Battle AI Challenge

[BeeSting]

Have you ever lost a battle? I suck and I find the AI really really easy... It's confused as hell, especially when I am the one attacking; it can't seem to make up its mind on what to do with its line and runs its units to exhaustion, while I'm shooting them to pieces, and it decides to go to hell with its units and just charges my men without firing a single shot, and this is with European armies... how realistic is that? I'm starting to regret buying this game. I don't know about you but I've lost a lot of interest in this game already. What a disappointment.

[pevergreen]

I've been trounced multiple times by this AI.

I'm no green player either, I held off over 2000 Egyptians with 40 chariots, 120 militia and 120 crossbows.

[A Very Super Market]

I've lost battles. To Courland, no less...

And I've also had many close calls, due to my complete disregard for friendly fire avoidance.

[Dayve]

I do love the game, but so far i see no improvement in the AI from Rome or Medieval whatsoever.

In battles i see the AI sending single units charging at my line to be smashed to pieces one by one, just like in previous titles, i see the enemy form a perfect line and look as if they are going to put up a decent resistance only to see them turn and present their entire flank to me as i get within firing range, i see enemy cannons obsessively targeting single unimportant units and continuing to fire at them no matter what happens throughout the battle. An example of this would be enemy cannons firing at a regiment of horse though an entire battle even though i never actually moved them once, just left them on a hill whilst my infantry advanced, fired and overpowered the enemy units in melee.

I've seen units of muskets stand and let me fire volley after volley at them without reacting, stay garrisoned in buildings even though they are the only unit left and are being pounded to death by several units of cannon, deploy their soldiers in the town center of a fort and not defend the walls, letting my soldiers climb up and occupy the walls completely unchallenged.

But worst of all, i frequently see enemies laying siege to my cities on the campaign map with a single unit of line infantry, a single unit of cavalry or a single unit of artillery, despite the fact that the city they just besieged is home to a 15-stack, highly experienced army.

I remember reading some months back that CA have done 10 times more work on the AI in Empire than in any previous Total War game, that they had 10 people working on every aspect of the AI as opposed to previous total war games where they would have 2 people to do every little bit of AI in the game, but i really don't see how they could say that the AI in this title is any better than in Rome or Medieval when it just isn't.

I've lost 1 battle so far, and that was when my 8-unit army of British colonial troops marched into native American tribe forest and got ambushed, charged from both sides and slaughtered in about 30 seconds by the native Americans' superior melee skills. I'm still winning heroic victories with only 1/3 the number of soldiers as my enemy has.

[pevergreen]

To quote M. Bison from street fighter the later years.

"nice work, but why don't you try a harder difficulty next time?"

[knoddy]

To quote M. Bison from street fighter the later years.

"nice work, but why don't you try a harder difficulty next time?"


my thoughts exactly, ive been trounced in several battles by the AI and it is def much improved...

THAT SAID there is bugs, and the ai often seems to get confused about what to do. but that said its still alot better and quite challenging try on H or VH

[BeeSting]

I'm seeing no linear tactics with European armies, the AI just bunches them together and puts them in a firing order and I'm watching them shoot themselves to death.

Never have I seen the AI cleanly line up its men when firing down range... where's the immaculate 18th century European infantry lines?

And, what da hell is an infantry doing chasing down a cav?

:thumbsdown:

[BeeSting]

my thoughts exactly, ive been trounced in several battles by the AI and it is def much improved...

THAT SAID there is bugs, and the ai often seems to get confused about what to do. but that said its still alot better and quite challenging try on H or VH

Only when it sends Cherokee Indians on steroids charging straight down the center of your line with everything it has. And I have to say these savages seem to have been drilled to line up perfectly.

[Quickening]

The AI has kicked my ass several times and I'm playing on Normal/Normal difficulty and I'm not exactly a Total War virgin either. I can't understand people saying the AI is the same as in Rome and Med 2 or worse, it's immaculate by comparison. I love how the battles don't always end in cluster***** to. I'm impressed enourmously by the AI in this game.

[knoddy]

1. the drilled armies of the period come with technology and experience.

2. what difficulty are u playing on, are u playing a campaign or the RTI?

90% of my battles have seen the AI form up good lines and march towards me and opening fire, also flanking with horse/cammel.

the 10% which havnt have usually been cos they were outnumbered and i was the one advancing their lines OR the few battles which i can clearly see the AI having issues with what it should do (usually involving cover and temporary defences)

[DEY123]

Playing on H/H I find the AI to sometimes play well and sometimes not well. In all I find it much more difficult then RTW or M2TW where it was always awful and outragously easy to out flank them and get their entire army to rout.

There are times where they bunch but other times they have managed to overwhelm one side of my spread out line and then rout me...I have yet to see them beat me even on odds, but if I have less units then my enemy it is about a toss up.

On the startegy side they seem to send annoying small groups of guys, but this actually caused me some big problems. apperently your units can't refill tehir ranks if they take part in battle that turn so I was getting slowly weakened by the stream of a few units at a time...


An example of smart startegy AI was when fighting bavaria and Austria I was constantly fighting small numbers of Bavarians who were coming over the border. I got tired of this so I sent my army into Bavaria to raid their towns. The Bavarian army came out and crushed my half stack army with a full stack and the following turn the Austrians overwhelemd my now deplted defenses.

[NimitsTexan]

Maybe its because I tend to play slightly more passivle with musket troops, but I have noticed that the AI fairly consistently looks to outflank or bypass strong defensive positions. It's attacks also seem acceptably coordianted. Some times one or two units will go in by themselves, but it appears in many cases to be a probing or "fixing" attack, while the AI's main force attacks a waker portion of your line. I have won all but one of the major battles I've fought against European armies, but then I have generally been facing armies with a significant portion of militia-type troops, and for the most part I seem to have equal or better tech. I have been trounced a couple of times by the "native" armies in North America, even by the Pirates on Antigua.

[Dayve]

For all those that asked, i'm on VH/H difficulty, and there's another thing, i see no differnce of the campaign AI from normal to VH, i think that setting may be broken.

I've tried VH battles but the AI is still unbelievably stupid, but i'm convinced they get stat bonuses on VH, because i've had 1 pirate ship with 2 hull strength take out 4 of my own ships which had 4, 3 and 2 hull strength, 2 of which had more guns than the pirate ship did and one of which had more firepower than the pirate ship.

[BeeSting]

Maybe its because I tend to play slightly more passivle with musket troops, but I have noticed that the AI fairly consistently looks to outflank or bypass strong defensive positions. It's attacks also seem acceptably coordianted. Some times one or two units will go in by themselves, but it appears in many cases to be a probing or "fixing" attack, while the AI's main force attacks a waker portion of your line. I have won all but one of the major battles I've fought against European armies, but then I have generally been facing armies with a significant portion of militia-type troops, and for the most part I seem to have equal or better tech. I have been trounced a couple of times by the "native" armies in North America, even by the Pirates on Antigua.

You should experiment with being more aggressive and see how stupid the AI reacts.

[BeeSting]

Here's a visual.... I can't tell you how many times below AI units (Savoy) shuffled back and forth wearing themselves out ~:dizzy: while my guys are having a hay day target shooting.

https://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3408/44052357.jpg


This happens 90% of time when I'm on the attack. Am I asking too much as a consumer to want a polished product?

[Namarie22]

I find the AI to be quirky.

Most of the time it's unable to do anything much, then in other battles, it really does do well, flanks, has troops hidden in forests, managed to defend well...

Last battle last night was one of those "Oh, shit!" battles. I had a weak right because I placed all my cannons there, were tired and wanted to go to bed. The AI ran around a forest with 4 cavs and took the cannons out, retreated because I weren't fast enough, then it came on with line men on the right and charged back with the cav.. And through the forest on my right side came 3 units of pikemen marching in tight formation...

SMUSH! I lost 1200 men.. :P

It will probarly pay for that today though, but, for some reason, I guess the AI mainly gets stuck in loops somehow, but when it does work, it's actually pretty damn fun.

[ZIM!!]

yeah that bunching happens to me as well. for $60.00 I think they shouldve seen that in the test phase

[Dogfish]

I spent four years working in QA at a decent sized publisher.

After playing Empire for probably over 6 hours a day since release, I can safely say that the game would not of been allowed to ship in it's present state had the company I worked for been the publisher.

I haven't had any crashes or CTDs (which alot of people have had, apparently), but the AI is not improved from what I can tell. AI random shuffling around while I am killing them for an entire battle. My artillery and linemen NOT firing because it takes them 30 seconds to face target. Random glitches and hangs. Campaign AI being passive. Some features have also taken steps backward, such as the reinforcement system, and how the battlefield is determined by the positioning on the campaign map (no more bridge chokepoints? enemy appears behind me relative to where the stacks were on campaign map?). Naval pathfinding is atrocious, especially groups. Also you can't change the sail/speed of grouped ships.

This is all on VH/VH. Methinks I might of overhyped ETW, but I do have some hope that much of this stuff will be addressed via patch... hopefully this week.

[BeeSting]

I spent four years working in QA at a decent sized publisher.

After playing Empire for probably over 6 hours a day since release, I can safely say that the game would not of been allowed to ship in it's present state had the company I worked for been the publisher.

I haven't had any crashes or CTDs (which alot of people have had, apparently), but the AI is not improved from what I can tell. AI random shuffling around while I am killing them for an entire battle. My artillery and linemen NOT firing because it takes them 30 seconds to face target. Random glitches and hangs. Campaign AI being passive. Some features have also taken steps backward, such as the reinforcement system, and how the battlefield is determined by the positioning on the campaign map (no more bridge chokepoints? enemy appears behind me relative to where the stacks were on campaign map?). Naval pathfinding is atrocious, especially groups. Also you can't change the sail/speed of grouped ships.

This is all on VH/VH. Methinks I might of overhyped ETW, but I do have some hope that much of this stuff will be addressed via patch... hopefully this week.

I've always had lots of respect for CA's QA department.

[Sir Beane]

I spent four years working in QA at a decent sized publisher.

After playing Empire for probably over 6 hours a day since release, I can safely say that the game would not of been allowed to ship in it's present state had the company I worked for been the publisher.

I haven't had any crashes or CTDs (which alot of people have had, apparently), but the AI is not improved from what I can tell. AI random shuffling around while I am killing them for an entire battle. My artillery and linemen NOT firing because it takes them 30 seconds to face target. Random glitches and hangs. Campaign AI being passive. Some features have also taken steps backward, such as the reinforcement system, and how the battlefield is determined by the positioning on the campaign map (no more bridge chokepoints? enemy appears behind me relative to where the stacks were on campaign map?). Naval pathfinding is atrocious, especially groups. Also you can't change the sail/speed of grouped ships.

This is all on VH/VH. Methinks I might of overhyped ETW, but I do have some hope that much of this stuff will be addressed via patch... hopefully this week.

Your company is definitely in the minority of publishers then. I've seen plenty of games on the market that have far more bugs than ETW. Releasing unfinished or buggy games is what the PC market is all about these days :shame:.

[Polemists]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

[ArtillerySmoke]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

Exactly. It's about progress, and ETW definitely makes it.

What strategy game out there right now is as good as this? Dawn of War 2 is broken beyond belief (MP is unplayable...period) and there are kiddies drooling all over it left and right.

Empire is fine. It's in as good of a state, if not better, as any other title out there. For a launch? This is pretty amazing.

[Dogfish]

Yes, there are lots of games with more problems at release.

But it's not that ETW has tons of bugs, it doesn't. I haven't had one single crash or showstopping error. It's just there are several glaringly obvious bugs/omissions/"features", that, while minor, substantially affect gameplay. Like the passive AI and lack of naval invasions. Sometimes the small but glaringly obvious things like that are worse than crashes.

Crashes can occur due to obscure combinations of hardware that are impossible to fully account for when compatibility testing. I can understand any game having those kinds of problems at release. Same with memory leaks. Those things are tough to track down sometimes.

But with the passive AI and naval invasions, it feels like no playtester played through several campaigns, trying different things. Or they just made sure it "worked" and didn't care if it worked well.

Did no playtester play a campaign as GB and realize they could have no defenses at all, not a single unit, yet never be under threat? Or, relatedly, that the AI doesn't ever do naval transport? I can't understand how that would get through testing, or alternatively how it is considered acceptable AI.

Couple that with some features that looked to of taken several steps backwards, such as no blood or mud, pre-battle general speeches, drummers and other atmosphere in battles, the reinforcements system, fields of battle not being based on the campaign map... and a picture develops whereby the engine might of been a major improvement technically (graphics, campaign map, steamlined management), in other areas it's an unexpected and disappointing retreat from well-received features present in earlier iterations in the series (Like how can they leave out blood and mud? And general speeches were, to me, a signature element of the personality of the series).

My only hope is that CA recognizes alot of these omissions, and wanted to have them at launch, but will be pushing them out shortly in via patches. But if some of these things were intentional steps backwards, then I don't know what to say, other than I'm looking forward to mods, and that I am not a guaranteed customer in the future as I have been in the past.

[Dogfish]

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.


I don't know if most games have crappier AI. Some, yes. If comparing to other major title releases, I would downgrade that to "very few". Sins of a Solar Empire and Company of Heroes come to mind as recent games I've bought and played substantially (I'm not the prolific game I used to be). Neither of those games had complex AI, but at least it was functional all the time.

ETW is the only major strategy game where I've seen the AI get stuck in loops like this, like when there were 6 Huron units that spontaneously decided to have what looked to be a large group raindance in the middle of a U formed by 6 of my line infantry. The AI didn't ever attack, just kept running it's units in large circles while my troops decimated them. Or the campaign AI that was at war with me, and instead of taking it's full stack and taking Rupert's Land, defended by a whole militia unit a one hessian line infantry, it ransacked my fur trader and then retreated back into it's territory. I understand the "subtle economic warfare" this approach yields, but it should've gone for the kill shot (and yes this is on VH/VH).

On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give ETA a 3 or 4. I honestly believe I could program better AI for CA than this (I am a programmer, not just pulling that out of my rear).

[Galain_Ironhide]

It seems despite the wishes of CA's fans to not release the game until it was finished fell on deaf ears.

I don't know how many orgahs and other people from other forums pleaded for this.

Perhaps it is business strategy, maybe they don't use game testers, they wait on the paying public to pick up the bugs and report them, then have some guy go through and fix it. Much cheaper that way. :clown:

[Rufus]

I haven't played E:TW as much as a lot of other people so far - maybe 10 hours so far, and several turns into Episode 3 of RTI (hard setting on battles) - but my general impression is the AI is better in campaign and battles than Medieval 2 and Rome. In all but a couple of cases, in contrast to Medieval 2, the AI has not attacked my army piecemeal in battles; sometimes it does send one unit forward, but it's usually a light cavalry unit likely intended to scout. In contrast to Rome, where the general would recklessly plunge forward way ahead of the rest of his army to attack my army by himself, the AI generally tries to protect its general. Also in contrast to Rome, the AI has not neglected to consolidate its stacks on the campaign map and hasn't seemed overly passive relative to the difficulty level (which I assume on RTI is normal - can't seem to change that). It has made reasonably good decisions in diplomatic negotiations: I offered France military access for an alliance in turn 1 of the Revolutionary War, and they said no, but once I captured another region and won some battles, they agreed but still required more than military access to seal the deal.

A bigger picture point: If the AI is more passive on the campaign map than in other games, is it possible that was intentional to stay true to the time period, which was bloody but more orderly and diplomatic than ancient or medieval times?

[Namarie22]

Though, comparing the AI to previous games, other games is rather moot.

CA flaunted this games AI to be the best around.. and frankly, it's a sequel, so that usually means progress, not a step back.. So, I'm glad that it's not a total disaster, but imho, there is alot of room for improvement on the AI.

[Cecil XIX]

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about.

I don't know if it's possible to find something that *no none* complains about, but I think most people here will agree that Shogun and Medieval I had better AI.

[DisruptorX]

If I remember correctly, its not so much that the medieval AI was amazing, it just simply wouldn't do glaringly stupid things like sit around and wait to die in the RTS portion, or send its units at you one by one.

MTW 1 had the same problem with Passive AI once you fortified your borders, though. They would never assault unless they had a large numerical advantage. Sometimes, of course, this wasn't a problem for them. I remember back in my novice days as the Almohads and picking a fight with the Egyptians. Turned out that words like "finite" didn't apply to their armies. =(

[Dayve]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

Cossacks had better AI than this... a game well over a decade old i believe.

[BeeSting]

I think ETW is the most unpolished of CA releases. CA should've hired me as their beta testers, seriously...

[DisruptorX]

I think ETW is the most unpolished of CA releases. CA should've hired me as their beta testers, seriously...

I seem to remember MTW 1 crashing to desktop constantly. Rome was a disaster, and MTW 2 had issues too.

Empire technically runs very well for me, and many of the complaints are things we've seen before.

[BeeSting]

^

lol

OK, all the more reasons to make a change from that trend and hire TW vets on as their beta testers.

[Ordani]

I don't know if it's possible to find something that *no none* complains about, but I think most people here will agree that Shogun and Medieval I had better AI.

The Shogun AI was fantastic -- probably as a result of the simpler unit mix and the less complex playing fields, and while it had its aberrant behaviors, benefited greatly from its simplicity while still having a good repertoire of tactics.

Overall the ETW RT AI is decent -- it generally does something reasonably sound in principle, but often aberrant in details. It's always trying to flank you and take out single units or artillery with cavalry, but will periodically fail in facepalm fashion by sending EVERY unit it has, alone, in series, around to try and flank your cannon.

It also weights holding buildings in towns or fences far too highly, and yet rarely positions anything to support those fortified units, so you end up with single units defending "high value" points on the map with the rest of the army miles away. You can almost see the decision tree actioning as it steps through, then runs out of known-good choices on a per unit basis, and throws everything else into a column and tries to smash your weakest unit in the line.

You have to give some leeway the more complex the permutations of a game are. It's easy to make a challenging AI for Chess or Risk or Go, because you can exhaustively search predictive move sets based on current board set for each turn. That is not algorithmically possible in a game like ETW in which there are astronomical, as in, more atoms than available for a quantum computer the size of the planet, numbers of possible action variations over the course of a real-time event series. I am pleased that the AI will surprise me from time to time; those are the battles I enjoy the most and remember well after I've put the game aside, when I had to come up with a clever adaption to the unexpected and barely pulled a win out of it, and that's why I continue to play TW titles.

[AussieGiant]

I think everyone needs to be aware that AI comparisons to older titles such as STW and MTW is not even apples to apples.

It's like comparing an apple to a genetically modified 400 kilo cumquat.

Or

"I'm unhappy with my Audi RS4 450 horse power, quattro driven, 20 inch wheel car, because my 1960 Oldmobile had an engine I could repair myself."

[Hollerbach]

Errm, why? Just because the eye candy is updated is no excuse for regression of the AI. The TW series is almost a decade old and the progress that would be been good to have on the behaviour of the AI in battle just hasn't happened. Maybe they are trying to be too clever, the biggest problem is indecision (this occured in MTW,M2TW and RTW as well) where the AI sees no good option do just sits there, or shuffles backwards and forwards aimlessly. In this situation even a straight forward frontal assault would be preferable (or as pointed out an ordered retreat). There just needs to be more failsafes in the AI behaviour, to prevent the really quirky behaviour that ruins a battle (and can't even be fixed by intentially playing weak...).

[AussieGiant]

Why...because the level of complexity is not even comparable, in any sense.

You simply can't compare the level of diplomatic programming in ETW to STW. It's not even close.

Likewise, the Strategic AI or Battle AI are worlds apart now from what they were in STW or MTW.

Therefore to say that STW Strategic AI is the same as ETW Strategic AI and therefore now we can begin to compare is absolutely not possible.

Please note I'm never going to reference eye candy i.e. graphics in this discussion, even though battle mechanics are again technically poles apart when you compare STW as 2D sprites with 3D animation.

In relation to your comment I think it would be more accurate to say that the development and progression we have seen from STW to ETW in complexity has not been mirrored by an AI that has followed the same level of development.

What difficulty are you playing on?

[5Hits]

Well now… I lost naval battles… many… but haven’t lost any land battles… till yesterday…
I was fighting as Russia a Georgian army. The AI had 6 or 7 infantry units, 5 cavalry units and the general. I had 7 infantry units, 3 cavalry units and the general. I was very confident in winning, even though the auto-resolve resulted in me being defeated.

This is what happened:
At the beginning of the battle the AI split his army in two.
The infantry occupied defensive position next to some stone walls and wooden fences, but did not form a line. Actually, they were relatively scattered, hiding behind walls and fences.
The cavalry units formed a line to the far right of the map.
I’ve decided to pick one by one their infantry units using 4 infantry units and 1 cavalry unit. The rest of my army would protect my right side from a cavalry attack.
Said and done… one by one the AI infantry were routed, until only 2 remained… They were in a good defensive position behind a stone wall. When I engaged them with 4 infantry and one cavalry, all hell broke loose. Their cavalry charged head-on my 3 flanking infantry units (which were in a single line), with 2 of their cavalry units going around for a flank attack. I’ve sent the 2 backup cavalry units to meet them. I’ve managed to stop the flanking action, but when my infantry started to waver, I was forced to send in my general. Meanwhile, the 2 AI infantry units would not budge, even if they were in a melee, attacked from every side (even by 1 cavalry unit). I was hoping they would route soon so I could send help to my wavering units in melee with the AI cavalry. The AI general went by the melee (my infantry vs AI cavalry) and charged in the flank of the units trying to eliminate the AI 2 remaining infantry units. Just about then my general died. Fighting continued for another 20-30 seconds and then, one by one my units started to broke and flee.

So I lost a battle I was certain to win (especially after routing 4 or 5 of the AI infantry without suffering serious losses). :yes:
I was playing on H/H and did not have square formation.

[Lord of the Isles]

Why...because the level of complexity is not even comparable, in any sense.

You simply can't compare the level of diplomatic programming in ETW to STW. It's not even close.

Likewise, the Strategic AI or Battle AI are worlds apart now from what they were in STW or MTW.

Therefore to say that STW Strategic AI is the same as ETW Strategic AI and therefore now we can begin to compare is absolutely not possible.

Please note I'm never going to reference eye candy i.e. graphics in this discussion, even though battle mechanics are again technically poles apart when you compare STW as 2D sprites with 3D animation.

In relation to your comment I think it would be more accurate to say that the development and progression we have seen from STW to ETW in complexity has not been mirrored by an AI that has followed the same level of development.

What difficulty are you playing on?

The thread title is Battle AI Challenge - I think everyone else is talking about that, so I'm not sure where Diplomacy or Campaign map AI is relevant (though I'm happy to say that I agree that the change from 2D to 3D campaign maps really made the campaign AI much much harder to do).

But for the Battle AI, I cannot see how the move from Shogun -> ... -> ETW has introduced huge extra layers of complexity. We have units, we have a battlefield, we have an enemy. We can move, attempt to engage, fire projectiles, defend, support, flank. We have cavalry, artillery, infantry (some melee, some missile). Ok, the battlefields have got bigger and we have sieges now, but aside from that I'm struggling to identify what strange new things have made Battle AI such a different beast.

You'll need to do better than say it can't be compared. Why can't it be compared?

[BeeSting]

I have to admit, AI on the offensive is impressive compared to previous releases. It's the defensive AI that's really quirky and needs fixing. friendly fire issue still exists for the AI and if CA could just fix this then we would have that much harder time beating it.

[Shadow_Wolf33]

Did I buy a different game than the people complaining? I'm finding the battle AI to be absolutely FANTASTIC as far as intelligence goes. When the AI is attacking, they actually put forth a very good effort in attacking my lines and going after weak points. They FREQUENTLY try to flank my lines with cavalry forces (and have actually made me paranoid to the point that I've got one eye permanently glued to the mini-map to watch for flanking forces). I don't seem to run into that shuffle issue that other people are complaining about when they're on the offense, and I'd personally love it if they did that, as it would let my cannons rain havok on the battlefield a bit better.

Even on the defensive I find the ETW AI to be VASTLY superior to previous releases. I remember one of my old favorite tactics when on the assault would be to pummel the enemy forces with artillery as much as possible before the charge. If I try to do that now? They form up a battle line and come after me, and more or less go into attack mode. This is on freaking EASY difficulty no less, which I like to play on cause well...I'm a sore loser and I get more enjoyment out of being unstoppable. :charge:


As far as comparing campaign AI to the old MTW/STW days goes, that was a whole different beast. Moving armies around in that game was done with Risk style pieces on a fairly simplistic map, and programming AI for that is a LOT easier than programming AI for a campaign map as complex as the E:TW one. There is a LOT more logic involved in attacking E:TW provinces than there used to be for MTW/STW, as back then it was just "make armies, conquer weakly defended province" and there's your game. E:TW has all sorts of other variables to consider like economic warfare, siege battles, unit compositions, and advanced tactics that might be subtle to the point that they're hard to notice, like slowly whittling down your forces, and drawing them out for a sneak attack. I do admit the campaign aggressiveness could be turned up a little bit, and the lack of naval invasions is a bit wonky, but other than that I think they did a very good job.

Also someone mentioned the AI for Sins of a Solar Empire earlier? I played that game extensively when it was first released, and I found the AI in that game to be cowardly at best. At release, it was damn near impossible to get a decent fleet battle from them as if they lost 2 or 3 ships they would run like a whipped dog, and avoid conflict as much as possible unless they had your fleet WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY outgunned. I was able to conquer the map in that game more or less just from going planet to planet nuking them, getting more fight from their defensive emplacements than from their actual FLEETS. Now with the Entrenchment mini-expansion released, their AI has been beefed up a LOT and can actually put up a decent fight. That took quite a while to patch in and get up to par.

Maybe I should get back to work now... :laugh4:

[Reddington]

I really think that it wouldn't be hard for CA to give the AI, specific army designs and specific tactics to use when certain conditions of its armies were met.

As an example, when the AI makes an offensive army after going to war it should be able to make a plan on any terrain on how best to use that army. If it has an army of 5 infantry units, 3 cavalry units, and 2 artillery units it should place them on the best terrain it can find (the highest hill, hide behind a hill if the player's army has cannons and they don't, etc.) Then put their army into a set design, such as a line of infantry with cavalry on the flanks protecting the cannons' flanks and cannons behind the infantry lines.

What I've seen time and time again with this AI is just stupid desicion making when preparing their position on the battlefield. They ignore stone walls and defend open fields with less units. They also seem to abandon any defensive plans once my troops get near them. They will break up their lines, and move their army forward usually one unit at a time.

With the problems the Battle AI has I am at least happy that the AI no longer spends 10 minutes running from my larger army. So many times in MTW they would abandon the highest position on the battlefield when I approached and moved to a lower point in the map so I could attack them from above.

The AI has to be able to find a good (not necessarily best) position on the battlefield and dictate a coordinated defense/assualt based upon the composition of your army and their army. The AI just keep changing its minds when I move my troops.

[AussieGiant]

The thread title is Battle AI Challenge - I think everyone else is talking about that, so I'm not sure where Diplomacy or Campaign map AI is relevant (though I'm happy to say that I agree that the change from 2D to 3D campaign maps really made the campaign AI much much harder to do).

But for the Battle AI, I cannot see how the move from Shogun -> ... -> ETW has introduced huge extra layers of complexity. We have units, we have a battlefield, we have an enemy. We can move, attempt to engage, fire projectiles, defend, support, flank. We have cavalry, artillery, infantry (some melee, some missile). Ok, the battlefields have got bigger and we have sieges now, but aside from that I'm struggling to identify what strange new things have made Battle AI such a different beast.

You'll need to do better than say it can't be compared. Why can't it be compared?

Hi Lord of the Isles,

Ok if we isolate the discussion to Battle AI then again it is not comparable IMO.

The graphics engine must now be discussed as the move from 2D Sprites to 3D figures is important. Facing, physics and tactics have all changed from STW to ETW.

While in principle I see your point, the level of sophistication and development are miles apart. I certainly don't pretend to know all the details but I've seen a few detailed discussions from CA reps on the battle AI here on this site, and it's a real eye opener when you see the detail they have to take into account. This includes the fairly straight forward and well balanced STW battle AI and unit management.

Likewise, and from a macro perspective I always like to keep in mind, the following...if CA could actually develop an AI that is close to human levels of skill on a battle map, do you think they would be making a game?

It would be patented and be use in far more lucrative areas of the world economy...and that would happen in about the same time it would take to write this.

So, while it is nearly the most important part of the game, as far as I'm concerned, this is an area of coding that even multi national and military industries are trying to perfect and that should be considered when talking about this subject.

[Vlad Tzepes]

The Shogun AI was fantastic -- probably as a result of the simpler unit mix and the less complex playing fields, and while it had its aberrant behaviors, benefited greatly from its simplicity while still having a good repertoire of tactics. [...]

You have to give some leeway the more complex the permutations of a game are. It's easy to make a challenging AI for Chess or Risk or Go, because you can exhaustively search predictive move sets based on current board set for each turn. That is not algorithmically possible in a game like ETW in which there are astronomical, as in, more atoms than available for a quantum computer the size of the planet, numbers of possible action variations over the course of a real-time event series.

I totally agree with you, Ordani. You cannot expect from the AI human intelligence or ability to learn in a game such as ETW.

On the other hand, playing on higher difficulty settings against equivalent or superior AI (in numbers and, if possible in technology) really gives you a challenge.

I'm a vet TW and have played all titles since Shogun (Shogun still is my favorite, but maybe just because everything was so new). What I can notice in ETW is the AI is much more mobile on the battlefield. It will always try to exploit weaknesses in your line. Of course, if you absolutely outnumber or dominate it doesn't stand much of a chance, but this is no surprise. Try equal or give the AI some advantage and it will be a better battle.

[loony]

I have noticed that the AI:
a) does a crappy job in dealing with artillery. either charged cavalry straight into my line and gets whacked or keeps running around while I shell his army.
b) is very very bad at taking cover, sometimes (when I am doing the encircling maneouver) taking cover ON THE WRONG SIDE!!!
c) is an idiot on campaign map; neither attacking nor defending with enough troops (despite having them ready and available). That way a single army is able to defeat numerous stacks because all of them come separately in 2 turn intervals
d) is a total idiot in sieges, because he does not garrison the buildings inside the fort. so I do it. and then 2 of my units killl half of his army shoot out of the windows. once I attacked a decent fort, entered with cavalry, to draw the defenders away from the holes in the walls. then garrisoned the infantry. Killed half the army but was out of ammo. So I charged one unit of those two and entered 2 other militias into the same buildings while retreating with the first two.

What the AI does wel is
a) time shots
b) flank fixed positions of infantry
c) find and attack your general (doh!)
b) generally a good job if his army is composed of melee troops mostly. It is also simple - charges with melee and then with cavalry. if there are no chokepoints, my infatry suffer losses as well


I think most improvements are needed not in Battle AI (too hard to make the Battle AI normal), but in campaign AI, so that when at war, the computer would use all of its strategic tools!

[crpcarrot]

i ahvent played that long but have a a qrond 10 battles but they have all been quite large ones minmum of 10 units a side, and i havent yet seen the peicemenal attack. in all cases the AI has either come at me with all its forces. or quite a large protion of it. in some cases its kept reserves hidden which really did suprise me the first time and ended up losing the battle. its protects its general, its tried to take out my general when possible in one case it had 4 units of light cavalry right at my general cos he was staning in a gap of the front line. its send light cavalry way round the flank to get at my arty. they went so far i forgot them till they were too close to my arty, the AI have sent one or two units at a time but as soon as i engage them it has reacted to the situation by flanking and even suding units behind cover when my units engage. ive only won a batle where i am outnumberes when the ai was seriously lacing in quality. if the ai had proper quality troops and theu outneumberes be i have only barely survived or lost. i dont say i am an expert and it took me a while to figure out how to use firearms. standing aroudn shooting was really going against my TW instincts. but i'm getting better and i havent seen the AI do anything really stupid yet. theyve been forced to do stupid stuff but i would like to think thats becasue of my monuevering abilty ratehr than me just stainding around and the AI walking into their deaths.

it would be interesting to see if the people who are complaining are what i like to call power players. they basically try to exploit the game in anyway posisble and trick the AI. i dont think the AI will ever be able to cope with that. also the difficulty seems to make a difference so maybe that is a factor to consider. i ahvent yet had a seige battle so cannot comment on that. and i have only played the grand campaign

[Bob the Insane]

I do agree that the nature of the battlefields rendered in the game now is far more complex than in earlier versions and that will cause the AI problems. Buildings (both garrisonable and simple obsticles), fences, walls, wooded areas, high ground, impassible cliffs, ground type (mud, grass, etc).

In STW there was High Ground and Wooded Areas...

However, if you chose a simple map and equitable custom battle on pretty flat terrain then complexity of the battlefield should not a large factor. Following this we do still see the Battle AI doing odd things.

Of course the units are more complex, both in their capabilities and in their extra abilities, which would mean different activities based on whether a particular feature is available to a given unit at that time.

I think it is fair to say that the complexity of the Battle AI has not kept up with the complexity of the battlefield and unit capabilities in the game series.

[BeeSting]

Here's the Battle AI use of walls. Um, facing the wrong way?
https://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6591/wrongway.jpg

* below two circles indicate former positions of two AI units that were facing each other.... they were routed.

[BeeSting]

I do agree that the nature of the battlefields rendered in the game now is far more complex than in earlier versions and that will cause the AI problems. Buildings (both garrisonable and simple obsticles), fences, walls, wooded areas, high ground, impassible cliffs, ground type (mud, grass, etc).

In STW there was High Ground and Wooded Areas...

However, if you chose a simple map and equitable custom battle on pretty flat terrain then complexity of the battlefield should not a large factor. Following this we do still see the Battle AI doing odd things.

Of course the units are more complex, both in their capabilities and in their extra abilities, which would mean different activities based on whether a particular feature is available to a given unit at that time.

I think it is fair to say that the complexity of the Battle AI has not kept up with the complexity of the battlefield and unit capabilities in the game series.

Agreed, the battle system is now more complex.

On a flat terrain, the AI bunches up its units inflicting a lot of damage on itself with friendly fire. I have yet to see it use a clean line, not even with the European armies.

[rocketjager]

I’ve been beaten by the Ai, several times in fact. Even when I win I often take heavier casualties than my RTW/m2TW average. What disappoints me most is the AI's inability to even come at me in a straight line. Is it really that hard to program? Here is a visual illustration of what happens virtually every time I fight a field battle (this was on expert, although the Ai is this retarded on every difficulty level) It also really sucks when instead of trying to exchange volleys the AI merely charges in melee at the first opportunity, or charges its cavalry into my lines piecemeal (which they do every time)


The AI marched its line infantry toward my own line in fairly good order, but instead of closing to range and opening fire, it wheeled to its right and presented its flanks to my men at point blank range as it shuffled in confusion. Ive seen the RTW AI do better with NTW2 on custom battles without scripting. It is pathetic.
https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c255/rocketjager/wtfai.jpg

[BeeSting]

^
Speaking of...AI was being pretty creative today, look at the following Tic-Tac-Toe formation:

https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5269/crossings.jpg

*Helped me out a bit since it caused a lot of friendly fire casualties. I was up against 2.5 stacks.

[rocketjager]

^
Speaking of...AI was being pretty creative today, look at the following Tic-Tac-Toe formation:

*Helped me out a bit since it caused a lot of friendly fire casualties. I was up against 2.5 stacks.

You have to laugh when you see this happen, its better than crying.

[NimitsTexan]

Anyone ever done any experimentation with time limits, to see if they slightly improve tactical AI quality? I know in the old Close Combat series, it was recommended that players play with time limited battles (15 min, I think, in that case), as the time limits tended to "focus" the AI on the task at hand.

[Ardri]

I'd be interested to see if the time limits actually have an affect on the AI of the computer. On another note, I've had 2 battles involving towns where 1 unit of the computer routes in the town and gets stuck so every single unit of the AI freezes in place (units from reinforcing stacks as well as original stack units). Until the 1 stuck unit gets itself free to route away the AI just doesn't move. Field battles seem fine and I really enjoy them, but toss a town in there and it turns into a mess.