AI performance in TW games

[Quirinus]

I've often heard the RTW AI panned for being dumb, etc, and I find that it is true to some extent-- the AI does not adapt to player tactics, but as game AIs go, it wasn't the worst, far from it.

My question to people who've played every TW game is: how does the AI of RTW fare against the AI of Shogun, Medieval and Medieval II? Out of all the TW games, the only one I've played extensively is Rome. I've played M2TW only briefly, and have never touched the first two games.

[frogbeastegg]

Arena is non-TW, so I'll shunt this one over to the M2TW forum. The other TW related forums are quieter, so that should be the best choice.

All of this is strictly in my opinion and in my experience, of course. Others find differently, and good for them. This is also purely in reference to the vanilla games, no mods. It also bears the caveat that I haven't played STW and MTW in a long time now, owing to their refusal to work with my video card.

Campaign AI
In STW and MTW the AI didn't have to deal with a wide open 3D map. To defend a province you stuck an army in it. To attack a province you moved an army from a neighbouring one. Simple. No need to work out the best routes, deal with choke points, dodge around rebels and enemy stacks, and all of the complexity the 3D map adds. This simplicity meant it was easier for the AI to cope.

MTW's AI had one bad habit that STW's didn't: junk armies. Those armies of peasants and ballistae made me cringe. It had to deal with ships, a feature STW didn't have. As far as my memory goes, it rarely launched a naval invasion, and rarely took advantage of the easy to abuse trade system.

RTW's AI was the first to have to deal with the 3D map. It would have been unfair to expect wonders from it. That said, I did expect it to actually do something. Game after game the AI faction shuffled tiny armies of junky units back and forth to no use, stood still, forgot to build up its cities, declared war and sued for peace in an endless and nonsensical cycle, and, if you'll forgive the description, farted about. I played some games where the AI did nothing at all. It didn't expand, it didn't build, it didn't do a thing except march back and forth with its starting armies. I found this before the 1.2 patch broke the AI with the save/load bug, and I found it after it was fixed. The save/load bug undoubtedly made it worse; I can not blame it entirely.

BI improved RTW's AI considerably. It remained completely hit and miss. Some games it would provide me with a hard fought challenge. Others it would fall into the old pattern of complete, aimless stupidity. Junk units still featured heavily in AI armies.

M2TW represents an improvement over RTW. IMO it would be hard for it not to. All it has to do to represent progress is lump its armies together, improve its settlements once in a while, and attack the player now and then. This it does, and more. Its armies are generally made up of passable units, it does usually target the more vulnerable parts of the player's empire, it can defend to a degree, and it builds up quite nicely. It's still got a long way to go. Diplomatically it's quite derranged.

Battle AI

In battle I still hold a love for STW's AI. It had tricks which subsequent lost, such as hiding flanking forces in thick mist. Due to the far smaller selection of unit types the AI had less to struggle with. An archer was an archer was an archer. In MTW and onwards there's a lot of differences between them. Different ranges, different attack types, different attack values, different melee capabilities, different special abilities .... Factor this across every unit category and there's a problem.

So while I feel MTW's battlefield AI gained some things over STW's, I also feel it lost some.

In RTW the AI lines up its army and hurls them at me. Alternately it lines up its army and hurls them at me. Sometimes it will line up its army and hurl it at me. On occasion it will withdraw from the map. Rarely it will stand still and not bother doing anything at all until I'm right up close. I can shoot it to bits with missile units and it won't react. I can charge it, surround it, mob it, or whatever, and it's all about as much challenge as pulling the legs off a fly.

M2TW will try to do flanking, it will hold position, it will advance, it will try to lure units away from my line if its using horse archers or similar. It will attempt to clear out my missile units if I position them too far forward and leave them a bit vulnerable. IMO this AI is the best at using shock cavalry. It's given me some hairy moments in big battles. M2TW's biggest weakness IMO is horse archers. In some ways I wish I hadn't learned how to use them, they're so powerful against the AI. It simply cannot cope with being encircled and shot to bits.

Interestingly, STW's and MTW's AIs gained extra tactics and stat bonuses as you moved up the difficulty scale. RTW's only gained stat bonuses. AFAIK M2TW is back to the original system of gaining both.

For reference I have been defeated by STW's and MTW's battle AIs in battles where the armies involved could be considered equal. I have only been defeated by RTW's when I'm so out-matched I have no hope at all. Ditto M2TW, except the battles where we are close to equal are often much closer.



The best AI I have seen in a game is Galactic Civilisation II's. For the very large part it plays fairly, no cheating. Civilisation IV's is also very challenging, but it cheats much sooner and much more heavily than GalCivII's. TW has a long way to go.



Anywho, that’s a frog’s 2 pence. I’m moving the topic over now. Due to my sieve-like memory I shall probably forget to come and see how it progresses now it's not right under my nose. :oops:

[Quirinus]

That's odd. In my experience the battlefield AI of RTW will respond to flanks, and will sometimes even attempt to flank, though perhaps not very competently. I also found their handling of skirmishers to be pretty effective.

Though the AI still does undoubtedly stupid things (charging the general into a phalanx, chasing horse archers with infantry, etc.), certainly it is nowhere as static as you paint it out to be. Perhaps we are using different patches?


And yes, the GalCiv AI is phenomenal. I've played the first one to death, but occasionally it still surprises me by pulling a hat-trick out of my arse. I haven't played the second one too much --only about three games to the finish-- due to hardware limitations...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think the M2TW AI is that much improved over RTW's. At least in RTW whole groups of units weren't bugged to the point of near uselessness.

And difficulty in M2TW had no effect on the AI, it only alters your own units stamina/morale.

In terms of diplomacy, M2TW has a much better system than RTW. However, its still the same old stupid AI.

Things like these are really frustrating considering how easy they should be to resolve. Things like telling the AI not to rush me when its defending, and giving it a few good defensive formations, using shiltrons etc. As far as I can see things like that should be pretty easy to implement.

Too much eye-candy, not enough AI.

I'm still playing my way through M2TW and then RTW before I get onto MTW and STW though, although I have played each a little in the past.

[Vladimir]

Having jumped directly from MTW to its sequel I have vivid memories of the difference. However I almost always play mods so that memory is tainted.

Without heavy modification completed by Lusted et al M2 gets a big :thumbsdown: . MTW, with it's admittedly smaller (but not much so) variety of units was much better at making good use of the terrain. Sometimes this worked to its disadvantage as it would place the general at the highest point of the map. Then it would form the army up relative to the general which could leave parts of it vulnerable. But I'd rather have that then the curious placements in M2 where their army would be placed in the middle of a depression.

You could count on MTW using terrain and forests to its advantage (and snow! :furious3: ). For me, battle AI is the key. I always played MTW on expert which means I frequently went against 2 or 3:1 odds. M2 is nice in that you can have all those armies on the field at the same time.

Campaign AI in M2 is pretty good and has gotten a lot better with mods. In MTW, the AI was allowed to cheat on the strat map.

[Martok]

My views are very similar to Froggy's: Rome's AI was far and away the worst out of the bunch, on both the strategic and tactical level. The AI in Medieval 2 is definitely an improvement over that, but overall it's still not as good as in the older games. The AI in MTW is quite decent, but (as FBE pointed out) it suffers somewhat from the game's increased complexity -- more units (which aren't as well-balanced), a more wide-open campaign map, trade & naval warfare, etc. -- and so it's not as good as it is in STW.

Shogun's AI remains the best out of the series thus far. On the campaign map, it's pretty effective at exploiting any under-defended provinces along their borders (both with you and the other AI-controlled clans), and it's reasonably competent in terms of building construction and unit recruitment. In battle, Shogun really has no equal when compared to the other Total War titles, although it's certainly not perfect -- it struggles with bridge battles, and there's the "suicidal daimyo" problem. Overall, however, STW's AI is superior to the rest of the Total War titles.


And again, like frogbeastegg, the only battles I've lost in RTW and M2TW was when I was hopelessy outmatched/outnumbered -- this is significant when you factor in that I'm generally only a mediocre field commander at best. :blush: In both Shogun and MTW, however, I can (and do) lose battles to the AI if the forces are comparable to each other.

To give a more concrete example, I can usually win battles in Rome even when outnumbered 3-1. In M2TW, I can usually win when outnumbered 2-1. In STW and MTW, I get nervous even when the opposing army is the same size as mine. :sweatdrop: