What about granting "pause" to the AI?

[Ktonos]

The downfall of the TW series is its battle AI. Well, I believe that its as good as it gets. Only turn-based tactical games have better AI, and thats because the AI can use the pause between turns to scedule its next move.

What about giving AI the ability to pause whike in a battle. The player can set the number of times, if at all, the computer can pause during a battle and the max time it can use.

[vodkafire]

The downfall of the TW series is its battle AI. Well, I believe that its as good as it gets. Only turn-based tactical games have better AI, and thats because the AI can use the pause between turns to scedule its next move.

What about giving AI the ability to pause whike in a battle. The player can set the number of times, if at all, the computer can pause during a battle and the max time it can use.

Are you serious? I don't think you understand how fast a processor works, It does trillions of calculations per second. In fact, the great advantage of AI in strategy games is that they can react instantly. Play a game like Homeworld or Starcraft, one of those clickfest games, and you'll notice how fast the AI can build because it can "click" much faster than humans. In fact, the AI can look at separate parts of the battlefield all at once with equal attention, while humans have to constantly shift from unit to unit to monitor them. Pause sort of levels the playing field, but not really, since humans still take much longer to react and hit the pause button. In conclusion, the AI already has "pause", relatively, you just don't notice it.

The AI must be made more advanced(more tactics, etc.) not faster.

[Ktonos]

No...the PC can make hundreds of simple decisions at the same time which do not calculate the humans decisions. In starcraft the AI can "click" almost simultaneously many different building to produce many many units...but in chess games for example the processor must think alot of time to make a move after urs. In Great battles of Alexander the processor would think more time to make a move after a very good one of yours.

[Red Harvest]

They should have plenty of cycles for the AI to make its tactical decisions. However, the decision tree does not appear to very well developed. The AI makes a few strategic decisions on the battle map, like pulling back, withdrawing, advancing, charging or moving to higher ground. Yet it will sit there and let you wheel about to seize the high ground from it? It takes a long time to do this...and it just sits there. Give it as many cycles as you want...it will still be sitting there.

"Gee Bob, I think he's taking the higher ground."
"I think you are right, Ernie, hand me another beer and let's watch the show."

How much time does the AI need to decide to leave units parked in the plaza while we shoot them to shreds? That is a lack of logic, not compute cycles.

Ditto for phalanx units chasing light skirmishers, archers, and horse archers.

Suicide daimyo's? Another logic problem.

Reinforcement armies. More logic trouble.

The computer can and does issue commands to everyone much faster than the human. You can't compare the tactical AI to a chess algorithm. Chess programs use massive hash tables to evaluate truly extraordinary numbers of moves per turn. These are sequential calcs. vs the simultaneous approach needed for tactical battle AI. It is apples to oranges. The AI has to decide on a strategic posture for its armies and readjust. Then it has to issue commands to the units.