CA: This has got to STOP! (AI Control is simpley a source of Frustration)

[ToranagaSama]

I don't know about anybody else, but I have just about had it.

Total Realism Mod 3.0 is out so I decided to start a new Campaign. I have not completed 5 turns yet, sorting things out, blah, blah....

I'm playing the Juii, of course, I take Segesta, seiging until it falls in 2 turns. Decius or the other non-heir, is the winning general he has like 3 or 4 Scrolls, gonna be a good administrator for this town, right?! Yup!

I install him as Govenor, with his little army in garrison, until we can get his Govenor's Villa built, and have a few Town Watch sent over from the Capital.

A turn later, I notice a Rebel band just to the West of Segesta, so I take my chosen *fighting* General, the one with the good Combat Traits, and my remaining combat units (Hastati and above) over to deal with these Rebels. Good opportunity to get him a sure victory and another star, just before encoutering the Gauls.

The battle is won, but with more losses, than I think should have occurred. (Gotta get used to the mod changes). Ok, so I move the stack back to the Capital for retraining (2 turns), they get retrained, and I notice another Rebel band (enough with the Rebels already), just to the East of Segesta.

Ok, fine, my fighting general is now a 4 star, might as well get another win before taking on the Gauls. The Rebel band is located close to the town. So, I march my little Army over from the Capital and attack. [Note, I don't bring my *good* govenors to battle unless I HAVE TO.]

OH NO!

I look up at the screen, and the stupid AI has decided to take control of Segesta's Govenor and join me on the field of battle.

WTF!@ I don't need any help.

Fortunately, or so I thought, my personally controlled army and the AI army, have the little rebel band in a perfect "L" shapped ambush, each army closing in on the little rebel band at the point of the L.

Ok, maybe this won't be so bad. Yeah Right!

Note both Armies are about equal size with 6 or 7 units apiece; the rebles, have 4. I push out my Velites do a little damage to a Peasant unit on the Rebel's left flank, I move my left flank of Hasti out close to back up the Velites, once they decide to high tail it back to the lines. I thinking this is going to be a massacre, and my Govenor's Garrison will manage to get back to town unscathed.

Then all of a sudden the AI amry engages! Who asked it to do so? 2 minutes later I get the unnecessary popup video, MY D*** GENERAL IS DEAD. I'm like you've got to be kidding, My Govenor is dead?

WTF.

----

This has got to stop. There has got to be a way to turn off AI control.

I DON'T WANT IT---PERIOD!
I DON'T NEED IT---PERIOD!
I DON'T LIKE IT---PERIOD!

Either get rid of it, or give me *some* command and control, for example.

Command 1: Hold Back wait for Orders, where the army will not attack unless ordered to do so. The AI can control the attack once ordered to so.

Command 2: Attack--Hold Back General, the AI can control the attack, but will NOT engage the General. More perfectly, the Player would control the General, while the AI controls the army.

Command 3: Attack, the AI engages and controls both the Army and the General.

---

Either turn off the AI Control altogether, or give the Player *some* control. As it is, it's just not enjoyable. Simply a source of frustration.

NOTE: This is aside from, or, in addition to, fixing "Suicide Generals". Fixing Suicide Generals ala MTW:VI won't address the above.

Thank you in advance.

P.S., oh yeah, most importantly,

Command 4: Stay the F in the Town! The AI will NOT bring troops, under any circumstances from within a Town/City unless EXPRESSLY ordered to do.

---

BTW, while on the subject of AI control, what's with the Sieges?

For example, playing as the Juii, the Gauls may lay siege to one of my cities. I'll hold the mouse pointer over the city and be informed that the city will hold for 8 turns or something. Good, I decide to let that city tough it out while I deal with another crisis, afterwhich, I'll go and save that city.

I think, EIGHT turns, that's plenty of time, right? NO!

3 turns later, the Garrison is fighting the besieging Gauls. Whaaa? I'm not sure what's happening here. I suppose the Gauls have managed to break thru the walls or something.

The thing I question, then, is why no FMV advises the player of such? There's an FMV for for just above everything, a player is capable of knowing w/o the FMV; but, here's a case where the player is incapable of being aware and no FMV showing the Gauls or whomever breaking thru the walls.

---

I dunno know, maybe losing a valued Govenor 5 turns into the game, through no fault of my own, has just pissed me off.

[A.Saturnus]

I agree, there should be a basic control over AI armies.

[Warlock]

The "hold out for X turns" is how long it will be until the city falls automatically. The AI can assault at any time, just like the human player.

[motorhead]

I agree, besides fixing suicide generals, being able to give some basic direction (even just an aggressvie/defensive option) would be very good. Under the current conditions, I try to always check what generals are in the 3x3 combat box. Unless it's impossible, I make sure only one general will engage and move the other general(s) beyond the box to avoid giving the AI direct control of any portion of my army.

[Lonewarrior]

Through out my campaing, I have seen at least 30 suicidal generals, come on stop throwing yourselfs at my spears.

[SpencerH]

Its pretty clear that CA is aware of this problem from some of their comments in the dungeon (and there may be a good fix in the works i.e. being able to toggle between generals on the tactical map).

[TheDuck]

I don't know about anybody else, but I have just about had it.

Total Realism Mod 3.0 is out so I decided to start a new Campaign. I have not completed 5 turns yet, sorting things out, blah, blah....

I'm playing the Juii, of course, I take Segesta, seiging until it falls in 2 turns. Decius or the other non-heir, is the winning general he has like 3 or 4 Scrolls, gonna be a good administrator for this town, right?! Yup!

I install him as Govenor, with his little army in garrison, until we can get his Govenor's Villa built, and have a few Town Watch sent over from the Capital.

A turn later, I notice a Rebel band just to the West of Segesta, so I take my chosen *fighting* General, the one with the good Combat Traits, and my remaining combat units (Hastati and above) over to deal with these Rebels. Good opportunity to get him a sure victory and another star, just before encoutering the Gauls.

The battle is won, but with more losses, than I think should have occurred. (Gotta get used to the mod changes). Ok, so I move the stack back to the Capital for retraining (2 turns), they get retrained, and I notice another Rebel band (enough with the Rebels already), just to the East of Segesta.

Ok, fine, my fighting general is now a 4 star, might as well get another win before taking on the Gauls. The Rebel band is located close to the town. So, I march my little Army over from the Capital and attack. [Note, I don't bring my *good* govenors to battle unless I HAVE TO.]

OH NO!

I look up at the screen, and the stupid AI has decided to take control of Segesta's Govenor and join me on the field of battle.

WTF!@ I don't need any help.

Fortunately, or so I thought, my personally controlled army and the AI army, have the little rebel band in a perfect "L" shapped ambush, each army closing in on the little rebel band at the point of the L.

Ok, maybe this won't be so bad. Yeah Right!

Note both Armies are about equal size with 6 or 7 units apiece; the rebles, have 4. I push out my Velites do a little damage to a Peasant unit on the Rebel's left flank, I move my left flank of Hasti out close to back up the Velites, once they decide to high tail it back to the lines. I thinking this is going to be a massacre, and my Govenor's Garrison will manage to get back to town unscathed.

Then all of a sudden the AI amry engages! Who asked it to do so? 2 minutes later I get the unnecessary popup video, MY D*** GENERAL IS DEAD. I'm like you've got to be kidding, My Govenor is dead?

WTF.

----

This has got to stop. There has got to be a way to turn off AI control.

I DON'T WANT IT---PERIOD!
I DON'T NEED IT---PERIOD!
I DON'T LIKE IT---PERIOD!

Either get rid of it, or give me *some* command and control, for example.

Command 1: Hold Back wait for Orders, where the army will not attack unless ordered to do so. The AI can control the attack once ordered to so.

Command 2: Attack--Hold Back General, the AI can control the attack, but will NOT engage the General. More perfectly, the Player would control the General, while the AI controls the army.

Command 3: Attack, the AI engages and controls both the Army and the General.

---

Either turn off the AI Control altogether, or give the Player *some* control. As it is, it's just not enjoyable. Simply a source of frustration.

NOTE: This is aside from, or, in addition to, fixing "Suicide Generals". Fixing Suicide Generals ala MTW:VI won't address the above.

Thank you in advance.

P.S., oh yeah, most importantly,

Command 4: Stay the F in the Town! The AI will NOT bring troops, under any circumstances from within a Town/City unless EXPRESSLY ordered to do.

---

BTW, while on the subject of AI control, what's with the Sieges?

For example, playing as the Juii, the Gauls may lay siege to one of my cities. I'll hold the mouse pointer over the city and be informed that the city will hold for 8 turns or something. Good, I decide to let that city tough it out while I deal with another crisis, afterwhich, I'll go and save that city.

I think, EIGHT turns, that's plenty of time, right? NO!

3 turns later, the Garrison is fighting the besieging Gauls. Whaaa? I'm not sure what's happening here. I suppose the Gauls have managed to break thru the walls or something.

The thing I question, then, is why no FMV advises the player of such? There's an FMV for for just above everything, a player is capable of knowing w/o the FMV; but, here's a case where the player is incapable of being aware and no FMV showing the Gauls or whomever breaking thru the walls.

---

I dunno know, maybe losing a valued Govenor 5 turns into the game, through no fault of my own, has just pissed me off.

I feel your pain man.

After losing a number of generals to this type of shenanigans I completely changed how I approach the game.

I basically rarely use governors anymore to run cities, excepting the cities that need help in raising their happiness level (i.e. a city that is very distant from the capital, so that even all the happy/law buildings aren't helping without a huge garrison). I've also taken to only running generals in one stack if I have multiple stacks of units running around (as reinforcements or backup armies for temporary garrison duty). This guarantees I have utter control over the coming battles, and don't have to worry about losing scads of units in a battle because of the stupidity of the AI. If I have more than one general, all the generals are in the same stack (I just use them as heavy hitting cavalry now).

If you ask me, the whole idea of only being able to control one general on the battlefield doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I realize that the engine only supports showing 20 unit cards at a time.. but couldn't they just have you switch to the other general via a button or something and replace all the cards? That way you could still set the goals for all the combat units, you just wouldn't have instantaneous control over all of them. They still have to track the units on the battlefield, so its not like the engine can't hand the number of units.. only the switching of the active army.

[A.Saturnus]

Its pretty clear that CA is aware of this problem from some of their comments in the dungeon (and there may be a good fix in the works i.e. being able to toggle between generals on the tactical map).

If that´s their way of fixing it, I don´t like it. I find it actually good that there are AI controlled armies. If it just actually was AI. I mean the only thing needed to let it work properly is a set of rules like DON´T ENGAGE YOUR GENERAL!!!!
And some basic commands aren´t asked too much. The AI already knows the distinction between defence and attack. The only thing needed is a hotkey to let it switch it´s strategy.

[TheDuck]

If that´s their way of fixing it, I don´t like it. I find it actually good that there are AI controlled armies. If it just actually was AI. I mean the only thing needed to let it work properly is a set of rules like DON´T ENGAGE YOUR GENERAL!!!!
And some basic commands aren´t asked too much. The AI already knows the distinction between defence and attack. The only thing needed is a hotkey to let it switch it´s strategy.

Now I'm getting excited. If they implement that it will be a dream for me. I'd set up much larger formations if I could, but simply won't due to the AI issues.

For instance, if I could I'd have a more 'purely infantry' element and a 'cav heavy' element. I'd tend to fight the cav element closely and use the infantry element more broadly. Of course, I hope the improve the AIs capabilities regarding coordination, because if not then me controlling two (or more) armies in a battle becomes a cake-walk.

[SpencerH]

Dont get too excited, I cant find the thread to refresh my memory. Someone suggested the toggle idea as a way to fix the suicidal generals. Someone from CA said that was an idea they had thought about using before and that maybe they should look at it again. That doesnt mean it will happen though, but clearly they are aware of the problem and that may be a simple solution.

EDIT found the thread (looking for something else of course)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38916

[Akka]

I fully agree. It's utterly annoying to have the AI controlling your own troops.
I don't want to. If I'm playing a faction, it's precisely to control them, not to watch an AI slaughter my own soldiers and generals by doing what I don't want.

It's a feature that, like the timer, should be entirely optionnal.

[Bob the Insane]

The AI is capable of acting normally... Last night in my present Julii campaign I fought battle like this one rescuing a settlement from being besieged. My attacking army was slightly weaker than the Briton Army I was attacking but then so was the army in the Besieged settlement and between us we where stronger. The two armies both with decent Generals, I chose to engage with the better general in command of the relief force and setup the attack so I hit the rear if the enemy pinning it to the city so the re-enforces would hit it from the rear (givig my AI general a fighting chance I figured)..

Fighting the battle I figured the enemy AI might rush my smaller army before the re-enforcements arrived (it's what I would do) so set up well back in the deployment area. The battle started and I moved my battle line in good order towards the enemy trying to stay on their flank as they moved to try and face both armies. I tried to match the pace of my re-enfocements to hit the enemy at the same time but guess what, there is the AI general (5 star) charging ahead of his troops straight at the enemies line... :dizzy2:

So I detach my cavalry and charge my men into battle but it is too late... Though we do win the battle...

I thought "bugger... let's try that again" and reloaded...

This time it was the same setup but I was more aggressive, setting up at the front of the deployment zone and immediately running my men (still in formation) into missle range of the enemy to intiate the attack... This prompts the enemy to fall on us but use of the pilum, deep formation with reserves and moving cavalry round to flank works it's magic especially as the enemy have held some troops in resver to face my re-enforcements...

But speaking of my re-enforcements, no sign of the suicide general this time, this time the there is a line of Hastati moving towards the enemy with the AI general troting along behind?!?!?!

WTF!?!?!?

[SpencerH]

I think the 'kamikazee generals' are a function of cav having slightly faster walk speed than the inf. When an army has had a long walk the cav inevitably end up forward of the inf. We correct this but the AI doesnt, so the first units committed to battle are the cav including the generals.

[warlordmb]

I totally agree with the cooments made about better CONTROL of AI forces.
I mean, think about it, - you are the senior commander. Reinforcements are on the way. And You can't co-ordinate their attack with yours. P-L-L-EASE!!

1. Having the option to give simple tactical commands to an AI General led army is dead right. I've had to tailor my Campaign tactics to ensure that I didn't get my high ranking city governor and his rubbish city guard and peasants involved in a combat which the army I was commanding was more than capable of handling.

2. There should be an option on the pre-battle screen which allows you to choose wether you want to be supported by troops in a nearby square.

Come on CA this is an absolute must to change.


:help:

[Bob the Insane]

Personally I do not mind not controlling my reserves when they are under the command of another General, I think it is fun...

As has been stated the issue really is the poor performance of the AI in this situation and the suicide General syndrom...

I would love to see this improved even to the point that the AI (whether ally, enemy or reeforcements) adapted its tactics based on the stats and traits of the General concerned.. i.e. using more intelligent and complex formations when it is high command rated general and doing bizarr things if he is an unhinged loon... Even to the point of forgiving suicidal tendencies if he is suffering from the bloodlust range of traits... ~D

This would mean that even choice of supporting generals would be important as would finding out the enemy General's traits (as in Know Your Enemy)...

Sorry for the preeching.... ~D

[warlordmb]

Just remmbered something else.

I realise I had gotten into the habit of removing other generals from nearby stacks before going into battle with re-inforcements. The reason for this is simple. If the supporting re-inforcements have no general/family member commanding them, command of the re-inforcements automatically goes to you as long as there are enough slots available within the 20 slot limit. You get to co-ordinate them as you want which works brilliantly because you can co-ordinate your attack with theirs and flank and rear assaults by your re-inforcements can be devastating, even by small numbers of troops if you time their attack right.

This makes flanking marches on the campaign map a very useful strategy. You just have to make sure there are no more than one General/family member present.

While this is good there is a problem. Leaving part of your forces under command of a captain leaves them vulnerable to bribery. Too many times I get that annoying pop-up telling me that my highly trained and experinced mini army has betrayed me and gone back to the fields.

AAAARGH!!

So again. C'mon CA - help us poor armchair generals and earn yourself kudos from us little 'ol peasants.

:help:

[warlordmb]

Hello Bob,

I like your idea about tailoring AI re-inforcements to generals command traits. That would just add to the game experience. Having to choose wether to risk sending a supporting army into battle under the command on 'an un-hinged loon' is a choice to be faced with.

Anything has got to be better than the current situation where players are having to tailor thier gameplay because of a small piece of unfinished?? programming in what is by far the best strategy game to date.

~;) :balloon2:

[SpencerH]

I too agree with the pointy-helmeted-ones suggestion. Given that this AI appears to have gone backward in time (especially compared to VI), does anyone believe it could be implemented. So far the best tactic I've seen the AI use is not to move its units within range of my archers when I attack a beseige-ing army from a city. Other than that, and assaulting a city on a wide front, I've seen no evidence of any AI tactics at all.

[aw89]

i think the only tactic's i've seen is when playing against the macedons, the sendt 2 units of light lancer on each side to make my cav and general charge, worked first time, not second but its a bugger. do they want to kill my cav or are they after my inf? mmmm ~:confused:

OR BOTH! daaaaaa! but thats it, only tactic seen....

[Bob the Insane]

Come to think of it the only factions I have seen with appropriate tactics are the Barbarians, especially the Gauls... They will have a main line of infantry, quite shallow and cavalry on each wing... This will moving in for a head on attack attempting to envelop you troops with the cavalry making a flanking attack...

AI romans appear to use the "one big lump" or "viking horde" tactics (with suicide cavalry) and the greek cultures go for more suicide cavalry with "knackered phalanx troops trying to keep up"...

The Egyptians work well to but primarily because of their mystically "well hard" troops and desert bonuses...

Put the AI on the defensive and give it a little time and it will form up well, and if you place it in a siege assault it knows what it has to do and attacks aggressively (but gets confused if you destroy it's siege equipment)...

But when attacking in the open field, especially when using re-enforcements it all seems to end up being a big punch up in the middle of the field or lots of individual units chasing each other around...

[R'as al Ghul]

The insane Bob has pointed out a good concept. Character traits determining the style of attack or defense. That would be fantastic.
All those traits like "good cavalry commander" would make so much more sense.

BTW, I noticed that the "Eastern General"-unit is not so suicide happy.
You can even trust him with the command of a co-attack force. If you use Horse Archer-only armies he will happily skirmish but keep his own unit in the back. At least thats my experience on vh/vh with the Parthians.

R'as

[Red Harvest]

Come to think of it the only factions I have seen with appropriate tactics are the Barbarians, especially the Gauls... They will have a main line of infantry, quite shallow and cavalry on each wing... This will moving in for a head on attack attempting to envelop you troops with the cavalry making a flanking attack...

AI romans appear to use the "one big lump" or "viking horde" tactics (with suicide cavalry) and the greek cultures go for more suicide cavalry with "knackered phalanx troops trying to keep up"...



Astute comments. That is what I've seen as well. The Gauls fight better than most others because they deploy a proper line and attack en masse--a pity they don't have better troops with which to do so.

It is too bad the Roman armies don't stay more ordered on attack. I frequently watch the velites come charging headlong into my heavy infantry lines??? Now, having a central mass of hastati/principes trying to batter down the center makes some historical sense and the AI does like to try this...but the overall deployment and failure to guard the wings does not work.

The Greeks like to send out their light cav piecemeal, two or three or four units charging at a time in wedge formation. I can whip them in VH by ganging up on them even when they vastly outnumber me in cav.

[Puzz3D]

With the tactical AI deficiencies impacting how I move armies on the strategic map, I think it's time to play the campaign with all the battles auto-resolved.

[andrewt]

BTW, I noticed that the "Eastern General"-unit is not so suicide happy. You can even trust him with the command of a co-attack force. If you use Horse Archer-only armies he will happily skirmish but keep his own unit in the back. At least thats my experience on vh/vh with the Parthians.

R'as

I think that's because the Eastern General is a javelin cavalry unit. He starts with skirmish and fire at will on. If the AI doesn't turn skirmish mode off, it won't be able to suicide the general.

[TheDuck]

Personally I do not mind not controlling my reserves when they are under the command of another General, I think it is fun...

As has been stated the issue really is the poor performance of the AI in this situation and the suicide General syndrom...

I would love to see this improved even to the point that the AI (whether ally, enemy or reeforcements) adapted its tactics based on the stats and traits of the General concerned.. i.e. using more intelligent and complex formations when it is high command rated general and doing bizarr things if he is an unhinged loon... Even to the point of forgiving suicidal tendencies if he is suffering from the bloodlust range of traits... ~D

This would mean that even choice of supporting generals would be important as would finding out the enemy General's traits (as in Know Your Enemy)...

Sorry for the preeching.... ~D

This solution is also OK with me also. Oh Sharp Chapeau'd one. As long as I can coordinate even in a broad manner, its better than the way it works right now.

And I think the general comments on AI behavior by all are spot on. That said I think the design of good AI for the real-time battles is still something of a black art and made the more difficult by pressures to just survive in a highly competitive games market. Kudos to CA for both the previous games and any efforts made to improve things in RTW. I for one will always be a devoted fan. :)

[A.Saturnus]

I think Bob´s idea is good. Although it´s nothing new. I think I heard that one first a few month after MTW came out. But be realistic, there´s no way in hell CA would implement such a complex system in a patch. So I´d be satisfied if only the worst misbehaviour of the AI would be fixed. Said that, some days ago I won a quick battle by pressing ctrl-A and clicking somewhere in the enemy centre so maybe it´s not that bad a strategy :dizzy2:

[Bob the Insane]

Well I was just dreaming... ~D

I too would be happy if the AI was simply "reborn 'ard" universally...

[Somebody Else]

Personally I've found that two of the most entertaining battles I've had in single-player involved an AI general. On both occasions, my personal army was about half the strength of the opposition. The AI turned up just in time on each occasion to swing the tide of the battle. Here comes the cavalry and all that...

To be fair though, I dislike allowing the AI the chance to throw any of my decent units away - and where there's a battle with several of my armies each under a different general, I tend to auto-resolve the battles. That's also in part due to my computer's inability to handle too many men on the field...

[sunsmountain]

Well, if i have too much family... simply give it to the AI! :)

Seriously though, AI armies ARE useful if they ONLY comprise of INFANTRY. Unfortunately there are no infantry generals. But if you have one of those disposable generals, you really can sandwich enemy armies for one battle (you will allways lose the AI general, unless you get there before they do and you're very lucky).

And then you buyback your disposable general by bribing a rebel general.

[warlordmb]

I still think the easiest solution so far would be to include a tick box on the Pre-battle screen, you know, the one where the odds indicator is.

At least you would have the choice to include or not include an AI led re-inforcements.

Last night I had a city being attacked by an Iberian army of about 8 units. I moved my Legioinary army of 20 units to attack. Of course the battle screen put my crappy 0 star General/7 Influence Govornor and his garrison of 4 crappy peasants into the battle order. I actually refused combat - the odds were 3-1 in my favour because I didn't want to lose this governor. His influence rating was keeping the natives happy and under riot control.

Also, the Iberian army had three cav units to my general's bodyguard.
My own cav was currently on the road from Arretium (my capital) where they had gone for retraining.
I am playing R:TR Mod 3.2 which uses Zone of Control. I can only train/re-train certain units in the zone of control cities. (A bit like Homelands).
My cav was at least 2 turns away from my main army and their fort base.

If I could have been sure of fighting without having My Governor turn up with his cannon fodder I would probably have decided to fight. My army was full of experienced Early Republic units including one two stripe Triairii unit and half a unit of one silver stripe Triarii of 38 men. Real cav killers these boys. In one battle they slaughtered two units of Gaulish merc cav, 1 unit of Gaulish warband cav and the Gaulish 4 star generals' bodygaurd for the loss of 43 men between both units.

Because I use the timer off I can play 'dance-my-slingers-in-front-of-you-and-see-If-I-can-lure-some-of-you-on-to-my-pilum-throwing-gaul-bashing-upstanding-roman-boys. Can't do that if I've got an AI led force on the usual suicide-charge.

Had to run away and fight another day. (Wait until my cav returned).

[ToranagaSama]

Another thing,

The Campaign Map needs some sort of * proximity indicator* where a Player will be aware which nearby Stacks will be including in a battle and AI controlled.

During my last bout of play, more than once I was confused as to PRECISELY which Stack would be included and which wouldn't.

Proximity is the key, but there is no indicator as when a Stack is close enough to be included and when a stack is distant enough to not be included.

This can be important when manuevering Stack on the Campaign Map, attempting to setup two-way, three-way, or better ambush. That is attacking from multiple directions upon a target(s).

This can also be quite important when attempting to rush additional troops to the soon to occur battle, particularly in the case of defending against/attacking a beseiger.

For example, a Full Stack is besieging one of your cities, but there's only a half stack garrison. Obviously, you need to get some additional units in the vacinity QUICK.

If you manage to get some units in the vacinity in good time, when the city's garrison sallies forth or the besieging force breaks thru, whatever additional units within the correct *radius* will be included/incorporated in the battle as Reinforcements.

In terms of [I]Planning, a Player NEEDS to be aware of the precise *radius*. At present there is NO indicator.

---

I had this happen in my last battle. My city of Males??? (captured Gaul city on the Italian side of the Mountains) was being besieged by a full stack. There was a nominal garrison. I had a third stack pre-stationed just to the east in the woods at the opening of the Pass.

I was moving my *battle* Army(, one unit shy of a full stack) to bear upon the besieger, and was expecting my army in the woods to be a part of the battle as Reinforcements, hitting the besieger from two directions, as well as out-numbering the enemy.

Buttttt, NO!

Apparently, that little army wasn't actually within the necessary *radius* (or whatever).

Now how the heck would I have known? Looked close enough to me.

[Nerouin]

I agree about this.. in a battle today I had to rush my cav into position and attack so that my supporting army wouldn't get themselves massacred.
Of course, I forgot I was on the defense- the supporting army moved into defense position- and my cav ran over the enemy army anyway, but still- I dread fighting a battle with comp controlled allies, because there is a lot of potential for the computer controlled family member to die. I often even move them away so that I will have control of the other army myself!

I suspect CA will be fixing this. Have no fear, people, and enjoy the good parts of the game!

[barocca]

i think the "radius" is the zone of control,
when you are moving an army and it stops because path is blocked and it is standing on a little red square and has lost all remaining movement then it is in a zone of control,
bring another army in and launch at attack on the "blocking" armys and both your armies will be (unless "delayed") in the battkle, you will command the army that actually "launched" the attack.

I use single units of cavalry as scouts so that my main armies dont get "caught" in an ambush or blocked by an unforeseen enemy units "zone of control"

I also use single ships as scouts for the same purpose when i am moving a large fleet - or an important one carrying an invasion/relief force.

[Octavius Julius]

I like getting help from the AI.

What needs to be solved is the AI General.

AI General's should be setup like this:

- They remain out of combat when controlled by the AI.

- If the battle isn't going well for the AI, only then will the General's unit engage

- If the battle is really bad, the AI General should flee or should submit to the attackers

If the AI General loses a battle, he should still remain alive 90% of the time even if they lose. There should be an imprisonment or capture element possibly.

[Nestor]

There's obviously some kind of misunderstanding in the development process of the game: I actually want to win. If the AI is up to the standards of a human player, I would love to have it handle some of my troops.

It's not. So, get it out of my way. I don't want/need any help! I can win/lose by myself!

Give me a proper enemy AI and I will reconsider my opinion...

(I would accept it if my second stack would actually revolt and attack me in the battle ~;) ... Trying desperately to find enough interest in the game... modders rock, by the way...)

[metatron]

*Stands alone*

I like it. In MTW, you were supposed to be the King (or general, depending on the situation). When the AI comes into play, it represents another politically ambitious man who wants glory for himself. He has his own army, he isn't subordinate to you (well, he's not in your army, so you can't get orders to him easily, if at all), and there's a rebel army. What would you do?

[SwordsMaster]

I tend to Have a balanced army for myself (or some trickier units such as HA or hoplites, and give the AI general (carefully chosen to be the most useless of my heirs ~D ) ONLY cavalry or heavy infantry that can be charged into the enemy head on. And thats what I always get.

Easy. There are always some useless drunkard-pervert-minion-ill-or-otherwise- disabled-for-normal-glorious-existance- family members that will save you the effort of sending an assasin on them and will do well as cannon fodder leading a glorious last charge against those pesky Pharao's guards or phalanxes or other pointy unadvisable targets.

[*Ringo*]

The Campaign Map needs some sort of * proximity indicator[ion]* where a Player will be aware which nearby Stacks will be including in a battle and AI controlled.

There is an indicator, an area around enemy units will appear red when showing your unit's possible moves. The campaign map works on the principle of tiles (or squares on a chess board if you like) therefore around any unit there are 8 possible places for supporting armies to be placed.

In terms of AI controlled stacks, it's perfectly possible (although not in every case) to control both stacks. Just ensure that your main force doesn't have the full compliment of 20 units & it doesn't have a general commanding it. Then when reinforcements arrive in battle you will be able to control them on a unit by unit basis just as in MTW! I often separate 20 unit stacks sending my cavalry round the back of enemy forces to attack the rear, as long as a captain is commanding the supporting force i can take control (of course sometimes reinforcements can be delayed and having no cavalry can be a bit of a pain :no:) But generally works really well.


Hope that sheds some light on how to avoid suicide generals!!!

*Ringo*

[HopAlongBunny]

Just had this happen twice.

First one: Brutii army attacks a lone Eastern Infantry standing outside the walls of one of my cities; the garrison of 1000+ sallies to save their buddy!; I have control of the lone EI and the AI general massacres my army against a clearly inferior opponent.

Second case: beseiging a city; one stack with general over 1000 troops and a lone Thracian merc beside the stack; AI sallies and attacks; I have control of the Thracian merc and the AI general zerg rushes/destroys my army...battle a "draw" so seige maintained but over half the army was destroyed. It actually should not have even been close; if I had controled the army I think I could've even taken the city with fewer losses.

hehehe it just hurt to watch the AI screw up soooo badly, and not be able to do a thing about it.

[Mr Frost]

...He has his own army, he isn't subordinate to you (well, he's not in your army, so you can't get orders to him easily, if at all), and there's a rebel army. What would you do?
Well , I would avoid getting killed to begin with .

Not a very good way to further political ambition is getting killed . Most politicians advise against early demise for the stopping-your-political-career-completely effect it has on most people .

You don't have to merely take my word for it though , you could try it yourself : Get yourself killed , then try becoming President of the United States , you will discover it is impossible after you are deceased !

[*Ringo*]

You don't have to merely take my word for it though , you could try it yourself : Get yourself killed , then try becoming President of the United States , you will discover it is impossible after you are deceased !

...i dunno, Bush's brain died years ago! ~D

*Ringo*

[Lord Ovaat]

.i dunno, Bush's brain died years ago!


He seems to have enough brain cells left to have thrashed his "opponent". ~D

Do I sense a sore loser?

[*Ringo*]

I couldn't care less, nothing to do with me. Just going on the evidence of most of his public addresses!!!

*Ringo* (thinking of new ways to harm Bush's reputation)

[yonderboy]

Way to stay on topic...

Anywayz, a lot of ppl seem to forget that one of the biggest frustrations that Roman generals had was... OTHER Roman generals. There are enough famous battles where one Roman general was winning until his idiot cohort blundered his way into defeat. Just be glad CA doesn't have the "i'll be general today and you be general tomorrow" system that the early Romans were fond of.

Personally, I find the pathfinding more frustrating than stupid generals. In general (no pun...) I find friendly generals somewhat relieving in ONE specific situation... when I need more fodder. I will never be upset when another faction, one of my "allies" wants to help. They're more than welcome to die for me.

That being said, there are too many suicidial generals. But as for the non-ability to control ALL of the troops on the battlefield... the ability to instantaneously control 16 units is a bit beyond realistic. Just be glad you don't have to have battlefield messengers or flag systems or semiphor or tin cans with a wire between them.

That ALSO being said... the AI really does suck at times, but that aside, god I LOVE this game!!

-yonder

[ToranagaSama]

Well, *some* of the opinion has got to related to, one's experience and skill level, and whether one is playing Vanilla RTW, or a Mod; particularly one modded to adjust combat to be more inline with that of MTW and/or the MedMod.

I wouldn't necessarily argue, that, if, playing Vanilla, what does it really matter....

Vanilla, and, specifically, the assisting AI feature is clearly aimed at the Novice and/or Casual TWer.

---

The notion that the AI general is attempting to mimick some alleged *real* behviour is, to me, a bit far-fechted. If this were the intention, then why not give full control to every one of the Generals and have them behave in a similar manner as the Roman Allies.

Any stack with a General s/b allowed to roam the Map doing however the AI pleased. Crap, why not get rid of Player Involvement altogether. Oppps! I forgot, we've got that, its called "Autoresolve"....

More to the point, while TW is based upon history, it is NOT a historical simulation---IT'S A GAME!

Of course, there's a necessary level of *Abstraction* within the game, but EVERY General, save the one you personally control, acting as some suicidal idiot is beyond the Abstract---its ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that you're Roman competitors are *supposed* to be the other two Roman *Factions*, NOT some General in your army, that you are paying, and, probably, could order him to be killed on a whim.

To that, my man Nestor II has said it so wonderfully:


There's obviously some kind of misunderstanding in the development process of the game: I actually want to win....

ROFLOLPIP!

You speak my mind. One of the things I find interesting are the guys so focused upon creating the correct Roman army compositions, formations, etcetera, etcetera....

For me, it's all about the gameplay. Just give me enough info about the game mechanics and interface functions, and I'll show you how to beat the AI; without Cheats and without Cheesy Tactics.

It's all about the Gameplay, all about developing a skill level.

---


In terms of AI controlled stacks, it's perfectly possible (although not in every case) to control both stacks. Just ensure that your main force doesn't have the full compliment of 20 units & it doesn't have a general commanding it. Then when reinforcements arrive in battle you will be able to control them on a unit by unit basis just as in MTW! I often separate 20 unit stacks sending my cavalry round the back of enemy forces to attack the rear, as long as a captain is commanding the supporting force i can take control (of course sometimes reinforcements can be delayed and having no cavalry can be a bit of a pain ) But generally works really well.

Some of you are missing the point of my second whine.


First one: Brutii army attacks a lone Eastern Infantry standing outside the walls of one of my cities; the garrison of 1000+ sallies to save their buddy!; I have control of the lone EI and the AI general massacres my army against a clearly inferior opponent

THIS! is the problem.

As I said before, "I don't need NO help, beating the AI".

The *feature* either needs to be eliminated and/or a Player s/b able to turn it OFF.

---

Even MORE to the point, the *feature* is pure CHEESE!!! Yeah, isn't it quite Challenging to watch the AI beat up upon itself, and then sweep in for the cleanup. NOT!

BTW, anyone know if this can be modded out?

[Tim]

Lets face it. The game, AS IS, once you get past the fantastic graphics and the *newness* of it all simply BLOWS. I haven't played in about 10 days because I'm already sick of it. I've tried the Realism MOD and that doesn't help one bit. I can only pray that the patch addresses the vast majority of the problems with the game. Let’s e be honest, the AI is horrendous, both on the strategic and tactical level (which is worse?) and diplomacy is a JOKE! If the basic mechanics of the game are not fixed, then the game –for me at least- will not be played. Before the game came out, and for about the two weeks that I played it heavily, I wondered who in the hell could go back to Medieval? Now I know. Me.

The most egregious *$&%-up, without a doubt, is the suicidal Generals. How -how I ask you- did that get past the testers? And someone above posted that the poor battle AI, i.e., your AI, general-led forces, are realistic because they often sought to backstab each other, is out of their mind. NO, it’s like that because the AI is abysmal. My god, I just realized, my 11-year-old nephew has played it and is WINNING his campaign, and he’s as dumb as a box of rocks! Pathetic.

[Cid]

Afraid you're right Tim,

They went glitz. They just overhauled the graphics. Collective jaws were supposed to drop "Wow! Look at that guy go flying!" and that's that. Wish they had just moderately improved the MTW graphics and concentrated on advancing the AI, Diplomacy, historical detail and immersion aspects. Modders have made a valiant effort but I have a feeling that the TW series has taken a permanent fork in the road. Too bad because it was one of the few worthwhile games out there. Can't help feeling that Activision had a large part in this.

Back to MTW for me too. Hope modders haven't given up on it!

BTW RINGO, Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's...kind of in keeping with the glitz over substance gripe many here seem to have.

[Praylak]

Just yesterday I was having very similair thoughts to what you guys are saying here. It's upsetting to say the least. I've been modding and trying other mods, but in the end, (and I say this with a gulp in my throat), I think I'm going to start a new MTW campaign tonight. Whats so distubing is that I've had RTW for only month and I'm thinking this.

A reality I'm having troubles coming to terms with and I think its best I just face up to the fact that the games todays developers are aiming at just don't include me anymore. Graphics get the budget, gameplay goes to the can. I should have caught the hints CA was dropping left and right through pre-release advertising, but I was blinded by the glory of "uuuehh, loooks awezome". Thats the game of today and apparently thats all the majority of todays gamers want cause thats all we've been getting all across the front for the past several years.

(Say I'm wrong, please.)

[Mikeus Caesar]

I wondered who in the hell could go back to Medieval? Now I know. Me.

Me too. Due to all the problems with RTW, i'm thinking of returning to my absolutely brilliant english campaign, in which ireland is under siege from the almohads and the rest of europe is falling beneath the english boot.