Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

  1. #1

    Default Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    ... on Hard CAI difficulty? I'm about 60 turns into a Romani campaign (my first EB2 campaign) and decided to toggle_fow, just to see how the AI was doing. Alas, they have done nothing at all. Still sitting pretty in their starting towns with half stacks and not doing much while I have already conquered all of Sicily and most of Cisalpine Gaul.

    While beating rebel stacks is fun to an extent, playing against actual factions ought to be even more fun. Does it get better in VH CAI difficulty? I just want the AI to blob out.

    Maybe I was a bit too conservative with my decision to play H/M as the easiest faction in the mod.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    Most of them have an "opening move" with a scripted attack against a nearby settlement in the first few turns, but they don't always succeed. The Rebels are much more powerful in 2.35 than they were in 2.3, simply because they can actually recruit now, and couldn't before. They're not inactive, they just haven't succeeded as quickly as you have.

  3. #3
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    This is also my observation, playing on VH/VH. After 70+ turns as Pritanoi I've noticed that the other factions expanded by 1 settlement, some by 2, some by none.
    I suspect that additionally to the typical M2TW CAI indecisiveness, the problem lies in the fact that the AI doesn't handle the rebel stacks very well.
    I don't think it's possible to do much to prompt the AI into action. I'd rather discuss how the expansion of the human player may be slowed down. This is why I've posted an entry on this (quoted below), but it was accidentally overlooked, I think, and no discussion/answer followed :-(

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    what do you think now about slowing down somehow the player's expansion?
    I mean: if the player wants to take the provinces one-by-one with little pause, he can conquer fast a number of them. This is especially true for the less developed / less populated provinces for the major stumbling block: the initial civil order hit (eg. unrest related to culture or famine) is comparatively small. The best way to deal with such unrest in smaller settlements is simply a garrison: the ratio number_of_troops / population is already high for just 1-2 units - and these actually come for free due to the free upkeep from own government.
    My experience comes from the play with Pergamon and Pritanoi. In the latter case (obviously an easy one), I've taken all the British Islands (+6 provinces, Pritanoi have ownership and no additional unrest, but this actually doesn't matter) in 55 turns on VH/VH, with a few realistic restricting home-rules (like no attack in winter). I imagine that for the political system of Pritanoi such a land-grab would prompt a backlash, never mind the after-conquest rebellions in the very regions. This is not reflected in the mechanics (or maybe I'm yet to experience it ;-), even though one may easily imagine it, eg. every province taken lowers loyalty of all characters but this cools-down as the time passes. Perhaps such a mechanism starting only at a higher level of difficulty: H/VH (so that the people don't complain ;-)
    Experience with Pergamon in 2.3 was similar (well, not precisely: only +2 provinces in 55 turns, but then I've moved quickly due to the inactivity of the AI - and also had little problems while having plenty of money and recruitment possibilities).
    I know the argument about the role-playing, but maybe something has changed in the mind of the team and you imagine a kind of mechanism to deter the player from conquering provinces too fast?
    btw, I really admire that the reaction of the units to the orders on the battlefield is not such an instant one. This is really realistic imo, really good!
    another good thing: I've landed on the continent and the rebels are recruiting new units in the settlement! this prevented me from attacking and now it a big problem, I need to wait for more troops. Great!
    To be clear: I don' want more difficulty just for difficulty but more realism in the speed of conquest. We've had a discussion on the losses in the battles in the past and I understand this cannot slow down the conquest (even though at VH I have loses of 20-30%, and experienced even 40%, so there's a slight such effect), so I'm looking forward for something different.
    JoC

  4. #4

    Default Re: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    You're right Jurand, about the part that the human player expansion should be slowed down and for a lot of factions, that already happens. I have played as Pontus and with the rebel staks + when I conquered the settlement to the left (Sinope I think), a Ptolemai stack appeared and reconquered it, was really slowing down my campaign.
    In addition to already implemented rebelions like in Liguria, Carthaginian and Roman players will have it more difficult in Sicily and in Iberia (also for the Numidian player) with the scripted rebellions and unrest.
    Ptolemai, Seleucid and other factions in that area will have it more difficult too thanks to more raids and other events in some of their regions.

    The Pritanoi probably don't have many scripted events to slow down their expansion, I think the most obvious thing would be tribal revolts in their conquered settlements, however that takes time to implement and for now I think the focus is in another regions/factions.

  5. #5
    Domaje's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The Sun City
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    From my experience, not all factions have the same behaviour in 2.35. It depends of their initial situation at the start of the game. In the games I played on H/H difficulty, the factions that develop the most slowly are usually the celtic, celtiberian and germanic tribes. They are obviously not very rich with their only one settlement on turn 1. But they are also surrounded by well defended rebel settlements, so it is harder for them to expand as every time they attack a town, the AI must defeat more than a half-stack of units lead by a general with 3 or 4 command star. And believe me, they try ! Just toggle perfect_spy and have a look at some settlements in Iberia or Gaul and you'll see Eleutheroi town with golden chevron units in them. Because the AI send stack after stack to conquer them but don't succeed very often. However they do from time to time.
    On the contrary, there is more change borderwise during conflicts between AI factions as the AI can't defend its settlements properly.

    Personnaly, I like it that way. It brings a different dynamic in the campaign depending on what part of the map you play, and how advanced is your campaign in term of turns. For example, having to face a huge Aedui conferedation as the Romans by 250 BC is not my cup of tea. But 400 turns later ? definitely.
    Also, I'm very happy that the team tries to depict more factions than the engine can handle, with the immersive names and scripts for the Eleutheroi. And could want more of that !
    Last edited by Domaje; February 28, 2019 at 08:30 AM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    according to my experience, the actual campaign ai is VERY RANDOM, even though I only play on Hard. Here is my tip, after a few turns of your campaign, toggle_fow to see the entire map. When the AI in your game is proactive, you will see more nearly full stacks from AI factions roaming the map and besieging settlement. Usually I check the Carthaginians, if they go for the 2 cities on Sicily really fast, then that's good proactive AI. If they just sit there and not try to take those cities, then it's passive AI.

    I personally restart my campaign a couple times until the AIs in my game are active. No fun toying around with passive AIs.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Is the AI supposed to be this passive

    Some factions start out passive by default, switching to aggressive is random.

    In the patch, every scripted trigger of war with the player also now comes with a switch to the aggressive CAI stance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •