Scorpion
10-14-2004, 23:42
I´d like to raise a discussion about what we´d like to see different about the battle AI in the patch CA is hard at work developing.
The game is a gem, and is incredibly good, but a few issues about the battle AI mar its perfection enough to convince me to wait and not play until the patch is out and the efforts of the modders can be truly seen.
By far the biggest issue must be the issue of the suicide generals. Probably the biggest reason why it is easy to rout enemy armies many times your own (in addition to the issue of command stars going a bit too far imho in giving straight attack bonuses/boni to your own troops), the AI cannot, unfortunately, distinguish between a general´s unit and that of a normal unit of heavy cavalry.
If this issue would be fixed, it would go a long way toward providing a much more challenging and rewarding game.
The second issue is that the defensive AI seems too passive for my and many others´ tastes. Of course, there is some variation, but too often the defensive AI sits in place and allows me to outflank and coordinate to my heart´s desire.
This raises the question - why does there need to be a distinction between a defensive and offensive AI in RTW?
It is usually the player that initiates the battles. This results in the defensive AI kicking in. But if the AI initiates the attack, they use the offensive AI, which is admittedly a bit straightforward, but still very much superior to a passive one.
Why should there be such a difference? If it´s a "regular" battle, shouldn´t the AI employ the same tactics in either case?
Of course, the situation is different when the AI is defending a landmark such as a bridge, or a settlement.
The last is a humble request - would it not be possible to allow the "normal" battle difficulty AI to use all the tactics and tricks that the Very Hard AI uses?
I am sure that it wouldn´t break the normal difficulty, but it would be great for all of us who want the best possible AI, but do not wish to skew the combats by allowing the AI troops to have superior troops.
It is possible to circumvent this by modding (by giving similar bonuses to the troops of your faction), but a bit awkwardly...
As for the strategic AI, I´m sure the AI would be better served by trying to concentrate its troops even more. This would go a long way towards making each battle more meaningful and perhaps providing more of those epic battles between thousands upon thousands of troops.
The issue of spending too much on navies should of course be investigated...
I´ve said my piece, now it´s your turn!
And if developers at CA happen to read this, know that I have a great appreciation for your work. I know the patch history of STW/MI and MTW/VI, and am confident in your ability and desire to make RTW the classic it ....well, actually already is, but anyway.... ~;)
The game is a gem, and is incredibly good, but a few issues about the battle AI mar its perfection enough to convince me to wait and not play until the patch is out and the efforts of the modders can be truly seen.
By far the biggest issue must be the issue of the suicide generals. Probably the biggest reason why it is easy to rout enemy armies many times your own (in addition to the issue of command stars going a bit too far imho in giving straight attack bonuses/boni to your own troops), the AI cannot, unfortunately, distinguish between a general´s unit and that of a normal unit of heavy cavalry.
If this issue would be fixed, it would go a long way toward providing a much more challenging and rewarding game.
The second issue is that the defensive AI seems too passive for my and many others´ tastes. Of course, there is some variation, but too often the defensive AI sits in place and allows me to outflank and coordinate to my heart´s desire.
This raises the question - why does there need to be a distinction between a defensive and offensive AI in RTW?
It is usually the player that initiates the battles. This results in the defensive AI kicking in. But if the AI initiates the attack, they use the offensive AI, which is admittedly a bit straightforward, but still very much superior to a passive one.
Why should there be such a difference? If it´s a "regular" battle, shouldn´t the AI employ the same tactics in either case?
Of course, the situation is different when the AI is defending a landmark such as a bridge, or a settlement.
The last is a humble request - would it not be possible to allow the "normal" battle difficulty AI to use all the tactics and tricks that the Very Hard AI uses?
I am sure that it wouldn´t break the normal difficulty, but it would be great for all of us who want the best possible AI, but do not wish to skew the combats by allowing the AI troops to have superior troops.
It is possible to circumvent this by modding (by giving similar bonuses to the troops of your faction), but a bit awkwardly...
As for the strategic AI, I´m sure the AI would be better served by trying to concentrate its troops even more. This would go a long way towards making each battle more meaningful and perhaps providing more of those epic battles between thousands upon thousands of troops.
The issue of spending too much on navies should of course be investigated...
I´ve said my piece, now it´s your turn!
And if developers at CA happen to read this, know that I have a great appreciation for your work. I know the patch history of STW/MI and MTW/VI, and am confident in your ability and desire to make RTW the classic it ....well, actually already is, but anyway.... ~;)