ShaiHulud
11-19-2002, 00:51
Since installing the patch I've noticed a few things....
The AI has markedly improved the survival of its generals. They no longer commit themselves suicidally. They cleverly withhold themselves while developing their forces and the battle, then commit to what, they hope, will be a decisive point. I find that I have to hold my reserves longer to see where he will commit himself. Moreover, the AI general often survives the battle now due to judicious retreats. I like it
The AI strives to acquire my flanks. Even after the battle is begun, he pushes to get his troops on a flank. It takes a watchful eye to maintain the center AND his foot AND his cavalry attempting to flank me. Much better
The AI makes good matchups against my troop types. I take more losses now and I believe it is due to AI choosing good counters at his points of attack. Good
One doesn't dare leave a moderate sized gap in your line after battle is met. The AI exploits it One must admire the AI for its knowledge of where advantage may lie. Good
Attacking cavalry, noted for their h2h, will WITHDRAW before advancing foot, attempting to pull them away from supporting units. They also, now, pull out of a fight, withdraw, and commit themselves again. I love it...
The AI, having determined a battle is lost, will call a general withdrawal now. This is a great improvement over piecemeal deployment of reinforcements to a failed attack. This was a must and I approve.
A few problems....
The AI doesn't use its missile troops very well, yet. They don't do much damage in attacks because they are held too far back. On defense, they are often sent forward early and, when endangered, induce the AI to leave a good defensive position to come to their rescue. The AI won't hold a spear or peasant unit back for their defense and, thus, allows them to be ridden down from the flanks by my cav units. A single peasant unit would give me pause but that is not yet a part of AI tactics.
There are too many peasant units in existence, imo. It's hard to say if this is because the AI develops infrastructure too slowly or if it chooses them for numbers.
The AI seems to choose province leaders poorly.. that is, they do not always choose them for good acumen. This might be acceptable if there were a command star involved, but, this is not the case. Maybe it was determined, at the time, that a general's loyalty needed a boost. That would explain some of the choices I've seen and with that, I'd have no complaint.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AI generals no longer seem to suffer the 'Hesitant' vice when they withdraw after determining their attack was NOT so good an idea. That's ok with me...
I no longer get scads of generals with stars from my built troops. In fact, after over one hundred years (campaigning as Turks) I think I've had but THREE, total. The overwhelming majority of my generals are the progeny of kings, with a few from bribed armies. This is quite interesting Again, it's ok with me
Loyalist rebellions are still replete with hordes of high quality troops that the AI could not even build before.... well, that's one way to teach you to keep an eye on province loyalty hehe Annoying, but I can live with it.
Only Italy, Sicily, and Byzantium seem to have any naval force worthy of note and they still cluster in a few areas with little effort to expand trade routes. The loss of income due to this does, I believe, significantly weaken the AI factions.
Spy groups, attempting to foment rebellion, are easily countered with the deployment of a moderate amount of troops. Attempting to spy out vices merely makes a leader 'spy-proof' with the 'Informants' virtue. Spys are for defense.
Even a failure by a novice assassin can benefit. The 'Nervous' vice can result and may bring about the general's demise in actual battle. (-5 to health!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Crossbow cavalry can be hired (as mercenaries) long before you'll ever be able to build the crossbow. Likewise, trebuchets....
Overall, (as a SP player) I find the patch to be a great success
The AI has markedly improved the survival of its generals. They no longer commit themselves suicidally. They cleverly withhold themselves while developing their forces and the battle, then commit to what, they hope, will be a decisive point. I find that I have to hold my reserves longer to see where he will commit himself. Moreover, the AI general often survives the battle now due to judicious retreats. I like it
The AI strives to acquire my flanks. Even after the battle is begun, he pushes to get his troops on a flank. It takes a watchful eye to maintain the center AND his foot AND his cavalry attempting to flank me. Much better
The AI makes good matchups against my troop types. I take more losses now and I believe it is due to AI choosing good counters at his points of attack. Good
One doesn't dare leave a moderate sized gap in your line after battle is met. The AI exploits it One must admire the AI for its knowledge of where advantage may lie. Good
Attacking cavalry, noted for their h2h, will WITHDRAW before advancing foot, attempting to pull them away from supporting units. They also, now, pull out of a fight, withdraw, and commit themselves again. I love it...
The AI, having determined a battle is lost, will call a general withdrawal now. This is a great improvement over piecemeal deployment of reinforcements to a failed attack. This was a must and I approve.
A few problems....
The AI doesn't use its missile troops very well, yet. They don't do much damage in attacks because they are held too far back. On defense, they are often sent forward early and, when endangered, induce the AI to leave a good defensive position to come to their rescue. The AI won't hold a spear or peasant unit back for their defense and, thus, allows them to be ridden down from the flanks by my cav units. A single peasant unit would give me pause but that is not yet a part of AI tactics.
There are too many peasant units in existence, imo. It's hard to say if this is because the AI develops infrastructure too slowly or if it chooses them for numbers.
The AI seems to choose province leaders poorly.. that is, they do not always choose them for good acumen. This might be acceptable if there were a command star involved, but, this is not the case. Maybe it was determined, at the time, that a general's loyalty needed a boost. That would explain some of the choices I've seen and with that, I'd have no complaint.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AI generals no longer seem to suffer the 'Hesitant' vice when they withdraw after determining their attack was NOT so good an idea. That's ok with me...
I no longer get scads of generals with stars from my built troops. In fact, after over one hundred years (campaigning as Turks) I think I've had but THREE, total. The overwhelming majority of my generals are the progeny of kings, with a few from bribed armies. This is quite interesting Again, it's ok with me
Loyalist rebellions are still replete with hordes of high quality troops that the AI could not even build before.... well, that's one way to teach you to keep an eye on province loyalty hehe Annoying, but I can live with it.
Only Italy, Sicily, and Byzantium seem to have any naval force worthy of note and they still cluster in a few areas with little effort to expand trade routes. The loss of income due to this does, I believe, significantly weaken the AI factions.
Spy groups, attempting to foment rebellion, are easily countered with the deployment of a moderate amount of troops. Attempting to spy out vices merely makes a leader 'spy-proof' with the 'Informants' virtue. Spys are for defense.
Even a failure by a novice assassin can benefit. The 'Nervous' vice can result and may bring about the general's demise in actual battle. (-5 to health!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Crossbow cavalry can be hired (as mercenaries) long before you'll ever be able to build the crossbow. Likewise, trebuchets....
Overall, (as a SP player) I find the patch to be a great success