Defensive battle AI non-existent?

[Slaists]

This seems like something that could be easily fixable since CA has had better AI behavior in similar situations in older games.

It seems, with ETW CA has repeated their game breaking anti-passive battle AI "fix" that was introduced with MTW2. In ETW, a defending AI would ALWAYS (disregarding any odds) attack (come to the player) rather than fortifying and defending and advantageous position... What's worse, a defending AI would open the battle with a set up, fortified position (artillery dug in, stakes set up, etc.) and then... proceed attacking the attacker piecemeal :wall:. Come on... even MTW1 battle AI "knew" how to hold a good defensive position so, the 'programming knowledge' was already there. Why was it lost?

The usual early-game AI "defense" scenario timeline:

1. AI enters the battle with a good fortified(!) defensive/defensible position.

2. The 'attacker' player enters the battle with a defensive line set up on the opposite side of the map

3. The fixed artillery both sides field at the time cannot reach the other side's lines, so, for now it's 'out of the game'

4. AI sacrifices it's cavalry charging the player's artillery head on.

5. AI sacrifices some more of it's cavalry flanking the player's position and running into player's reserves.

6. AI throws it's line infantry (or any infantry it has) at the player's artillery piecemeal.

7. AI's infantry is routed as they approach the player's line and are outgunned and outnumbered.

8. AI is left with it's general's unit + maybe some unit hiding behind a fence + it's artillery.

9. A small flanking force destroys the remnants of the AI's army.

Note, since the beginning game artillery is fixed, the players' artillery did not represent ANY threat to the AI as long as it kept it's own defensive position. I could understand there was some logic behind the sacrificial attacks if the artillery was movable. Even then, the AI usually does not wait for the player to start moving the artillery closer: it just charges right away...

Rinse, repeat, every time I attack...

:wall:

p.s. and what's up with the Kamikaze cavalry? It doesn't seem neither historic nor tactical to sacrifice the most valuable units outright...

[IRONxMortlock]

I agree, it's shocking on defence. Strangely though, when the AI has attacked me or intercepted me on occasion (very occasionally!) they have sized up my position and obviously calculated an attack is suicide. Then they just sit back and I'm forced to go on the offensive to end the encounter.

[NimitsTexan]

The aggressive AI does, in fact, make battles on the whole more challenging . . . in as much as their headlong rushes can prevent the human player from developing an elaborate attack and instead makine fight on the AI's "level."

That said, it would be nice if the AI, when it is attacked, particularly by superior numbers, would understand that sometimes it is in its best interest to recieve an attack.

[antisocialmunky]

Reinforcements are so screwed up from RTW or MTW that you can't really leverage superior numbers when EVERYONE has full stacks.

[nafod]

Indeed try Invading India. Absent attacking the Portugaul. You will get smacked by two or three stacks. The stupidity of the reinforcement situation really hits home at this time.

Almost to the point that if they don't fix it.....

[Khorak]

I haven't had this and I only play on normal. On the defense the enemy only come and get me if I'm hilariously outnumbered AND their army has a half decent core of real units instead of militia and citizenry. They refuse to give battle otherwise and will simply wait me out, a tactic rather more lethal for me since I play without a battle timer; the game will literally wait until I, personally, die.

Six units of 24-pounder howitzers though, that wakes them up. Doesn't leave them much choice but to attack.....

[Dead Guy]

If they don't come to you right away while on the defensive, you can easily make them by threatening with cavalry and then drawing it back to artillery range. Then the piecemeal suicide attacks start.

[SpiritFox]

If they're crouched behind a wall, they won't move even if under artillery fire.

[Khorak]

If they don't come to you right away while on the defensive, you can easily make them by threatening with cavalry and then drawing it back to artillery range. Then the piecemeal suicide attacks start.

And they've never attacked me piecemeal, every time my entire line gets heavily pressed. I often have a few units that have taken 50% casualties unavoidably just because of the weight of fire they have put on them as I squash the enemy flanks and roll up their line.

[Liberator]

I have often seen about 50% of the Ai defending forces attacking immediately, while the rest took cover behind walls, so my artillery sized them down until they flew

[antisocialmunky]

And they've never attacked me piecemeal, every time my entire line gets heavily pressed. I often have a few units that have taken 50% casualties unavoidably just because of the weight of fire they have put on them as I squash the enemy flanks and roll up their line.

I've seen it happen both ways. More piecemeel attacks if they are on the defensive though.

[Relic]

In my case they just hide units of peasants in buildings and don't flee when the cannons come crashing down.

[Slaists]

I agree, it's shocking on defence. Strangely though, when the AI has attacked me or intercepted me on occasion (very occasionally!) they have sized up my position and obviously calculated an attack is suicide. Then they just sit back and I'm forced to go on the offensive to end the encounter.

I believe, the 'interception' logic is broken too. If I intercept (while sitting in a fort, for example), I get to defend for some reason... So, in your case, the AI might have 'figured' the same. If it intercepts You, it gets to 'defend'.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I have to concur.
The attacking AI might not be a genius, but at least it tries. It might not be intelligent but it fakes being intelligent well enough.
But the The defensive AI is woeful. It has no concept of force preservation, mutual support, coordination or favourable placement. Watching the defensive AI go through the motions is just a torment for any capable tactician.

[Slaists]

I have to concur.
The attacking AI might not be a genius, but at least it tries. It might not be intelligent but it fakes being intelligent well enough.
But the The defensive AI is woeful. It has no concept of force preservation, mutual support, coordination or favourable placement. Watching the defensive AI go through the motions is just a torment for any capable tactician.

The saddest part (for me) is that CA already HAD reasonable defensive AI in place in MTW 1... If the AI had a balanced army and was holding a hill: it took quite some doing to dislodge it form there. At times, it was even impossible, so the player was forced to attack uphill while being peppered with arrows.

RTW was worse, MTW II was terrible and ETW, at least for now, seems even worse in this regard.

[NimitsTexan]

MTW used a different and simpler engine than ETW. The more limited the game, the (generally) easier it is to program the AI. Comparing MTW and ETW AI is not really useful.

As for M2TW and RTW, I find the ETW battles overall more challenging; I believe ETW is overall a (small) step forward.

[ocitalis]

I think part of the problem is that the game (due to a bug?) seems to mischaracterize some battles. That is, sometimes it considers me the defender when I am attacking, and vice versa. As mentioned above, the interception seems to be completely backwards - the interceptor is considered the defender.

I know I have lost a battle because I thought I was defending. I waited the AI out, thinking they would have to attack or I win. I walked away from the computer and returned to find that I had lost. So the defensive AI isnt completely nonexistant, but the game's bugs(?) make the situation even worse.

[nafod]

When I first came across this post, I never really realized how poor the AI was on defense, I guess I just counted it as good and bad never differentiating between the two.

But tonight came the end of the Dagestan nation as we know it at the hands of the Russian war machine:

Russians 1300 troops, 2x 12 lb cannon, 4 units of calvary

Dagestan 1500 troops line inf/civilian mix 1 unit calvary.

1. At the start we lined up in opposing lines. The Dag's troops weren't in a line per say but were 3-4 units deep and more of a mob.

2. Dag sent it's calvary forward which I met and destroyed.

3. Dag sent a unit of islamic swordsman after my calvary which the cossacks destroyed as well.

4. I advanced my line to just out of musket range.

5. SInce the Dag forces were deep I could wrap around in an L shape fashion "turning the corner".

6. As the L formed on the right flank, all the Dag units turned to face them, this put some units in firing range of my center and left flanks. However the right flank was still closing and was not within range.

7. Dag units are begining to route at this point, and the right flank begins marching around behind the DAG center, forming a U around the enemy.

8. complete massacre. 1490 dead dagestanies, 13 dead russians (4 were self inflicted when one gun battery took out one of the other units guns -limber dance bug).

I guess they were destined to fail. I don't think a DAG unit fired more than 1 volley. In fact I didn't see a DAG unit fire a volley they just kept turning and reforming to fire at units which were out of range.

[aimlesswanderer]

It would be nice if the autocalc was adjusted in some situations. As Prussia, Courland kept sending 3 units per turn to try and burn my villages in East Prussia, so I parked a stack of 13 line inf, 4 cav, 1 great general and 2 12lb foot artillery so that it could intercept any force attempting to burn the 2 closest villages to the border. Each turn nearly without fail their 3 units (usually 2 line inf and 1 cav) turned up, and I autocalced each time and lost about 1 for 1.... very strange, as in most situations such a massive force difference means a tiny loss.

If I fought the battle myself their cav either hangs around outside artillery range or charges straight in. The infantry most often find a wall to hide behind and don't move until they rout after my infantry move in behind them and shoot them full of holes. Lose only a few soldiers but takes time, and it happens nearly every single turn!!! Surely the AI should figure out that it is a waste of time? My army sat for over a decade in the same spot and they tried to burn down the same village using the route and got massacred each time.

I did get around to wiping out the source of the idiots so that was eventually fixed. :yes:

[Slaists]

It would be nice if the autocalc was adjusted in some situations. As Prussia, Courland kept sending 3 units per turn to try and burn my villages in East Prussia, so I parked a stack of 13 line inf, 4 cav, 1 great general and 2 12lb foot artillery so that it could intercept any force attempting to burn the 2 closest villages to the border. Each turn nearly without fail their 3 units (usually 2 line inf and 1 cav) turned up, and I autocalced each time and lost about 1 for 1.... very strange, as in most situations such a massive force difference means a tiny loss.

If I fought the battle myself their cav either hangs around outside artillery range or charges straight in. The infantry most often find a wall to hide behind and don't move until they rout after my infantry move in behind them and shoot them full of holes. Lose only a few soldiers but takes time, and it happens nearly every single turn!!! Surely the AI should figure out that it is a waste of time? My army sat for over a decade in the same spot and they tried to burn down the same village using the route and got massacred each time.

I did get around to wiping out the source of the idiots so that was eventually fixed. :yes:

This is not quite on topic, but I have seen the same playing as France. After I took Genoa, Italian states declared war on me. I had an army sitting right next to their border, but I did not want to use it to wipe them out. So, as a consequence, they would send a token army (2-3 units) EVERY TURN to raid Genoan border towns. Of course, since my army was sitting there, they got intercepted and destroyed EVERY TURN. Of course, after a couple repeat battles it becomes a nuisance to manually fight the battles. I'd suggest parking a militia army in such a spot and autoresolving despite the losses. Militia will have 3-4 experience chevrons in no time.

[aimlesswanderer]

Yes, another example of good AI - it didn't work the last 20 times I tried the exact same way, but surely it will this time!

The AI really needs to be weaned off its obsession with hiding behind walls, this really stuffs up their battle capabilities.