Does CAI have a military objective?

[Kambe]

How often do AI factions follow their military objective if AI even has those? How often do you see AI get to imitate history and achieve such results? For example Vandals in Spain/Northern Africa? Franks actually doing anything useful? Burgundians and Langobards settling south? Visigoths in Spain, Ostrogoths in Italy etc?

Or is CAI only task to gang up on player?

[daelin4]

They don't have an objective besides sandbox mode/ target human player. The AI lacks a LOT of the features human players have. For example they won't get civil wars because they don't have intra-faction politics at work or imperium issues at play.

[Modestus]

They don't have an objective besides sandbox mode/ target human player. The AI lacks a LOT of the features human players have. For example they won't get civil wars because they don't have intra-faction politics at work or imperium issues at play.

Which is a very strange approach for a so called strategy game, everything that affects the player and is part of the players considerations for game play is outside the perimeters or irrelevant for AI behaviour which in effect means the AI is playing a completely different game a cardinal sin for any real strategy game.

[Humble Warrior]

Which is a very strange approach for a so called strategy game, everything that affects the player and is part of the players considerations for game play is outside the perimeters or irrelevant for AI behaviour which in effect means the AI is playing a completely different game a cardinal sin for any real strategy game.

Indeed it is. And again something you don`t find out until a while later. I thought as natural that the AI would have similar goals to the Player. I really do not like an AI that`s just designed to attack the Player and that`s it. I know the game is really about the Player, but the AI should have its own goals and play to them. the Player should not see he`s the only target in the world. What CA has done is lazy short term bs.

I can only hope this will be patched so the AI actually plays its own game to win.

[Darios]

Indeed it is. And again something you don`t find out until a while later. I thought as natural that the AI would have similar goals to the Player. I really do not like an AI that`s just designed to attack the Player and that`s it. I know the game is really about the Player, but the AI should have its own goals and play to them. the Player should not see he`s the only target in the world. What CA has done is lazy short term bs.

I can only hope this will be patched so the AI actually plays its own game to win.

I totally agree with you. This morning my friend asked if I wanted to play Attila with him in a MP campaign and I told him that I have no desire to deal with that ridiculous AI and suggested that we continue one of our old Rome 2 MP campaigns instead. After the past 2-3 weeks of dealing with Attila, opening up Rome 2 again felt like a breath of fresh air. AI factions formed empires, minor factions like Rodos and Knossos stayed on their islands and didn't bother a soul (the only had a single stack!), and the enemy factions did not attack me for no apparent reason.

This is sad for me to say because I love the Late Empire/Dark Ages period way more than Rome 2's timeframe but right now Attila is completely unplayable for me. I'm eagerly awaiting a patch that fixes its AI issues.

[Huberto]

After the past 2-3 weeks of dealing with Attila, opening up Rome 2 again felt like a breath of fresh air. AI factions formed empires, minor factions like Rodos and Knossos stayed on their islands and didn't bother a soul (the only had a single stack!), and the enemy factions did not attack me for no apparent reason.

This is sad for me to say because I love the Late Empire/Dark Ages period way more than Rome 2's timeframe but right now Attila is completely unplayable for me. I'm eagerly awaiting a patch that fixes its AI issues.

I don't know that we're going to get the kind of patch treatment that we got with TWR2. The CAI design feels very intentional to me, and Warhammer requires staff time now.

I spent about 70 hours trying to figure out how to do well at Attila, succeeded through many reloads, saw the CAI for what it is. I agree it's borderline unplayable. Going to wait several months for mods and hopefully some patches that rebalance the game.

Meantime, I'll finish my DeI TWR2 campaign. Something interesting happened there, Rome in the west and Ptolemaic dynasty in the east are two superpowers entering the mid-late game.

[daelin4]

Which is a very strange approach for a so called strategy game, everything that affects the player and is part of the players considerations for game play is outside the perimeters or irrelevant for AI behaviour which in effect means the AI is playing a completely different game a cardinal sin for any real strategy game.

Likely done for expediency, it probably would cut down on processing time of the factions during End Turn phase. Hard to program a behaviour that is also dynamic, seeing as decisions to attack X rather than Y can have lots of complicated factors. Not having certain features like civil wars is just dumb though.

Indeed it is. And again something you don`t find out until a while later. I thought as natural that the AI would have similar goals to the Player. I really do not like an AI that`s just designed to attack the Player and that`s it. I know the game is really about the Player, but the AI should have its own goals and play to them. the Player should not see he`s the only target in the world. What CA has done is lazy short term bs.

I can only hope this will be patched so the AI actually plays its own game to win.

I first noticed this in RTW when Roman factions never fought eachother, because unlike playing as Rome, they didn't have the Senate mechanics at play so they will always stay friends. In Shogun2 this continued with no Realm Divide feature for AI, and replicated in Rome2 with them not having imperium effects. Unsurprisingly, Attila also does not have such features for them. As long as the player is fighting them there is no such need, seems to be the logic behind it. IMO this is a result of trying to make the game complicated for sake of the player, but not the sake of the whole game.

As for patching AI, besides the extremely low probability that CA gives a , I doubt it's even possible. CA doesn't have to care, they believe it's good enough.

They do get civil wars...

I've seen the separatist factions appearing for the huns, the ostrogoths, the franks, the danes, the jutes and obviously the western roman empire, the WRE always get the separatists...

I don't know if these factions are due to low public order or something unique to the AI or just regular faction mechanics at play (ie they are basically specific rebels like in Rome2), they seem to get them pretty quick compared to my own forces losing loyalty. If that's true, the issue turns from not having the features to being very poor at managing it (also another AI issue), which frankly isn't a solution or even anything different.

[Keyser]

They don't have an objective besides sandbox mode/ target human player. The AI lacks a LOT of the features human players have. For example they won't get civil wars because they don't have intra-faction politics at work or imperium issues at play.

They do get civil wars...

I've seen the separatist factions appearing for the huns, the ostrogoths, the franks, the danes, the jutes and obviously the western roman empire, the WRE always get the separatists...

[Godless Crom]

I have noticed that certain factions seem to behave in certain ways pretty consistently. The Jutes always seem to expand west into Britannia, for example, while the Ebdani always expand east into Britannia. Granted, that may be because there isn't much room for them to do anything else. Well, the Jutes could do other things, but they usually don't. The Angles also always seem to expand eastward into Gothiscandza, either conquering it until they hit the Rugians, or getting swamped and dying. The Saxons and Angles, if they lost their last settlement and so become a horde, always seem to then migrate west and cross the sea to Britannia, where they usually take over a settlement or two and then start to repopulate. Played a few campaigns (is there a term for someone who starts new campaigns compulsively? Like alts in an MMO, but for TW games?) so far where that's happened, and thought it was pretty cool. Even saw one where the Ebdani and Franks basically burned all of Britannia south of Hadrian's Wall, and the Saxons and Jutes sailed over as hordes and repopulated the razed settlements. Thought that was pretty cool, and made me feel better about the razing mechanic. About as close an approximation to actual history as a TW game will get.

[Huberto]

At the very least you would think the major factions win Attila would try to build up an empire or large kingdom similar to what the player is trying to achieve. I haven't seen that, which is a HUGE deal, imo. It means that the entire aim of the CAI is to shape the experience of player. And playing the game feels that way, thus killing immersion. TWA needs an overhaul CAI patch, asap.

[VanGoth]

At the very least you would think the major factions win Attila would try to build up an empire or large kingdom similar to what the player is trying to achieve. I haven't seen that, which is a HUGE deal, imo. It means that the entire aim of the CAI is to shape the experience of player. And playing the game feels that way, thus killing immersion. TWA needs an overhaul CAI patch, asap.

Agreed, right now i mostly see mad dogs around my little safe zone in spain, trying to kill each other... .

The defensive offensive just doesn't seem to play a role...it's an over-aggressive and headless approach. On first glance i was impressed by all the movement and offensive actions that took place, but i guess some routines are still missing. It's still a raw diamond, the gloomy shine is there...let's see what CA can make out of it.

[Candy_Licker]

At the very least you would think the major factions win Attila would try to build up an empire or large kingdom similar to what the player is trying to achieve. I haven't seen that, which is a HUGE deal, imo. It means that the entire aim of the CAI is to shape the experience of player. And playing the game feels that way, thus killing immersion. TWA needs an overhaul CAI patch, asap.

I had a few factions who succesfully build empires. In my game, the Marcomanni already have 12 regions in 405 or so. Gallia has recolonized most of Gaul, but the Huns are razing them again. It seems to completely depend upon the leader personality trait. I don't think the AI should be focussed on victory conditions and historic expansion too much.

I agree though, Attila badly needs CAI fixes.

[Bran Mac Born]

Here is a small mod that focuses on all factions to defend what they have gained, take back what they lost, and move toward their victory conditions.
Place in your Attila data folder.

[Humble Warrior]

Here is a small mod that focuses on all factions to defend what they have gained, take back what they lost, and move toward their victory conditions.
Place in your Attila data folder.

I`ll be trying this. How is it that CA can`t do this?

[craziii]

Here is a small mod that focuses on all factions to defend what they have gained, take back what they lost, and move toward their victory conditions.
Place in your Attila data folder.

this is really, really nice, 100% going to use for my next campaign. does it also helps with the resettlement frequency?

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Here is a small mod that focuses on all factions to defend what they have gained, take back what they lost, and move toward their victory conditions.
Place in your Attila data folder.

can you play the game with no human player? just to see what the ai does all on its own...

[Zhayedan]

oh well, turn 50 in my sassanid campaign and visigoths are raiding assyria... so yeah..

[Riekopo]

I would hope the AI has objectives other than destroy player. They should try to complete the Chapter Objectives and Victory Objectives.

[Highlander of Scotland]

from what you guys are saying I think the issue in Attila and to an extent has been in previous games is that the AI does not think like a person. It seems like it has a goal which is to destroy the player. IMO the AI should behave more like real people did. It should not focus on winning always but as a horde it should look to settle in a safe location. The ERE and WRE should focus upon holding together the empire conceding land if they need to, only going on an offensive if it is completely secure.

A solution to the problem is to reduce the number of stacks an AI can easily train. If half their army is wiped out in a great battle then the AI should sue for peace. Hordes should only be able to raise a stack and losing it should be costly. Settlements that are poorly developed should have smaller garrisons as a compromise. This would improve gameplay because then the AI will not be able to commit piece by piece instead it will only have to fight one battle and not tonnes of battles. The player's challenge will come as a tribe from not losing that army and as a large nation from not losing too heavily in many areas and getting swamped. Indeed a population system could be used so that long wars drain a nation of men.

[Candy_Licker]

from what you guys are saying I think the issue in Attila and to an extent has been in previous games is that the AI does not think like a person. It seems like it has a goal which is to destroy the player. IMO the AI should behave more like real people did. It should not focus on winning always but as a horde it should look to settle in a safe location. The ERE and WRE should focus upon holding together the empire conceding land if they need to, only going on an offensive if it is completely secure.

A solution to the problem is to reduce the number of stacks an AI can easily train. If half their army is wiped out in a great battle then the AI should sue for peace. Hordes should only be able to raise a stack and losing it should be costly. Settlements that are poorly developed should have smaller garrisons as a compromise. This would improve gameplay because then the AI will not be able to commit piece by piece instead it will only have to fight one battle and not tonnes of battles. The player's challenge will come as a tribe from not losing that army and as a large nation from not losing too heavily in many areas and getting swamped. Indeed a population system could be used so that long wars drain a nation of men.

Yeah that would've been needed. The Langobards hate me and have nothing better to do than send a fullstack every 3 or 4 turns to Britain. If I annihilate their stack, they don't have to make peace, since they can train another complete army in no time.

It's also that the CAI never destroys other nations. I bribed 3 or 4 factions to finish of Saxon speratists in my homeland, but after like 4 years of siege, they just sacked the settlement, and now nobody bothers to attack them any more. Same against me: since all AI factions pile up against me, they could've easily destroyed me by capturing/ destroying settlments I can't defend. Yet they only sack them until I can rally my forces to beat them.

The instability/ repair costs will still ruin me but the Ai's lack of ambition baffles me.