanding, but more about c) sack/raze everything (including their own lands if they retake them) d) obsess over chasing factions/armies across the map and e) disregard defending homeland.

[Revan The Great]

Oh, I agree. the Campaign AI is horrible at managing and defending their empires. I made a thread about it in regards to the Romans specifically, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Rome-too-weak but it should apply to any nation of reasonable size. Push-over campaign AI is a huge problem since Rome 2, where you could walk through a large empire for years, auto-calcing sieges, without every encountering an enemy army to resist you.

I really think that there needs to be a CAI overhaul if not for this game then for the next one at least.

As for short-term solutions, I'd have suggested increasing the size of garrisons but all that really does is force the player to fight endless sieges rather than endless auto-calc's which I don't think is ideal, though admittedly sieges seem much improved since the early days of Rome 2. The other solution I can see is an across the board lowering of upkeep and increasing of army caps - Radious' mod does this and I've been gratified with the results in terms of smaller nations, although Rome is still laughably easy to overpower.

[Osbot]

Push-over campaign AI is a huge problem since Rome 2, where you could walk through a large empire for years, auto-calcing sieges, without every encountering an enemy army to resist you.

.

Since Rome 2? I think you mean since Rome 1. The AI has always had problems with this. Rome 2 is actually better than Rome 1 though. They tried to implement a shogun 2 style map in this regard. They closed the map off and made it corridor based. In Rome 1, not only would the AI be off in la-la land, it might actually be really off in la-la land with all of its armies literally in the middle of no where, neither attacking or defending.

[Candy_Licker]

Since Rome 2? I think you mean since Rome 1. The AI has always had problems with this. Rome 2 is actually better than Rome 1 though. They tried to implement a shogun 2 style map in this regard. They closed the map off and made it corridor based. In Rome 1, not only would the AI be off in la-la land, it might actually be really off in la-la land with all of its armies literally in the middle of no where, neither attacking or defending.

Indeed. This is not a problem of ROme/Attila only.

To me, it became really evident with Shogun II that the AI has absolutely no sense for strategy and strategic value. They don't know what a capital, or an important valuable province is. For them, every settlement is just the same. They don't have a plan for historic/strategic goals. It makes the campaign really sandbox, and the AI opportunism can be fine, but eventually, you'll realize the only goal of the AI is to wreak havoc/ trouble the player, and this isn't actually new. The horde mode actually fits the CAI, the AI has been in horde mode since atleast Shogun II. Preservation, empire building, defending core provinces, the AI doesn't know these things.

[Bouncepass]

Since Rome 2? I think you mean since Rome 1. The AI has always had problems with this. Rome 2 is actually better than Rome 1 though. They tried to implement a shogun 2 style map in this regard. They closed the map off and made it corridor based. In Rome 1, not only would the AI be off in la-la land, it might actually be really off in la-la land with all of its armies literally in the middle of no where, neither attacking or defending.

If anything, transport ships opened the campaign map up more than ever. The AI still wastes it's armies doing nothing in the middle of nowhere, or wastes it to attrition or whatever, that's the nature of the beast. The AI of Rome 1 and 2 aren't very comparable though.

Indeed. This is not a problem of ROme/Attila only.

To me, it became really evident with Shogun II that the AI has absolutely no sense for strategy and strategic value. They don't know what a capital, or an important valuable province is. For them, every settlement is just the same. They don't have a plan for historic/strategic goals. It makes the campaign really sandbox, and the AI opportunism can be fine, but eventually, you'll realize the only goal of the AI is to wreak havoc/ trouble the player, and this isn't actually new. The horde mode actually fits the CAI, the AI has been in horde mode since atleast Shogun II. Preservation, empire building, defending core provinces, the AI doesn't know these things.

The campaign should be sandbox. Shogun 2's AI was the best at empire building and as a result i don't think it is any mistake that it is regarded by many as the best in the series. The AI does understand preservation, defending core provinces, recapturing lost territory, as much as an AI can understand it, there are even references in the database to terms of that nature. The problem is that with the introduction of the province system CA couldn't just build on what they did in Shogun 2 and they haven't done anything with it since. The CAI in Rome 2 and Attila cannot handle the province system, that's why you'll never reliably see empires built.

You are right that the CAI in Attila and Rome 2 is great for horde mode, but Shogun 2's wasn't.

[Humble Warrior]

Not good, not good at all. I had hoped the CAI would be better than this. Funny, it really does take a week watching to see what`s really happening. I ordered the game when the torches were removed (then there was this delay).
Perhaps CA will fix these issues in a Patch? Probably be a good idea to complain at CA so they actually try to fix it because they won`t if people don`t.

I have not installed the game, (it is still safely wrapped) but if I do and I find this I will certainly whine, but it needs us all, not just me.

[Carlucio]

This has been a problem since ROME II.

[barry12]

I was pleasantly surprised at the beginning after I seemed to get a lot of battles, but I realised that was just because my WRE was weak.

I'm now past turn 100, am very profitable and have many full stack armies, and find that the battles are fewer now that I'm strong and my lands are certainly being invaded less. I'd recommend the aggressive campaign AI mod someone made a while ago, since I installed that I've had a lot more battles.

I have to agree though, I've noticed that old Rome 2 behaviour of enemy AI leaving their lands to go on a Grand Tour of the world. I reckon the AI should be barred from going more than a certain distance from its lands if it has a certain amount of regions.

[Bouncepass]

This is something I've been complaining and posting about since Rome 2 launched, and yes, unfortunately nobody else seems to care. How? I'm not sure. How anyone can really fully enjoy these games with CAI that can't even build and sustain empires I don't know. Even when I was looking at reviews for Attila, not any of the ones I saw mentioned CAI at all. Most people have the view that it doesn't matter, but I say it matters just as much if not more than BAI. You can't have big battles with high tier units without good CAI. You can't have other big empires to fight against late game without good CAI.

The last good CAI they had was in shogun 2, but obviously that was a smaller map with less factions, realm divide and most importantly, provinces weren't in the game. I think provinces are what has taken the CAI to the all new low it currently occupies, it just can't handle it. Rome 2 came out and i will say it was hands down the worst CAI in the entire series, it was just overlooked because when the game launched it was a giant fing mess. Lots of stuff improved with their EE, even the CAI somewhat, but it is still terrible.

IMHO, every total war game should look like a pyramid. You start out with lots of little bricks at the bottom that are all the starting factions and as you get to the top the bricks get bigger as more and more factions are kicked out of the tourney. Eventually, every game should have a conclusion, whether it takes 50 turns or 1000 turns. It doesn't matter if that conclusion is reached by the player or by the AI. This hasn't ever been a reality in total war games but Shogun 2 did this the best and Empire wasn't bad, but Rome 2 and Attila are at the absolute bottom of the barrel. In Rome 2 there was never a danger the AI would conquer the entire map. And once in a blue moon did i see it conquer even half the map. That's a problem. 99 times out of 100 on the 100th turn in Rome 2 the campaign map will look exactly the same as it did on turn 1. Attila seems to be largely the same so far in my play throughs and the chronicles I've looked at. If i sit as a faction and just hit the end turn button, eventually a faction should start taking over everything and come to wipe me out. It shouldn't need crappy mechanics like great power to do it. Speaking of which.

Great power, the excuse is that it needs to be there for migratory factions, but i think we can all agree it's basically an aggression ramp. And you need this aggression ramp because without it the player will grow into a sizable empire and plow through ten million smaller ones that can't compete. So it needs to be there to offer some kind of challenge past the early game. Tying it to research just assures that, you'll hit it no matter what, unless of course you don't research anything, which is what a mod on their forums suggested I do.

[Arksa]

This is something I've been complaining and posting about since Rome 2 launched, and yes, unfortunately nobody else seems to care. How? I'm not sure. How anyone can really fully enjoy these games with CAI that can't even build and sustain empires I don't know. Even when I was looking at reviews for Attila, not any of the ones I saw mentioned CAI at all. Most people have the view that it doesn't matter, but I say it matters just as much if not more than BAI. You can't have big battles with high tier units without good CAI. You can't have other big empires to fight against late game without good CAI.

The last good CAI they had was in shogun 2, but obviously that was a smaller map with less factions, realm divide and most importantly, provinces weren't in the game. I think provinces are what has taken the CAI to the all new low it currently occupies, it just can't handle it. Rome 2 came out and i will say it was hands down the worst CAI in the entire series, it was just overlooked because when the game launched it was a giant fing mess. Lots of stuff improved with their EE, even the CAI somewhat, but it is still terrible.

IMHO, every total war game should look like a pyramid. You start out with lots of little bricks at the bottom that are all the starting factions and as you get to the top the bricks get bigger as more and more factions are kicked out of the tourney. Eventually, every game should have a conclusion, whether it takes 50 turns or 1000 turns. It doesn't matter if that conclusion is reached by the player or by the AI. This hasn't ever been a reality in total war games but Shogun 2 did this the best and Empire wasn't bad, but Rome 2 and Attila are at the absolute bottom of the barrel. In Rome 2 there was never a danger the AI would conquer the entire map. And once in a blue moon did i see it conquer even half the map. That's a problem. 99 times out of 100 on the 100th turn in Rome 2 the campaign map will look exactly the same as it did on turn 1. Attila seems to be largely the same so far in my play throughs and the chronicles I've looked at. If i sit as a faction and just hit the end turn button, eventually a faction should start taking over everything and come to wipe me out. It shouldn't need crappy mechanics like great power to do it. Speaking of which.

Great power, the excuse is that it needs to be there for migratory factions, but i think we can all agree it's basically an aggression ramp. And you need this aggression ramp because without it the player will grow into a sizable empire and plow through ten million smaller ones that can't compete. So it needs to be there to offer some kind of challenge past the early game. Tying it to research just assures that, you'll hit it no matter what, unless of course you don't research anything, which is what a mod on their forums suggested I do.

Yeah I agree with pretty much everything you said. I wonder if modders can eventually fix the mess that is campaign AI and make it so that it starts attempting to build empires instead of playing the raiding simulator.

I think it all started with Rome 2 and when they switched to the system where armies apparently use boats with wheels and can embark/disembark at will. As it is the AI will go anywhere it likes because there is no limitations, sea is basically like land except you enter ships (magically).

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

I believe that the cai has a variable which let's the player be treated a special case which the ai factions should focus on defeting or just another faction, by default the player is treated as a special case. I think this could make the CAI to make decisions which might make it very hard for the player at first but at the cost of the longer term.

There is mod which supposedly fixes this and other thing (it's called better cai iirc)

[cherryfunk]

The last good CAI they had was in shogun 2, but obviously that was a smaller map with less factions, realm divide and most importantly, provinces weren't in the game. I think provinces are what has taken the CAI to the all new low it currently occupies, it just can't handle it. Rome 2 came out and i will say it was hands down the worst CAI in the entire series, it was just overlooked because when the game launched it was a giant fing mess. Lots of stuff improved with their EE, even the CAI somewhat, but it is still terrible.

Interesting that you say that because I just finished a Shogun 2 campaign and the faction progression was pretty solid and felt like a 'natural' consolidation across the map into a handful of powerful factions. I wonder if the province system is a factor with Rome 2/Attila -- personally I dislike it for other reasons (for example encouraging you to invade what might be your allies, just because) but maybe it's impacting CAI negatively also.

[Revan The Great]

Though, on the other hand people (myself included usually) complain about ahistorical or overly aggressive AI. I like there being a lot of factions, rather than one super-blob that you have to fight as a kind of 'boss battle' to win the game. I just wish the factions themselves were more self sufficient, and able to stand on their own and manage themselves internally.

[Bouncepass]

Though, on the other hand people (myself included usually) complain about ahistorical or overly aggressive AI. I like there being a lot of factions, rather than one super-blob that you have to fight as a kind of 'boss battle' to win the game. I just wish the factions themselves were more self sufficient, and able to stand on their own and manage themselves internally.

And you can have those games, but they just shouldn't happen every game. There should be games where the map is dominated by a faction in 50 turns and a game where it just seems to go on forever with millions of tiny factions like it is now. Some games Rome should survive and fight back the barbarians and other games they should completely shatter and some tiny minor faction will rise up in their place and conquer half the map. But none of that ever happens. It's always the same thing, factions will take over 1-7 territories or so on average, every once in a long while a few more, and then they'll sit there. Either that or they'll screw up the province system and collapse. Or maybe completely abandon their territory to chase the player around when there are razed settlements or much easier targets to expand they just completely ignore.

I've clicked through so many games of Rome 2 watching what the CAI does working on mods to try and fix it. I've gotten some ok results but never anything spectacular and that's because there is only so much you can do with mods. CA needs to fix it, and since nobody seems to care about it, i'm not sure they ever will and we'll be stuck with this incredibly crappy and lackluster CAI forever. Chronicles have also made much of this quite obvious, so i was hoping more people would have concerns about it this time. I was really disappointed that they didn't revamp the CAI this time. Especially when they did such a great job on nearly everything else but left this pretty important piece seemingly untouched.

[stevehoos]

I knew this "raise settlement" mechanic would present issues, so did a myriad of others in here. Wait for mods I guess.

[Revan The Great]

Radious Mod removes the ability to raze settlements, except for Horde Nations. But at least all of the random barbarian attacks from Picts, Ebadanians, Saxons, etc. won't desolate Western Europe.

[Arksa]

Radious Mod removes the ability to raze settlements, except for Horde Nations. But at least all of the random barbarian attacks from Picts, Ebadanians, Saxons, etc. won't desolate Western Europe.

They should only sack as well if they don't think they have a realistic change of rebuilding/defending the settlement given its placement in the map compared to its own territories. Right now the AI is basically sacking their own territories (when I took the settlements from them I left them undefended to see what they would do) and going "HA HA WE JUST GOT 200 for sacking our own capital MUHAHAHA SUCK ON THAT HUMAN PLAYER".

[stevehoos]

They should only sack as well if they don't think they have a realistic change of rebuilding/defending the settlement given its placement in the map compared to its own territories. Right now the AI is basically sacking their own territories (when I took the settlements from them I left them undefended to see what they would do) and going "HA HA WE JUST GOT 200 for sacking our own capital MUHAHAHA SUCK ON THAT HUMAN PLAYER".

Yeah that's terrible, it adds nothing to the campaign at all, just mindlessness.

[twmatador]

(snip) I'm really surprised this is not talked about more. The attention of the community seems to be more directed at torches and gates, which pretty much has no effect on my gaming experience when compared to working on the campaign AI.(snip)

Have to add my voice to this point. Seems way too often a perspective that's gone MIA.
I was really hoping CAI (and BAI for that matter) would be further progressed as this unique amazing series continues to provide us with more new iterations.
But graphics do look great.

Is it question of <patience grasshopper>?
Or is it a matter of <dream on> because it's too expensive vs minimal reward to do for the devs/publisher and not enough players care about this feature?
Maybe for many players for whatever reasons it's challenging enough for the time they play it ?
Sadly, more advanced CAI/BAI does seem to be a discussion topic that doesn't last as long as other topics.

[Huberto]

I would be interested to know what are the goals of the individual AI factions in the game because I don't think the goals have anything to do with a) surviving b) expanding, but more about c) sack/raze everything (including their own lands if they retake them) d) obsess over chasing factions/armies across the map and e) disregard defending homeland.

This