Ai army management

**Tovi** · November 22, 2006, 02:02 PM

We talk a lot of how Ai manage diplomacy (not well is the conclusion). Let's talk about how it manage the army .
Here are some bad point i have noticed (this happen very often, not always) :

- Navy never land. England stay quite always on his island and never reach Jerusalem (for exemple). Quite annoying for a game supposed to run during 100 years war and crusades (and the conquest of America).

- Garrisons are very weak, often 1 to 3 units max, even on borders
- Sometimes Ai attacks big full army with a couple of units.
- AI LOVES mercenaries. They may be the half part of an army, or the whole army. It's very expensive (I suppose) and boring to see always the same spearmen/arbalesters in every factions.
- AI LOVEs siege engines. It, also, can be the major part of their army. I'm sure some people will say it's a genius tactic but i have some doubts. It's more the fact that AI has built a siege weapon manufacture in his cities and build them continuously.

The good point is : Ai group his units in a big full stack army.

**Lusted** · November 22, 2006, 02:26 PM

- Navy never land. England stay quite always on his island and never reach Jerusalem (for exemple). Quite annoying for a game supposed to run during 100 years war and crusades (and the conquest of America).

I've seen it once or twice, but it does not happen enough.

- Garrisons are very weak, often 1 to 3 units max, even on borders

I've seen it vary, sometimes 1 or 2 units, sometimes nearly a full stack.

- AI LOVES mercenaries. They may be the half part of an army, or the whole army. It's very expensive (I suppose) and boring to see always the same spearmen/arbalesters in every factions.

I haven't seen an ai army with merc in it yet, generally they attack with a mix of unit types.

- AI LOVEs siege engines. It, also, can be the major part of their army. I'm sure some people will say it's a genius tactic but i have some doubts. It's more the fact that AI has built a siege weapon manufacture in his cities and build them continuously.

Milan and Venice in particular seem to do this.

**abaris** · November 22, 2006, 02:32 PM

Siege engines are in fact the major funkillers in this game. I have encountered numerous armies only featuring crossbowmen and siege equipment. The damage to gameplay is twofold. First, it's rather silly to see a trebouchet being pushed like some sort of light field artillery. And second, it ruins the strategic parts of the battles. You are more or less forced into a mindless charge (which wins the day easily), if you don't want your army being smashed into oblivion.

At least the trebouchets should be treated like siege equipment to be built during the siege and not in towns as a sort of field artillery. That's Warcraft 1996 style.

**killmore** · November 22, 2006, 02:36 PM

Good:
1) AI uses spies and imams fairly efficiently to provoke unrest.
2) I have seen a FULL HRE crusade army just one turn from Antioch. They were about to siege it. But I got there first. I don't know how the got there. It probably walked from HRE.
3) Frequently AI withdraws armies after peace treat is signed.

The worst:
I organized crusade on Milan and while I was sieging it, full Milanese army never moved to help the city. Their army was very close.
Starting wars with port blockades while AIs border cities have 1 to 3 units.
Units get stuck on the walls.

Funniest:
Unit of AI spearmen is standing near the wall. It is stuck there. One spearmen runs around, hits the wall with his head, bounces from it, makes a circle and hits the wall again. Even AI can't take it anymore?

**Sammyboi** · November 22, 2006, 02:29 PM

I don't like how the AI decides what the 'best' units are. I mean, does a Venice player really need 10 Standards as quest rewards? I suspect this is behind the bias for siege engines, they're considered 'the best' units available and so 20% or so of an AI army will be made up of them.

**James** · November 22, 2006, 02:34 PM

Yes, I've seen naval landings, but not often.

Garrisons vary.

Have seen some use of mercs... not sure how much... (e.g. Mongols had elephant troops, thought only Timurids get elephant troops, so mercs?)

Some AI stacks have way too much seige equipment, unbalanced. The part that bugs me even more is that this tendency to build every building in every city (e.g. seige shops everywhere) cripples AI empire managment. It only needs like one or two seige shops for a given area. Admittedly, player can easily benefit from this by taking down useless buildings for extra cash. Course, would be hard to program how to specialize cities/castles.

**Nikko0102** · November 22, 2006, 03:48 PM

I must say. I've played this game for a couple of days now. After I figured out how to get the charges right I've not encountered many flaws.. In one crusade I went on I was besieging Antich (which was garrisoned by a full turkish stack, btw) I was reinforced by a full milanese stack, the attack was beautifully executed, perfect cooperation between catholic powers against the infidels.

I have yet to see more than one siege unit in an army during a field battle. these being ballistas.

**abaris** · November 22, 2006, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Nikko0102

I have yet to see more than one siege unit in an army during a field battle. these being ballistas.

You will see them, take my word for that.

**centrelink4** · November 22, 2006, 07:43 PM

Yes

Garrisioning is usually pretty bad - only a couple of units. But there are exceptions.
Attack ratios is also bad - he constantly attacks with a couple of units against a full stack or a full city

**trench** · November 22, 2006, 09:07 PM

Yeah I have to go annilate a full stack on HRE that is 50% catapults and 50% peasants

.

**MasterAdnin** · November 22, 2006, 09:46 PM

Damnit, I have Milan, all they use are their gay Pavise Crossbowmen.

Adnan

**Mythos** · November 22, 2006, 11:28 PM

Why are they called Pavise Crossbowmen if they don't use the pavise? It just hangs on their back. Is it supposed to protect them when they turn around to reload? That would be lame since most arrows would either stick on it or go halfway through it anyway.

**MasterAdnin** · November 22, 2006, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Mythos

Why are they called Pavise Crossbowmen if they don't use the pavise? It just hangs on their back. Is it supposed to protect them when they turn around to reload? That would be lame since most arrows would either stick on it or go halfway through it anyway.

The reason they have it on their back is so that when they turn around to reload their cross bows, they aren't hit from behind by enemy arrows or missiles.

Salaam,
Adnan

**~~Miraj~~** · November 23, 2006, 12:02 AM

I agree with Tovi. I've seen all the things he's mentioned. I'm currently playing a Turkish campaign and I'm simply sick of all these crusader armies marching through my lands on their way to Jerusalem. Why can't they take ships? That would be way more realistic.

And the unit composoition is annoying as hell. Why on earth would the Byzantines attack my horse archer army with a stack composed of 8-10 ballistas and catapults and a few units? Of course there are many times that the Byzantines sent some seriously well balanced armies that had ~4 Vadaratoi which gave my Turkomans and Sipahis hell, so its not all bad.

**Metellus** · November 23, 2006, 12:47 AM

Garrisioning is usually pretty bad - only a couple of units. But there are exceptions.
Attack ratios is also bad - he constantly attacks with a couple of units against a full stack or a full city

This is a big annoyance for me. Why doesn't the AI just wait and build up a decent stack before attacking? That way his units will actually get past my walls! I usually autoresolve these stupid skirmishes.

**lawngnome** · November 22, 2006, 11:31 PM

I haven't had the same experiences with AI... Garrison, it's hit or miss, I've assaulted some cities where they had 10-16 units garrisoned and it was a bloody mess... then on the other end of the spectrum is the Egypt AI, who apparently doesn't really like Jerusalem that much and only puts 2-3 units in it max even when a crusade is coming.

Siege equipment? Eh, not really for me. Milan does love their pavise crossbowmen, and the HRE seems to really love Armored Sergeants in my experience, which really sucked for my French cavalry

Hungary will build the hell out of their mounted Nobles, and Denmark will spam axe infantry, but that's to be expected. Most other armies I have seen have been very balanced... Milan seems to be the real mercenary whore in my games, never seen too many merc's outside of northern Italy.

Really? Siege spam? I swear I almost would have said the exact opposite... rarely see AI use them, I've completed 1 French campaign and done partial runs for Hungary, Denmark, and the Moors... still haven't seen anything like what you're describing.

Guess I could be lucky.

I am very pleased with general unit quality issues... in MTW the AI just spammed peasants and spearmen all game, but I rarely see weak units used outside of their appropriate context and the AI actually phases them out in the late game (unless they suffer a series of defeats, they then seem to replenish their forces with cheap, quick-to-produce units)....

**Trajan** · November 22, 2006, 11:38 PM

In my England campaign, when I was at war with France, they really had a thing for Scots Guards. For some damn reason, that's all I'd see, half and full stacks of Scots Guards. You'd think the French would go with dismounted knights or some kind of heavy infantry instead of just Scots Gaurds.

**Savage_Swede** · November 23, 2006, 12:52 AM

When i played as the Turks, i was soon betrayed by the Byzantines despite our alliance. But then, i would have done the exact same thing. My real forces were out grabbing every rebels settlement they could get. And then suddenly the Byzantines attacked my far-western city that was weakly garrisoned, except for my Sultan and his adopted son. The city was attacked by a full stack well-mixed army. It was a massacre to say the least. The moment by gate was broken, my walls were already overrun and my Sultan and his son had to put up a last defence which soon fell.

Later i decided to build up a real army and reclaim my lost city. But the Byzantines... they only sent full stacks of well mixed armies against me. My few contignents of HA were quickly decimated by the Byzan Variodotai. And i was on the verge of loosing every single battle. It was so bad that i had to withdraw the army and retrain it after every 'victory'.

**Metellus** · November 23, 2006, 07:20 AM

When i played as the Turks, i was soon betrayed by the Byzantines despite our alliance. But then, i would have done the exact same thing. My real forces were out grabbing every rebels settlement they could get. And then suddenly the Byzantines attacked my far-western city that was weakly garrisoned, except for my Sultan and his adopted son. The city was attacked by a full stack well-mixed army. It was a massacre to say the least. The moment by gate was broken, my walls were already overrun and my Sultan and his son had to put up a last defence which soon fell.

Later i decided to build up a real army and reclaim my lost city. But the Byzantines... they only sent full stacks of well mixed armies against me. My few contignents of HA were quickly decimated by the Byzan Variodotai. And i was on the verge of loosing every single battle. It was so bad that i had to withdraw the army and retrain it after every 'victory'.

What campaign difficulty were you playing on? Maybe its 'cos I'm on M/M? I want to do Hard campaign difficulty next but don't want to have the whole 'everybody hates me' thing happen. Mainly the French AI assaults my city of Dijon (I call it a city-fortress since its got huge walls and cannon towers) with piddly little stacks. Why doesn't it just build up some nice big stack and try then? Although its one of my major cities (currently building a Master Armourer there) I don't have any valuable family members, just a great general.