AI behaviour in campaign game

[The Yogi]

I'm very frustrated with the AI behaviour in the campaign game. AI nations start sucidal wars against me, then steadfastly refuse my generous peace offers, forcing me to destroy them utterly. And I don't want to do that, this is not Shogun and I don't want to play conquer the world.

I play the HRE so far, and what I'd like to do (during the ENTIRE game)is conquer all of Italy except the Papacy, capture Pommrania, Prusia and Silesia, perhaps take Flanders if attacked by France and launch some crusades were needed to prop up the Christian cause.

Mostly I want to stay friendly to most Christian states and I do most definitily not want to vipe out Poland, Hungary, France or England.

I find that this is impossible. The bigger and stronger I get, the more and more doggedly I'm attacked. This might make sense in Japanese civil war for the Shogunate, were "there can be only ONE" but it makes NO sense in medieval Europe.

The most horrifyingly absurd example of this was once in the late 1100s were I had come to the aid of my ally the Pope against his enemies the Sicilians, some decades after conquering the Italians. After a hard-fought war, the hated enemies of the Holy Mother Church had been brought low, Naples and Sicily were incorporated into the Empire. Then the Almohads crushed the Spaniards and advanced into France, taking Aquitaine and Toulouse. The Pope called for a crusade, and naturally, faithfull son of the Church that I am, I rushed off my best forces to the aid of my French and English allies, keeping strong forces only in Bohemia too keep the Hungarians at bay. My regular and crusading armies fought several bloody battles against the Almohad hordes, saving the French from certain annihilation but suffering heavy casualties in the process.

At this point, the Pope, the head of the Chatholic church, BACKSTABS me, his ally, the Champion of Christianity and invades Venice, Milan, Naples and eventually Sicily. A long and bitter war followed in which the Papacy, in true MTW style forced me to destroy it completly.

But it gets better. The French, reeling under the blows of the Almohads, temporarily saved by the timely intervention of the Empire but with Toulouse still in Almohad hands, see fit to turn their weapons on their English brothers in arms, quickly capturing Normandy and Bretagne. This, maybe, I can understand, those are French lands after all, although the timing sucks.

What I can NOT understand is that while still fighting the Almohads and the English, they then turn their weapons on ME, their benefactor and staunch ally through all of this and invade Lorraine with a puny force, smalll enough that my garrison was able to defeat it. After which again, they refused all offers of peace, before and after I captured Flandes and utterly crushed their main armies.

THEN the Hungarians attacked, not even soon enough to catch me busy on other fronts...

At this point I became so disgusted with Western Christianity that I decided to democraticly kill everything and everyone and be friends only with my co-Emperor, the Basileus of Constantinople.

Thus a pious ruler with only the best of Christianity at heart was sadly turned into a tyrant holding sway over an Empire rivaling that of Charlemagne - without ever intending to!

[This message has been edited by The Yogi (edited 10-22-2002).]

[Galestrum]

yeah i know what you are talking about. The AI & diplomacy options are the aspects of the game that I most want to see addressed in further patches and/or an expansion.

some ppl may want just a better battle "conquer the world" sim out of this game, but i personally see far more possibilities with this game.

with a more in depth diplomacy & more advanced AI this could very well become a game for the ages.

a suggestion for you is to maybe make your own mod. i have been working on my own mod set in 1099 and a lil more "historical" than the orig. early game and i am having far more fun with it

[Apeboy]

Agreed.

One thing I find exceedingly frustrating is how the AI sacrifices itself just for the sake of funneling gameplay towards the player. In the long run it makes for much less engaging gameplay. It is as if the AI chooses which countries will be the strongest prior to a campaign. All others just rollover to one or two AI controlled countries and the player.

As the French I have seen the HRE (ally)continue to keep large portions of their army on our border while being attacked from the East. I could see keeping some forces there if we were not allies or if I was amassing large armies there but most everything I had was headed South to combat the Elmoheads. They just sat there as there empire to the East was basically given away. Thats just one example but I've seen the same thing playing as other countries and this behavoir is not limited to the HRE.

[The Yogi]

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
yeah i know what you are talking about. The AI & diplomacy options are the aspects of the game that I most want to see addressed in further patches and/or an expansion.

some ppl may want just a better battle "conquer the world" sim out of this game, but i personally see far more possibilities with this game.

with a more in depth diplomacy & more advanced AI this could very well become a game for the ages.

a suggestion for you is to maybe make your own mod. i have been working on my own mod set in 1099 and a lil more "historical" than the orig. early game and i am having far more fun with it[/QUOTE]

How can I mod AI behaviour? I have been modding a lot of things with satisfactory results (the English, French and Byzantine starting possitions, mainly) but I haven't got a clue on how to edit the AI.

[Nial Black Knee]

I wouldn't mind, But it always seems to be the factions I want to save. I mean jees, I've had France refuse peace when all they got left is Anjoun. How stupid is that.I mean they might have 300 low level troops, and Iv'e got 700 to 1000 high lev troops all around em. It just doesn't make sense. But
hey the French never won a war anyway.HEHE

[querulously]

It makes sense if they know they will come back , bigger and better than before ! The dev's have written that they intended that the massed respawnings would be successful. They should at least take peace and then build up and backstab on the best opportunity when previously backed into a corner.

The AI even attacks pathetically - the number of times that they have attacked with a minor force just at the end of their turn is too many. Sometimes just a ship !

[Akka]

You just undercovered the universal plague for all the strategy/diplomacy/conquest game I ever saw.

Be it Civilization, MTW, Master of Magic or ANY other game, it's always the same : you juste can't be friend with anyone.
Why that ? That sucks, and what sucks even more is that developpers do that because of the players.
How that ? Well, I suppose that, if you're just a bit familiar with any forum concerning any of the game I previously named, there is this big number of people that just talk always and ever about "challenge". I mean, without a bit of a challenge, a game is just boring. But there is this vocal minority that just see any game in terms of challenge rather than in terms of immersion. I saw people complaining, in Civilization 3 forum, that they won too easily in deity with the highest opposition, and that made the game boring.
So, to give these player the "challenge" they need, the developpers have to make the "one against the world" syndrom that we are all used to see in which as soon as the player start to be a bit strong, it's basically everyone against him. Friendship ? Bah, who care if it's improve immersion, ambiance, feeling that your diplomacy moves had a purpose and some effects ? We need CHALLENGE, we need the AI to attack and backstab you !
Suicide ? Bah, who care that you own 50 % of the world and have dozens armies, each one five times bigger than the last one left to the country X ? Who care that NOBODY in their right mind would peep a single word against such hopeless odds ? We need CHALLENGE, we need the player being attacked and having to fight.

Well, I think you see the point.
Sorry for the rant, I just HAD to vent the frustration...

And on another note : I would like the alliance to be meaningfull. I mean, actually, you can attack an ally just like you would of any other country. And AFAIK, there is no difference between being in peace and being allied. So, what's the point of an alliance ? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

[Thane Talain MacDonald]

Usually I'M the one breaking alliances. :P Never trust anyone, and be ready to exploit any hole in another's defences. But maybe thats why all my english kings have had maxed out dread and no piety http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/cool.gif

[cart6566]

Yeah, once the crashes and annoying bugs are fixed in the patch, this is the number one item that needs to be addressed. The game is set up for a strong role-playing aspect, what with the V&V, your line of descent, religious and geo-political divisions between factions, etc. However, in its push to provide a challenge to the player, the RP value gets tossed out.

The AI campaign strategy really needs an overhaul. I think that two entirely different sets of AI should be used for Conquest and GA campaigns. Also, GA goals should be moddable (maybe they are already, but haven't seen anyone try yet).

[Peabody]

I know exactly what you mean. The AI can do some serious bone-headed things. They don't make sense even.

But consider: The computer is not actually trying to win the game. The AI exists only to provide you with a challenging experience. And all those bone-head things add up to that - a challenge.

[The Yogi]

Quote Originally posted by Peabody:
I know exactly what you mean. The AI can do some serious bone-headed things. They don't make sense even.

But consider: The computer is not actually trying to win the game. The AI exists only to provide you with a challenging experience. And all those bone-head things add up to that - a challenge.[/QUOTE]

A challenge is the difficulties you encounter on the way to what you want to do. Difficulties that force you down ways you do not want to go are simply annoying.

The thing is, most middle age countries were not trying to "win" either(perhaps with the exception of the Turks). For most medieval rulers, defending and improving their realm and perhaps, annexing that one contested border province was plenty good.

I'd like a more survival-oriented AI in the Glory Goal game.

[Nial Black Knee]

Agreed, The historical immersion is what I crave. Can I change History? After a certain point conquering just becomes Boring unless
there' some other creative elements.

[t1master]

i agree that the ga aspect needs to be fixed, however, i think ca focuses on the rts battle mode, so the game hinges more along the lines of total domination.

maybe an expantion pack...

[andrewt]

I'm playing the Byzantines right now and the Germans have the biggest armies in the world. However, they are keeping most of their armies in the eastern portion of their empire in Austria and its neighboring provinces. They have a full stack each there. The French have already captured Lorraine and Friesland yet they keep building troops in the western portion of their empire and moving it to the east. Hello?

The AI also retreats way too much. The Spanish and the Almohads just exchanged Castile and Cordoba.

[Nial Black Knee]

There's no doubt, I'm sorry but theres no way
it should retreat from it's best province when it's got the numbers and a defensive position. But you see it all the time. To me chasing a faction all over the map and back
without getting a battle out of it is not fun. RUN AWAAAAY!!

[Papa Bear!]

I've gotten second the idea that "stupid computers a challenge does not make."

What would be challenging would be for them to act intellegiently across the board, in some cases it might leave a scheming player unchecked, but why should I be anymore potent than a computer? Despite what everyone says, AI doesn't have to be horrible. There are alot of constants in the MTW strategy that a computer AI should be scripted for.

Tactical battles aside, they should still be able to perform better on the strategic map, all of these oversights mentioned here don't make the game more challenging, they make it silly at times.

(is a HRE really more challenging if it sits large armies in its east, gaining it nothing, while slowly crumbling from the west? in the end it'll be a pushover, unlike if it used its strength to expand and grow even stronger)

Seriously, everybody's comments here are just the tip of the iceburg... Why couldn't the MTW AI be better designed to use the code prepared for it? we're not talking about AI for a game with user created maps that can confuse it... we're not talking about AI adapting to situations it wasn't prepared for... The game starts the same every time, (options aside), the factions could even be scripted to have a little sense in managing their starting empire... but it seems like they rarely do.

I'm not asking for totally scripted, that would ruin replay... but wtf are these guys doing sometimes, there should either be more scripting, with variables added for replay.... or the AI should simply be retooled over and over until it doesn't get caught in habits that destroy it. (like endless war and failure to respond to threats)...

This is the sorta stuff that I ask for before a game is released though. I certainly don't expect to have to wait for an expansion for it. (maybe I expect too much?)

[querulously]

Was the king in the province where they retreated from , when they should not have ?

[Galestrum]

you can tweek the AI in the campmap > stratpos> folders

this is where you can change numbers of units and positioning of them, starting money, starting buildings, teritories, and...

the faction AI. Now you cannot make it harder or smarter per se, but you can change their overall attitude from say

catholic_crusader_defensive

catholic_crusader_expansionist

or what not

this can change the general interactions of the various changed factions

My personal favorite faction to play is byzantine, so i set up a historical byzantine mod set in 1099, modded territories factions etc etc

for more fun, history, role play and greater degree of difficulty

you can mod these to your own tatse

that being said diplomacy needs far more options, along the lines of master of orion or EU (ive never played it but i hear it is very in depth)

also in both strategic and tactical the AI needs to just make better decisions

another thing id like to see is more civil wars, succession wars and other things that are "unpredictable" to reflect the tougher times a dynasty would really face

[Galestrum]

you dont ask too much, the gaming industry is the only industry where it is accepted that the product is released before it is finished

if i sold an unfinished product in my business you can beleive me i would hear about it from my consumer and be forced to (1) replace it or (2) give their money back

that being said the total war series is one of my fav game series, but that is as much a commentary on their competition as anything

[The Yogi]

I cannot belive that it would not be possible to let the AI balk at the odds at times. Its just a matter counting numbers of troops, factoring in troop quality and set a fear treshold over which the AI will not attack or will accept a peace proposal.

Can this really be so hard?

Thanks for the hint regarding AI behaviour, Galestrum. I've now killed all Christian expansionism in my Mod, but I haven't got much hope, since some usual Kamikaze countries (Poland, Hungary) were already CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE. Might make France a little more reasonable though.

Ideally, the AI would act differently depending on if you hold any of its Glory Goals areas or not, being more agressive if you do, less if you don't - but always tempered by a realistic assesment of its chances!

EU is a magnificent game by the way - the perfect game on the medieval period would use the EU 2 strategic map and rules and the Total War battle engine.


[This message has been edited by The Yogi (edited 10-22-2002).]

[Galestrum]

yogi i think mod changes are only applicable to new campaigns and will not be reflected in your current saved games

[The Yogi]

Sigh, doing a lot of restarting lately.

Thanks, Gaelstrum, I guess I'll have to go back to 1087. Again.

[Papa Bear!]

Quote Originally posted by sidhe:
Galestrum, if you expand it to say the *software industry* is the only industry, you are getting closer. But actually I think many very complex products are not made perfectly the first go around. How many first years of a model run of cars get to be called "classic"? There aren't that many. I think the drugs that get withdrawn are another example. I can recall numerous recalls of various products.

Software is a unique animal in that it can be patched. I don't think I'm going to spin my head around on my shoulders over the quality of the product when first released now that I've seen years of the same ole same ole. I just wait for the final version to be released when I can. Fer instance, I did not touch Cakewalk's Sonar 1.0, but I now have Sonar 2.0 and it's purty good. With games, I am much more likely to go ahead and buy it before final patching because, well, it is a game. You can play it! [/QUOTE]

Drugs are released with FDA approval. Cars with safety standard Approval. They may have "bugs" that are unforseen without mass testing, the kind that only occurs from an actual release of the product, but they are held to standards upon release.

No one holds any standards to game developers before release, (except themselves), and often times I'd say their own standards are compromised by other factors, such as their publisher. (have I ever mentioned that activision has its roots in the devil's playground?)

That said, I think we've all seen issues in MTW that could've been found with even the most modest testing, such as the shoddy AI. But, more than likely, these things have been passed over. Just how much more time would it have taken to make the AI in MTW just a little bire more reasonable? I simply don't know.

But I do feel that things such as blatant AI stupidty can NOT be excused by lack of a broad testing area. they're more likely the result, as mentioned, of somebody sticking it to the consumer. Be that activision for pressuring CA. CA for not really caring. Or the CA AI developers for feeling like they'd done enough to simply make it work for most of us. (which, with the complexities in the game, can be considered a reasonable achievement in itself).

Oh, and I think football games have advanced slowly because their quite obviously cranked out with little interest in development, and a great deal of interest in profits. (how many football games for any given console come out each year? How many unintiated consumers could actually tell them all apart?)

[Galestrum]

i wouldnt make the drug/car analogous to the software industry whatsoever. they arent even remotely comparable imo

IMO the total war series is among the top of the line and yet they still have very serious issues upon release, im not going to even mention some of the garbage that i have wasted my money on

just take a look at the number of things that are being patched, yes i am glad they are fixing them but why on earth would you release something needing that much fixing.

it would be like selling me a car without wheels, seats, a gas tank, and seats and going ill give you the rest in a few months

furthermore my car is under warranty for years, how long do you think most software companies try to patch and improve a game, most dont do much, and id be suprised if we get another patch

they will do what all software companies do...add an expansion, sell it as if its a whole new game and make us pay for something that could be patched

and the reason they do that is because they can...they being the industry at large

anyways im not tryin to make CA the devil or nothing, imo they are pretty good within the industry in my book, my only point is that the bar needs to be raised within the industry

[Galestrum]

heh i am not saying dont make money, heck i have my own biz and i like to make money to, my point was there are certain practices that are more visible in software companies than others

and yes, being in software does NOT preclude you from having those practices, its just that the industry has not been forced by the consumer to adopt them

[TheWay]

SIR, SIR

I THINK THAT FOR THE CONQUERORS' MODE OF SINGLE PLAYER, THE AI IS FINE.

BUT FOR THE GA, THE AI SHOULD BE CHANGED SO THAT INDIVIDUAL FACTIONS MAKE DECISIONS TO WAR MORE REALISTICALLY.

DO YOU THINK SO, SIR SIR?

Sorry, was I shouting? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Did I accidentally bruise the egos of the developers? You poor things.

[Nial Black Knee]

Lots could be better. But we wouldn't be talking about if this wasn't a Kick A game.
Now what was I complaining about.