RTW AI same as MTW AI [Archive]

View Full Version : RTW AI same as MTW AI

JJU57

08-12-2005, 15:41

I know this topic has been discussed before but I haven't seen some of my thoughts mentioned. While being new, I have played both games for many hours. I started with RTW and played it for three weeks. I then got MTW and played that for five weeks and am now back to RTW for the last three weeks. I play about 35 hours a week. I know I have no life.

This is what I have noticed. I was able to win in RTW by using good military tactics like high ground, flanking attacks, missles to soften up enemy, etc. I think I lost only one battle when a green army went up against a slightly larger vetern army.

When I got MTW I lost my first four battles. It seemed like the AI was better but in fact it wasn't. The real difference is in unit handling, morale and other non-AI issues. RTW doesn't care if the archers are more then two ranks while MTW does. I can't see why it matters and IMHO RTW is more accurate in this. Also in MTW you needed long lines to wrap the enemies flank. It seems MTW units didn't turn to fight on the side. RTW is more accurate as units do this. Once I learned that a thin 2 man line is better then a 6 man deep line battles became easy. The other big difference is that units seemed to have their own mind in MTW. I tell a calvary unit to position itself on the flank but wait before charging. But even before getting to their position they chage all alone. After executing one or two generals that would have stopped in my armies. RTW doesn't nearly have as many units doing what they want when they want. MTW had calvary charging before the enemy was locked in front and their charge would not be on the back as they never went to my required position. All of this has nothing to do with AI but made the battle much harder. The only way to prevent this was to move the unit so far back that it took way to long to commit when they were needed.

Finally, I started with the Polish in MTW. They had poor generals and low morale, not to mention just average units. RTW starts with the Romans who have better generals, units and morale. Therefore the battles are easier. But once again this isn't the AI.

In both games I've seen the AI rush to get the high ground, try to attack my flanks, reposition their units to protect flanks, and also try to get beneficial unit to unit matchups. Neither was great but there is not much difference. The only place where there is a difference is in how the general is handled. In MTW the general is almost the last to partake in a battle. In RTW the AI general might be the first as it depends on the unit. And in RTW the loss of a general is a bigger morale loss and penality then in MTW. This is the only real difference and complaint about RTW over MTW that is justified.

The other big difference is in how the reinforcements are handled. MTW had a hard limit on units and the rest were reinforcements. This had the effect that you couldn't chase down a routed unit to destory it and make sure it never rallied. You might run into a fresh reinforcement and get caught off guard. This then led to units rallying and attacking again. In RTW you can keep chasing the unit preventing a rally and this then increases the chance of the whole army breaking. Also all units are on the map at the start and hence you can plan accordingly. I remember in MTW I was pressing a large army and winning. Since I was the attacker I had to move forward. However, their reinforcement point was slightly behind and on the flank. Poof, units appeared and had my flank. Not only doesn't this have anything to do with the AI it isn't even realistic.

Another big non-AI issue that makes it seem like MTW is harder then RTW is that in MTW the enemy can retreat and thats it. In RTW they can retreat but you can then pursue. If you have movement left the next attack is forced and the AI must fight you. This means many more of the battles are lopsided with my larger force getting to fight the smaller army since they had no choice to retreat a second time.

I'm playing RTW because the battles are really about the same once you learn the MTW secrets. And the strategic game is so much better in RTW. The interface makes managing 50 provinces so much easier then 20 cities in MTW. Not to mention the handling of agents and ships. I also like the strategic movement so much more in RTW. In MTW it was one province no matter the size.

I know this was long but I just wanted to throw my two cents out there.

Shaun

08-12-2005, 15:58

welll i think that the RTW AI is very poor, infact it ruins the game, because all the new features(ones that werent in MTW) dont matter! Who needs ambushes,iv never seen 1! whats the point of all the new diplomacy options? the AI just says no to anything that isnt trade rights!
the MTW AI was better, as it was easier to makebecause of having less possibilities!

JJU57

08-12-2005, 16:33

There are really two AI's. One for the strategic level and one for the battles. Most of my comments were on the battle AI.

As for strategic AI RTW is better. If you want to see an ambush take a small army to Crete or up in the forests in Germainia. Of course you have to be at war. In diplomacy I've seen everything from alliances, bribes, trade rights, and I love selling my map early for $. MTW always said no to most diplomacy options. It was next to impossible to get someone married. The agents in RTW can now be managed and retinues moved between agents.

In MTW you had to check every city every turn. In RTW the interface allows you to go to a city that built a structure and then back to the list of all structures built that day. And how can you say that the movement system in MTW is better?

The strategic AI in MTW was just as dumb if not dumber. How many times did a faction decline a ceasefire even if they were down to one city and outnumbered? The naval portion in MTW was much worse and the positioning of troops was just as bad in MTW. I honestly don't see much difference in strategic AI and in fact with the new movement in RTW it is much better.

The difficulty in MTW over RTW was not due to AI but in interface restrictions and limitations.

Shaun

08-12-2005, 17:07

well the TW series will never be truly great untill they get the AI sorted out!

Puzz3D

08-12-2005, 18:35

When I got MTW I lost my first four battles. It seemed like the AI was better but in fact it wasn't.

The battle AI is very similar in both RTW and MTW. Mostly the AI tries to make the best unit matchups it can, but there are some problems in RTW that are not present in MTW.

The suicide general is a big problem in RTW. Basically, it ruins every single battle. MTW v1.0 had this same problem, and the programmer fixed it. Why isn't it fixed in RTW v1.2?

Phalanx units are very vulnerable on the flanks, but the AI doesn't seem to realize this about its own phalanx units, and doesn't seem to perceive when an enemy unit's flank is covered. It will break up its phalanx battleline exposing the flanks of it's own units in an attempt to make flank attacks on enemy battleline units which have their flanks covered. Other than that, the AI in RTW does seem to do the same thing with infantry that it does in MTW which is to overwhelm your weaker wing, and it will also try to flank the line with one or two infantry units.

Cavalry does flank to the outside in both games, but you'll notice that the timing of those flank attacks is better in MTW. I attribute this to a movement speedup in RTW which I think was applied after the game was initially balanced. If you notice there is a large difference between the running speed and the setup speed as the cavalry rotates into potition for the charge. It's as though the cavalry goes into slow motion to set up for the charge. You can observe this difference with flanking infantry as well.

In MTW, archers in close formation who are 3 or more rows back or 4 or more rows back in loose formation suffer a loss in accuracy because their view is obstructed by the men standing in front of them. This is also true of the entire unit if another unit is standing in front of them. If the archer unit is on a downslope, the accuracy is restored to the unobstructed condition for deep ranks because the men can see over one another and also over any friendly units standing in front of them.

In MTW, men do turn to fight when flanked, but not for a couple of combat cycles. This is probably to increase the effect of flanking. In RTW, I often observe men turning their back to a man they have been fighting and promptly being cut down because, apparently, all defense is removed from a man who's back is turned. I've observed units that would have won loose because of this behavior. Why would a man turn his back to someone he is in the process of fighting? It makes no sense as though it's just a random effect or the man is ignoring the primary threat and responding to someone who isn't near him.

Some units in MTW are impetuous and undiciplined. Many knights were like that historically. An impetuous unit can charge enemy units who are in close proximity without orders. You can minimize this action by keeping those kinds of units back away from the enemy. I wouldn't say they are so far back that they aren't available when needed, but they will be delayed. When I do need those types of units for close support I pay more attention to them so I can stop them if they charge too soon.

I recently had a battle against the AI in MTW on a map which had a valley running up the middle, and high ground on each side of it. Both armies started in the valley. The AI army moved to the high ground to its left, so I followed and moved to the high ground to my right. Once my army got up there, the AI army moved back across the valley to the high ground on the other side. I marched forward, turned and began to move toward teh AI army at which point it moved again to it's right to even higher ground. Eventually, it did engage me from that position which was to the left of my original starting position and was the highest ground on the map. I've never seen an AI army in RTW do something like that.

I was able to win in RTW by using good military tactics like high ground, flanking attacks, missles to soften up enemy, etc.
That's how I win in MTW as well.

Shaun

08-12-2005, 19:41

well i remember the AI in MTW used to just keep re-positioning every time i came close ti it, i chased it about the map, but eventually the time run out! i lost a few battles because of the AI doing that.

TB666

08-12-2005, 21:28

I agree with JJU57 that the AI is pretty much the same.
The AI was ok in MTW but the battles were too easy for me in MTW.
The problem was that the AI was very predictable.
I mean if you had a few battles then you would know the AI's moves, it was like reading a book. Just like the AI in Imperial glory.
The AI in RTW is a bit more random but unfortunately skips from complete idiot to genius from battle to battle.
Luckily the Darthmod really saved the AI IMO and made it a little more stabile.

Shaun

08-13-2005, 00:44

well ive never seen the AI be genius!

TB666

08-13-2005, 00:52

well ive never seen the AI be genius!
Well it was with Darthmod.
I never seen anything like it.
It was like they came out of nowhere(I was playing Jullii and the enemy was Gaul).
I had a huge advantages in numbers but somehow they slaughtered me.
Not even my 3 star general could save the day.
In the end, 1500 romans dead and only 300 gauls dead.
Grim day it was ~:handball:

Shaun

08-13-2005, 01:00

i had darthmod and RTR 5.4, what a great combo, except that it caused a CTD every 3rd battle!

sunsmountain

08-13-2005, 01:04

My opinion is that though the battle AI for both games (MTW and RTW) is similar, Rome: Total War has far more opportunities on the battlefield to **** up because of more features.

Features like:
- Phalanx
- Siege equipment that can move
- Cantabrian Circle
- Dynamic cavalry
- More complicated paths to execute Path Finding on.
- More levels of AI (army AI & unit AI)
- Warcry, Chant, etc.
- Pila thrown by legionares
- Fire missiles, pigs, etc.

You can imagine these new ideas & the graphics engine took a lot of implenting & debugging time already, before one can start on the AI (really the last thing one can do in a game production process).

But to respond to Puzz3D:

The suicide general is a big problem in RTW. Basically, it ruins every single battle. MTW v1.0 had this same problem, and the programmer fixed it. Why isn't it fixed in RTW v1.2?

Actually, the army will fight, and it wont have the overpowering bonus to attack and defend that valour/experience in MTW gave. It's something like -8 morale right after the general dies, but -2 soon after that. Unless you are fighting peasants, that doesn't mean instant rout.

Considering the AI treats its generals like crap anyway (just look at their traits), i'm sometimes glad they're disposed off. But it does get tiresome fighting captains most of the time.

Phalanx units are very vulnerable on the flanks, but the AI doesn't seem to realize this about its own phalanx units, and doesn't seem to perceive when an enemy unit's flank is covered.

I agree units decide for themselves now. In pinched & prolonged battles, this is good, but at the start of the battle, this is wrong.

Now MTW has army formations which have to move as one (even when its not smart). Typically the entire formation will move as one and camp on the highest ground... if and when MTW units behave on a unit AI level, they behave according to:
- standard AI, regardless of unit
- piecemeal, sending them in one by one. (just like RTW actually, its just that it happens more often in Rome because Rome uses unit AI more often. But at least its specialized)

Cavalry does flank to the outside in both games, but you'll notice that the timing of those flank attacks is better in MTW. I attribute this to a movement speedup in RTW which I think was applied after the game was initially balanced.

I agree. (CA are not going to change it because its motion captured)

To counter, Cavalry fighting Infantry actually feels like Cavalry fighting Infantry instead of MTW: Infantry versus Infantry.
This is most noticable when the enemy unit routs, and you want to quickly kill them so your cavalry can do something else after getting the kills for xp. You try to click behind the enemy unit, but in STW/MTW the cavalry unit reforms a lot of times while killing the routers, meaning they will take a lot of time getting in front of the routers and finishing them off. This is one big plus for Rome.

In MTW, archers in close formation who are 3 or more rows back or 4 or more rows back in loose formation suffer a loss in accuracy because their view is obstructed by the men standing in front of them.
I like either solution, i doubt archers on the ground could actually aim at any particular target. Horse archers is entirely different (Cantabrian circle, also absent in MTW/STW).

In MTW, men do turn to fight when flanked, but not for a couple of combat cycles. This is probably to increase the effect of flanking.

Besides the fact that you hardly notice an individual man's facing in a MTW unit, the RTW solution tries to be more realistic. If only they would fight while moving backwards, it would be okay...
... so i rarely turn the unit by hand and havent noticed the same extreme loss when they turn by themselves. Only the enemy units that attack that round get a chance and they still have to penetrate defense (granted, thats easy, but not if they're fighting your legionares, for example.. try it out).

Some units in MTW are impetuous and undiciplined. Many knights were like that historically.
I've actually rarely encountered this behaviour in Rome, even less than in MTW, because i pause a lot to observe what my men are doing at each point in time. It's irritating but realistic & okay when it happens.

Regardless, my flanking plans get executed quicker in Rome because of better mobility. If in MTW, one single man in the unit gets caught while marching behind enemy lines, the entire unit gets caught. In Rome, this doesnt happen, you can march on if you prefer, though it will cost you as more are 'caught' like this.

I recently had a battle against the AI in MTW on a map which had a valley running up the middle, and high ground on each side of it...<cut> Eventually, it did engage me from that position which was to the left of my original starting position and was the highest ground on the map. I've never seen an AI army in RTW do something like that.

Thank God, no! I hated that camper attitude the AI showed brightly and colourfully in each and every battle where there was as much as a hump that would qualify as a 'hill', it would be the AI's first standard order. Chasing the AI around maps with mostly hills around on the edge was a nightmare, especially if your army was stronger than the AI's.

You also couldn't really march your troop in MTW, since they would get tired over time, simply marching up to the enemy. In fact, when you were defending it would be wise to set up and wait, giving you a severe advantage, something that was frustrating if you were defending. (like, WHAT? you're Quite Tired because you Marched to your Enemy? How did you GET here in the first place??)

Let this interesting discussion continue.

Del Arroyo

08-13-2005, 01:33

One things is sure about the slippery MTW defending AI-- it is DAMNED annoying. It does make them hard to outflank, but I've seen them occasionally put themselves into a worse position this way. One thing I like about it is that I can usually influence them to move AWAY from forests, where they have an undue advantage because I cannot see a goddamned thing in those MTW forests.

And what is the deal with the bulls-eye rear guard it always leaves behind?? It seems that when the AI is retreating from one position to another, they will almost always leave one unit in front of my army with its back turned, and once my missle units bring it down to about half strength, it will move 3-4 more units in and hold them ON THE SAME SPACE so that in short order they are all decimated without me losing a single man.

As far as RTW, I've never played it, but people have said the pace of combat was super-charged, which alone was enough to steer me away.

DA

Shaun

08-13-2005, 01:40

well combat in RTW is supercharged, and the AI stupid! thats why most RTW players have a mod installed! like RTR and so on.

antisocialmunky

08-13-2005, 03:14

The main weakness of the MTW AI is it's love of 36 big double stack armies filled trashunits.

PseRamesses

08-13-2005, 11:14

Shaun

08-13-2005, 13:20

in RTW, i thought that for each star the gen had, evey unit gets +1 attack.

player1

08-13-2005, 13:39

True Shaun,
Every star gives +1 attack and increases the radius of moral boosting effect of generals.

No wonder when you have 10 start generals battleing captains that enemy armies rout on contact.

ToranagaSama

08-13-2005, 15:21

To Original Poster,

I respect the fact that what you posted were your personal observations, thoughts and conclusions, but I have to ask do you really think that you are qualified and experienced enough to discern the differences. Some of which are subtle, though quite significant. I really respect the time and effort you made, but experience is just that, experience---it doesn't come overnight.

No offense intended whatsover, but a more experienced and knowledeable player can read in your post that the results you are basing your opinion upon, are greatly effected by a lack of Tactical experience and knowledge, frankly your tactics are quite poor, though to be expected by a relatively new player.

Additionally, more significantly, your limited knowledgeable of unit behaviour, and overall *game* knowledge is VERY evident.

Your conclusion(s) is a *broad* stroke. What necessary to a true evaluation is a more experienced eye that highlight the subtle and significant differences in AI behaviour.

A quick example is the way you view the AIs efforts to get to *high ground*. Yes, both AIs will attempt to position themselves to the high ground. That is not the discrepancy, no one is claiming that RTW's AI doesn't go to high ground. See, your inexperience is hindering your vision in seeing the true discrepancy.

The difference is in the *manner* and EXTENT in which the AIs **use** high ground. MTW's AI does a more competent (some might say a more *human*) effort at USING hight ground. There's a difference in simply *moving* to high ground (a broad stroke), and *using* high ground (subtlety).

Also, I must ask WHAT verstion of MTW are you playing? I would venture to say that most *veterans* make their comparisons to a patched version of Viking Invaisons, which is a good improvement over an unpatched pre-VI version.

The game opens onto the battle screen. I am on the offense.

The first thing to note is that there is a MUCH greater opening distance between the opposing armies. I MUST march my army quite a distance, and even more imposing, over a VARIED terrain, with Hills and Forest to travel over, through, or to bypass.

*Generally*, a VERY different opening than RTW. While you may have to march a little in RTW, the variety of terrain including great valleys simply is not equal to MTW

The opening distance is a factor to be seriously considered, as a player wouldn't want to march his army across the field/terrain and arrive to engage the AI with *Tired* or *Exhausted* units.

You did mention "morale", but, I believe, you haven't taken into account ALL the factors that might be conscrewed under the term "moral". Such as *fatigue*.

So, while considering the above, and beginning to rearrange my army formation, what does the AI do? Well, it IMMEDIATELY moves its' army not simply to high ground, but to the left (my left), putting a hill and part of a forest in between us. Note, that the MTW maps are much more Terrain challenging than RTW! and, that the MTW AI has **multiple** options available in choosing *high ground*, etc.

I note the direction and general position that the AI is seeking to achieve. Now, this is where the MTW AI truly begins to show its superiority to RTW's. After having not played MTW for so long, and with my last playing experience being with RTW, I immediately realize that I'm not in Kansas anymore.

Memory begins to serve and recall, that, often with MTW, the *Opening* is a game of Positioning. This is the situation I was in. Traveling the most direct route, over the hill and through the forest, would not only tire my units, but disrupt my formation as well. So, I decide to counter the AI by moving my army to the right (my right) and up the same hill/mountain that the AI is sitting upon, only I'd be to the *far* right with a still very large gap between the two armies.

My purpose is two-fold, first to negate the AI's terrain advantage (even things out), and, two, to mange to get on even footing with the AI W/O having to engage with *tired* units. My units might be tired by the time they climbed the hill/mountain, but the distance gap would give them time to recover (gotta keep an eye on the clock!).

So, what happens?

As soon as, my intentions are clear, the AI adjusts!! BEFORE, I've completed my manuever, though I'm well on my way. That is my units have marched 3/4 of the distance to the hill/mountain and the AI then moves its position. It doesnt' simply move its position, BUT moves it to an equally advantageous position.

NOTE: the hill/mountain sorta begins on the right and sweeps left all the way around the map in an L shape.

The AI was pretty much situationed to the right and near the point of the "L". I had started to postion to the right near the *end* of the "L".

Again, so what does the AI do?

It repositions slightly to the Left of *point* of the hill. Causing me to re-position as well, and just about when I'm done, the AI repositions a THIRD time!! This time further to the Left. It position itself, remaining at the top of the hill/mountain, so that a a little patch of circular forest is directly in front.

So, get it, I have now moved my army from the far Right of the "L" to the far Left facing an upward battle, with a small forest directly between the opposing armies. I try to manuever by putting my Cav to the left most possible position which has the most level path to the AI's right flank, but the AI, re-positions *again*, so that the *forest* is a more direct barrier, which meant that my Cav would have to do an L shaped run to get to the AI, rather than just a *straight* run.

Note: I had to move my Army 180 degrees, and this one the THIRD re-positioning by the AI. MTW's AI (imperfect as it is) is the best AI of its kind in gaming, at the time it was released, and it'll have to be proved that there's a better one.

Additionally, the AI begins to manuever *individual* units to counter my own. Sorry, despite what you claim, RTW's AI DOES NOT do this! It does not make as good a unit-to-unit judgment. Spear to Cav; Sword to Spear; Stronger to Weaker, etc. (I have not played RTW since the patch, and I have noted comments that RTW is much better than previously. So perhaps this is a moot point.)

Yes, the RTW AI has had a forest to use, but simply becase CA/the game positioned the AI, from the outset, with a forest there!! In front of, or with the AI army in and among a forested area. I do believe that this is rather *common* in RTW openings.

Back to the battle, I gradually begin to move forward unit by unit into what I hope is striking distance. The frank fact is the MTW AI has me **outpositioned**, and its going to be a tough battle. Sorry, RTW has NEVER had me outpositioned----NEVER!

Understand what it means to be outpositioned.

Yes, in RTW I've fought *uphill*; but, not because the **AI** outpositioned me. Rather, because the map terrains were so poor. In those situations, generally, the *entire* RTW map is on a 'plane'. Sometimes, there'll be a forest positioned just so. I HATE forest both in RTW and MTW! So, rather than try to manuver in the forest, I'll just say F it, and go straight at the AI (against the plane/uphill). Frankly, the downhill advantage is so slight it really doesn't matter, anyway.

That's the ONLY basic circumstance where the RTW AI has ever had me outpositioned; and, as you can see IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE AI, but rather the **simple** map. By simple, I mean that the differences between the 'avenues-of-approach' are so little as to make no difference at all. There's, generally, just one basic approach on the battlefield in RTW. Where as in MTW, generally, there are multiple approaches, each with its on advantages/dis-advantages.

This may very well be a matter of JUST terrain mapping----MTW maps are far superior. I'm open to the possibility that RTW's AI just isn't *challenged* by the maps. Perhaps, it doesn't *use* terrain as well as MTW, simply because there's so little terrain to start with?!

There is *one* map where I've noticed the RTW AI to act challengingly. I don't remember the location, but on this map the AI starts out positioned near the top and on the slope of a huge very steep moutain. The avenues of approach are about 3 or 4, all of them are very steep. It's almost next to impossible to chase the AI off its perch, but, it can be done thru careful manuvering.

So far in my RTW experience *this* is the only challenging map, and its more annoying than challenging really. For one, the RTW AI doesn't note my position and then respond by taking the *perch* position above. NO, the AI *starts* in this position.

(A similar Shogun map would be Shiano, where the AI opens at the rear of the map perched atop a mountain.)

Yes, the AI will respond, if I manage to manever well, and re-position, but it doesn't reposition all that well; or, the map doesn't provide good alternative positions (take your pick!?).

Now, herein, again, MTW shines superior. In similar, perch type, positions, the RTW AI WILL allow the player to push it off. It will allow the player to gain a superior or equal position and/or it will re-act when it should not.

In the RTW circumstance described, the AI is basically in an impregnable position. One next to impossible to take w/o Cav; and w/o sending the Cav on a rather circuitous route at that. Yet, the AI can be pushed off!! thru manuevering alone.

In MTW, simply put, when the AI has such an impregnable position, it WILL not be pushed off, at least not without a skirmish or two, or more.

Additionally, the MTW will often began a battle in an advantageous position, with multiple unit engagement, begin to lose position, and, then, consequently, retreat to (more) advantageous ground to begin the battle anew. I have NOT witnessed RTW's AI do this.

In the MTW situation described above, the AI kept adjusting (adroitly) until it found such an impregnable position----and---it did not budge! In fact, it improved its position further by moving a couple of (tough!) units into the little forest! So that, if I chose to attack its partly exposed Left (my right), with the forest being to my left, my attacking units would be caught in an L shaped ambush. Taking the AI on uphill frontally and then being hit from my left flank by the units in the forest.

RTW's AI ain't that smart; or, at least the *effect* of the AI is not as great as MTW. Like I said maybe the maps are holding it back or something else (??).

I have not witness the RTW AI to *use* a forest or hill in such a deliberat manner (very human like). In RTW similar circumstances are created by **pre-positioning** and this is NOT done by the AI!

Yeah, I did win the battle, by the skin of my teeth, and at a price I did not intend, nor want to pay, which as result of the nature of the Campaign game--greatly effected my Campaign. I was rather taken aback at the difficulty I faced right off the bat. (Not to mention that I'm *rusty* as H!)

Granted, and, perhaps this is significant---I was playing the MedMod (beta), and playing on Expert.

Also, all my comments are in regard to the MedMod. I have not played Vanilla in a very very long time. So, it's possible that the MedMod, as intended, allows the AI to fulfil its potential to a degree significantly greater than Vanilla MTW, as well as greater than RTW.

Even if that may be so, I don't buy it, as IMVUHO, it is CA's responsibility and obligation, not simply to create an AI (and game) better and greater than the Vanilla version(s), but to create an AI (and game) that is effectively better than the preceding Modded versions. RTW s/b better than the MedMod, it ain't!

If you really want to compare the best that MTW has to offer, than get the patched version of VI and install the MedMod (3.14 version). I think it only right that this be the judgement basis.

I would say that all the majority of vets base their opinions not on Vanilla MTW, but on a patched VI and/or MedMod or other Mod. So, again, what version did you play?

In any event, while your thoughts, observations and comments are appreciated, the reality is that your view is based upon a scant few number of hours and experience vs. the countless hours and vast personal and cumulative experience of the veterans of the game, of which I include myself.

This post is long enough otherwise I would go futher into your comments.

Thank you for muddling through my overlong post!

~ToranagaSama

Puzz3D

08-13-2005, 17:07

And what is the deal with the bulls-eye rear guard it always leaves behind?? It seems that when the AI is retreating from one position to another, they will almost always leave one unit in front of my army with its back turned, and once my missle units bring it down to about half strength, it will move 3-4 more units in and hold them ON THE SAME SPACE so that in short order they are all decimated without me losing a single man.
This is a bug in the MTW battle AI which LongJohn tried to fix but failed to find the cause. I've had it happen in battles, but not very often.

You also couldn't really march your troop in MTW, since they would get tired over time, simply marching up to the enemy. In fact, when you were defending it would be wise to set up and wait, giving you a severe advantage, something that was frustrating if you were defending. (like, WHAT? you're Quite Tired because you Marched to your Enemy? How did you GET here in the first place??)
Ackowledged by LongJohn that the fatigue rates were not changed between STW and MTW eventhough STW used all small maps. He did make one change in MTW v1.1 which was to reduce the fatigue rate of running cavalry by 10%. The argument given by him for not making an overall reduction in fatigue rates was that it would make the maps play like they were smaller and that would work against a large scale feel of the battles. In other words, the game is trying to simulate a larger scale battle than is actually being shown by the number of men you have. Red Harvest has elaborated on this recently, and in the past, about how the battlefront in real battles would be much longer than you have in the game, and it would take considerable time and energy to get from one end of the battleline to the other. Shading movement speeds down and fatigue rates up simulates a larger scale battle than is actually being presented by the absolute distances. This is also apparent by the effective range of missle units which is kept lower than the range these weapons actually had if you go strictly by the measured distance in the game.

Quite a few multiplayers wanted fatigue rates in MTW reduced so that the attacker wouldn't be at as much of a disadvantage. We did discover that by taking a slow approach to a battle you could pretty much eliminate the fatigue disadvantage of the attacker since the defender does suffer fatigue while standing, but it takes a long time for this to happen thus making battles very long. STW had an ideal pace of 15 to 20 minutes for the average length of a multiplayer battles. MTW lengthened this to 30 to 40 minutes until the rush tactics of cav/sword armies were perfected a few months, after the release of the VI xpack, which could result in shorter battles.

sunsmountain

08-13-2005, 18:21

Thanks Puzz3D, for explaining. I just wish gameplay won over realism in that case, and too bad LongJohn didn't find that bug in the AI.

What ToranagaSama in his rather arrogant post seems to forget, is that the AI in Rome was created by the Creative Assembly, the same people who created his beloved MTW AI. Apparently he likes to chase camping AI armies around the maps, and sees all kinds of "outpositioning" and "intelligent" moves by the AI, which the AI probably did not intend. It's merely following a recipe on army level, something the AI in Rome tries to surpass:

Additionally, the AI begins to manuever *individual* units to counter my own. Sorry, despite what you claim, RTW's AI DOES NOT do this!
This is a blatant lie. Rome exhibits unit level AI, medieval doesn't. The only units medieval armies send in piecemeal (like in Rome) are simply the ones that are closest after they have repositioned to face the players army (whichever direction they believe is appropriate).

The maps in STW and MTW are restricted, limited in amount, and certainly not the thousands of possible in RTW. That a map gives a more advanced AI more abilities to make mistakes, does not mean a less advanced AI is better. It simply means it has less opportunities to mess up.

Your love of the MTW AI does not mean that MTW's AI is superior. I'm not saying RTW AI is better, but it does handle more features, so must be more advanced.

Deus ret.

08-13-2005, 18:51

Well I agree with ToranagaSama insofar as in MTW it was far more difficult to gain a tactical advantage over the AI and that the latter actually was more consequent in carrying out the battle in an orderly formation. This resulted in more difficult battles on average and less erratic individual unit behaviour compared to the proneness of RTW's AI to disorderly advance its units, making things much more easy for a player.

However as you have mentioned RTW battles contain far more factors, details and calculations which the AI has to take into account. A task in which it obviously fails, but that is not my point. The DarthMod eases most pains with regard to this.

Consequently, I opt for stopping these endless unfertile debates and comparisons simply for the reason that these games, while belonging to the same series and having been released by the same company, nevertheless are too different to be compared validly beyond statements like "in RTW cavalry generally is much stronger than back in MTW". Full stop.

Puzz3D

08-13-2005, 20:06

"Apparently he likes to chase camping AI armies around the maps, and sees all kinds of "outpositioning" and "intelligent" moves by the AI, which the AI probably did not intend. It's merely following a recipe on army level, something the AI in Rome tries to surpass.
I've seen the AI in MTW do that same thing. I even described it in a post I made to this thread. The AI is reacting to the position and relative strength of my army.

When a battle starts, as defender the AI army moves from it's initial position to a new position based on the terrain and the position of my army. When I move my army, the AI might change the position of its army. It's definitely reacting to my move and not following a script. This kind of maneuving doesn't seem to be present in the RTW AI or else the terrain bonuses are so small as to be insignificant.

CA did say they reduced terrain effects because new players wouldn't understand them. I think this is just another way of saying that this new market CA is trying to appeal to won't tolerate longer battles which require more decision making. That's why having the AI armies set up close and come straight at you, and having a tactical gameplay where the use of 3 to 5 groups of units works better than controling 16 to 20 individual units has been incorporated into RTW. The comment I most often see from players who like RTW is that longer battles would be boring. I find fast battles utilizing fewer active components to be less interesting.

Shambles

08-13-2005, 20:40

Both RTW and MTW ai are a bit welll Umm Useless for want of a better word
"there isnt one"

My main complaint about both of them is there Inabilaty to relize they are being Shot

Really RTW units actualy do relize there being shot But only after ages. Then they run away,
then they notice
"were not being shot any more, Try again"
They Get shot at again
and then after Ages Again the relize
"Oh look Arrows Better march back down the hill". That sux.

HOWEVER IMHO MTW is even worse,

Say that im hurling Huge bolders at a group of the ai's units.
Sometimes (3/12 times Usualy when they are looking up a hill at you.)
The AI will decide
"ooh look at all those rocks Lets go investigate"
Then stands a nother unit Right ontop of the unit thats being decimated.

Now ud expect the ai to say "i better get out of here"
But no,
It happily sends in a noher unit to see what all the big rocks are dooing.

I supose that STW AI isnt anything clever either, But its more difficult for me to start pointing out errors i have noticed.

Either way i dont think much of rtw or mtw battle ai,
But i supose thats why theres MP.

As for the campaign mode. I haft to admit out of all 3 my fave is MTW,
But its unfortunate that Out of all the units you can produce You tend to only build a select few.

RTW campaign ai is just dumb what with the save load bug.

And STW was great but lacks alot of features,

There
ShambleS
:bow:

antisocialmunky

08-13-2005, 21:34

The MTW AI is progrmmed to 'soak' off artillery of any kind if it doesn't have a clear line of sight to the artillery unit. You can get them to charge at you if you take a missile unit and move them infront of your line.

It's not that bad.

sunsmountain

08-13-2005, 23:10

It's definitely reacting to my move and not following a script.

Well, a script in the sense that it always moves towards higher ground & away from your army, unless another higher ground is closer and it can get there before you can. That's not scripted like in RomeTW, but still, its pretty lame if you ask me.

It's not that bad.

I guess. Let's not forget how hard it is to make a functioning, non-crashing AI in the first place. And that for every 30 vets like us + TS, there are 3000 gamespot members who already gave Rome:TW a superb rating.

If you were a programmer, and SEGA was your boss...

:embarassed: ~:grouphug:

Shaun

08-14-2005, 00:08

people on this forum are all pretty much hardcore gamers, so expect the highest standards of realism, great AI that is smarter than ceasar and so on.
the hardcore players often forget about the noobs.
about 95% of RTW buyers are not hardcore, and the game has to appealt to the 95%!

Feanaro

08-14-2005, 00:29

I have never attempted to directly compare the AI of RTW and MTW(VI plus patch, that is). If I am playing MTW(or RTW) I don't play the other. So I can't compare them easily, I have to go by memories. But, after starting up a game up VI, I have been challenged far more than I used to be in RTW. Part of it is simply the gameplay but some part is the AI. Everytime I attempt to develop just the right formation and tactic, the AI reacts and fouls things up before I have moved ten steps. The AI in RTW seemed more willing to sit still. The posturing and use of terrain seems to be the biggest difference, IMO. If I set myself up on a mountain, my forces facing south(a hypothetical facing, for reference), the AI cuts across the mountain from the west or the east. The MTW AI also seems to be able to hold a tighter formation, presenting fewer holes.

the hardcore players often forget about the noobs.

Indeed. Now if only CA would forget them as well. ~:joker:

Shaun

08-14-2005, 00:45

Indeed. Now if only CA would forget them as well. ~:joker:
well you were a noob as well!
if Ca forgot about the noobs, us 5% of TW buyers wood have what we want, but there wood be no more TW games.

antisocialmunky

08-14-2005, 00:46

Or they could remember everyone and make the AI smarter on high levels rather than takeing the easy way with broken status boosts.

Shaun

08-14-2005, 00:48

i know, everyone wood benifit with a smarter AI!

sapi

08-14-2005, 03:19

Your love of the MTW AI does not mean that MTW's AI is superior. I'm not saying RTW AI is better, but it does handle more features, so must be more advanced.

I completely agree. RTW is an improvement; people are talking of post-vi mtw ai, rtw hasn't had an expansion yet; who knows what it may bring.

If you're complaining about balance go play a mod like rtr to pass the time.

Red Harvest

08-14-2005, 03:46

Puzz3D is correct, especially about the MTW AI staying on high ground and moving to maintain its advantage. That is probably the biggest deficiency in RTW's AI. It lets you flank it and take high ground without responding. It has either a "camp in place, do nothing" or "ATTACK!, ATTACK!, ATTACK!" as its approach. The MTW AI *marched* across the map. RTW charges to its death, fatigued.

The camping approach makes perfect sense for the MTW AI when it has inferior forces. It is the same thing I do in its position. Move to forest or elevation (or both) or to a bridge, etc. and defend. That's the way real generals did it too...

The archery effect in MTW fit better with the game, especially rank depth effects. In RTW you can stack 16 men deep and not see a change in accuracy. In fact, distance attenuation on accuracy seems to be missing in RTW. What little I could detect appeared to be related to the terminal angle (and hence the smaller cross section at distance compared to point blank.)

RTW has no idea what to do with the phalanx, that pretty much makes the AI broken. MTW didn't have the phalanx but it used heavy/slow units like halbardiers better than RTW does its phalangites. Regardless, it is a serious deficiency that RTW has and for which MTW lacks an equivalent problem.

RTW tries to reorient its line far too close to the player's position. It doesn't analyze the match ups until it is too late or it tries to change them too late. This is absolutely fatal to phalanx warfare as it turns the flank at the most critical time. MTW was better at trying to achieve favorable matchups.

RTW uses it skirmishers better...when it actually uses them as skirmishers. Skirmish mode is improved, but the result is hampered by insufficient margin between javelin throwing distance and "flee" distance. Too often it just charges them into the line and fails to skirmish. The MTW AI was far better about sending out archers to skirmish and wear down the player, but it did suffer from doing things more piecemeal than a human, so the AI could use his/her archers much more effectively.

The AI still suffers in RTW because of the snowball charge effect. There is no real penalty to creating a rolling mass of units in a tight space. Kill rate is too high. Crowding and disorganization/loss of formation penalties appear to be absent.

Shaun

08-14-2005, 11:28

youre right, theMTW AI was better at controling different units, what shows up the RTW AI is its use of phalanxs and skirmishers, and its suicide generals.

Ludens

08-14-2005, 13:37

Excellent summary, Red Harvest. The only things I have to add is the AI's reaction to hidden units and reinforcements. In M:TW, the AI would actively search for them if the number of units he could see did not correspond with the numbers you have (at higher difficulty levels, at least). In R:TW he just ignores them.

Heck, once in R:TW I was approaching the AI through a forest, slingers at front, infantry behind. The AI did not dare to engage my infantry, but once my army stopped and my infantry went 'hidden', the AI charged. My skirmishers withdrew, the infantry rose to throw their pila, and lo and behold: the AI troops turn tail and run back to their original position. It is just like the AI forgets the hidden units are there as soon as they go 'hidden'.

I have never seen the R:TW AI spring tactical ambushes.

The R:TW AI goes after the primary attacker/defender and ignores reinforcements until they get into view. It is sometime since I played M:TW, but I remember a few battles were the AI would always go for the weaker enemy army and destroy it before the stronger was in a position to help.

There is only one occasion where I saw the R:TW AI do something I never saw in M:TW. This was in a bridge battle where the defending AI was taken on two sides by a smaller, weaker and bigger force. The AI initially ignored the bigger army and chose to defend the bridge against the weaker force, which was the primary attacker, but once it spotted the reinforcing army it setup a formation to protect itself from both armies. I have never seen the M:TW AI do this. Unfortunately, once the big army came close the AI lost its head, sent one unit over the bridge (which got slaughtered by my small army), threw its formation into chaos and was butchered. One famous last stand.

sunsmountain

08-14-2005, 20:31

It has either a "camp in place, do nothing" or "ATTACK!, ATTACK!, ATTACK!" as its approach. The MTW AI *marched* across the map. RTW charges to its death, fatigued.

Funny enough, so does Medieval, the only difference is that MTW does so at an army level, keeping everything together before engaging. Rome reacts a little jumpy on unit level, and easily charges towards its inevitable doom.

What little I could detect appeared to be related to the terminal angle (and hence the smaller cross section at distance compared to point blank.)
What you'll also notice if you stack them 16 deep is that not all of them are firing if they are not in range, whereas if they fired in MTW, all of them fired, even though "realistically" the ones on the back row would not be in range yet. (nitpicking, but still, realism fails against gameplay in this case i think).

This is absolutely fatal to phalanx warfare as it turns the flank at the most critical time. MTW was better at trying to achieve favorable matchups.

MTW never had to. It's unfamiliar with things like Phalanxes, and if you flank Chivalric Sergeants or Swiss Pikemen, the effect is no different from flanking Chivalric Men At Arms or even Chivalric Knights (remember Cavalry/Infantry doesnt matter in MTW engine), if their morale levels were equal.

The AI still suffers in RTW because of the snowball charge effect. There is no real penalty to creating a rolling mass of units in a tight space. Kill rate is too high. Crowding and disorganization/loss of formation penalties appear to be absent.

Loss of formation is definitely penalized, if only by Ludens' example of the bridge and the AI losing because it screws up its formations, which I agree, is irritating.

In general, unit AI still has a too strong a say in things on the field. It does try to match up with units it can handle, but as long as it can cause casulties, it doesnt really care about the type of troop its up against.

So a group of Principes will take any barbarian unit perhaps except cavalry if spearmen are on the field, it should of course aim for enemy spearmen, but that must be planned at an early stage in the battle, which is somehow removed from the game (armies do start close to each other).

Perhaps we can agree that at least the possibilities of the Rome AI are more numerous than in MTW, and hopefully, also the tactics (if terrain would matter that would add s/t already)

I have never seen the R:TW AI spring tactical ambushes.
Never had the unfortune of walking into germania and meeting a barbarian army hiding on the campaign map in the forest?

Red Harvest

08-14-2005, 20:53

What you'll also notice if you stack them 16 deep is that not all of them are firing if they are not in range, whereas if they fired in MTW, all of them fired, even though "realistically" the ones on the back row would not be in range yet. (nitpicking, but still, realism fails against gameplay in this case i think).

It varied from patch to patch in RTW. The ranged units would wait until the center of the formation was in range ir RTW before firing, that would usually get most individuals firing at an approaching opponent. It changed some with FF modification later. MTW didn't have everyone firing from what I remember, especially not in FF situations, where there would be only sporadic firing.

(remember Cavalry/Infantry doesnt matter in MTW engine), if their morale levels were equal.

MTW actually had anti-cav spears...something that is a real problem for RTW...broken counters. Cavalry rules them all, which is boring and unrealistic.

Loss of formation is definitely penalized, if only by Ludens' example of the bridge and the AI losing because it screws up its formations, which I agree, is irritating.

Problem is that stacking works and doesn't disrupt formations and reduce overall performance like it should. People build super phalanx walls by stacking. You are seeing the terrain bottleneck effect disrupting formation, that's different. That doesn't effect the snowball on the open field.

Perhaps we can agree that at least the possibilities of the Rome AI are more numerous than in MTW, and hopefully, also the tactics (if terrain would matter that would add s/t already)

There is more complexity available to the units (but yes, unfortunately less weather and terrain impact.) However, the AI is not sufficiently adapted to the nuances of RTW to handle it. There is more potential, but unless the AI can tap into it, it is more of a burden than a help.

Ludens

08-14-2005, 21:02

Funny enough, so does Medieval, the only difference is that MTW does so at an army level, keeping everything together before engaging. Rome reacts a little jumpy on unit level, and easily charges towards its inevitable doom.
Not exactly. For example, when defending a ridge in Medieval, the AI would change its formation according to how you approached, maximizing its defensive strenght. In the R:TW, the AI merely swivels its army around, oftentimes actually allowing you to get higher than they. I have forced many armies of an advantageous position simply by marching around them.

MTW never had to. It's unfamiliar with things like Phalanxes, and if you flank Chivalric Sergeants or Swiss Pikemen, the effect is no different from flanking Chivalric Men At Arms or even Chivalric Knights (remember Cavalry/Infantry doesnt matter in MTW engine), if their morale levels were equal.
It would mean disruption and loss of rank bonuses for the spearmen, but you've got a point.

Loss of formation is definitely penalized, if only by Ludens' example of the bridge and the AI losing because it screws up its formations, which I agree, is irritating.
I think Puzz3D was refering to unit formation while I refered to army formation.

Perhaps we can agree that at least the possibilities of the Rome AI are more numerous than in MTW, and hopefully, also the tactics (if terrain would matter that would add s/t already)
I can agree with you there, sadly this potential is not used at the moment.

Never had the unfortune of walking into germania and meeting a barbarian army hiding on the campaign map in the forest?
I've walked into ambushes a couple of times, but they always failed for some reason. I specifically typed tactical ambushes to indicate hiden units on the battle map, not on the strategic map. If the AI hides its units, it seems merely because they accidentally were in a forrest.

Ryanus

08-15-2005, 00:00

Well RTW is my first total war game, and the reason I got it was the promise of better/realistic tactics and the combination of Civilizations type strategy and real time tactical combat, so CA shouldn't think that more strategic depth will scare of new players because thats what probably attracted many of them to the francize in the first place.

As for longer battles, I would like it if I had more to do during the battle, but I don't think actually joining in battle should take half the time.

Red Harvest

08-15-2005, 04:56

Not exactly. For example, when defending a ridge in Medieval, the AI would change its formation according to how you approached, maximizing its defensive strenght. In the R:TW, the AI merely swivels its army around, oftentimes actually allowing you to get higher than they. I have forced many armies of an advantageous position simply by marching around them.

Yep, MTW was much better about this. RTW is just brain dead. It swivels when it should slide. It does a similar thing when you sally through the side gates. It will often pivot its army and sometimes pivot and withdraw *to lower ground.* ~:eek: It never just backs up onto high ground in the rear during a sally.

I specifically typed tactical ambushes to indicate hiden units on the battle map, not on the strategic map. If the AI hides its units, it seems merely because they accidentally were in a forrest.

Yes, tactical surprise is almost entirely missing in RTW. You know where your enemy is nearly all the time. RTW lost that suspense of trying to sweep acrosss the woods and valleys without fatiguing or being ambushed or defeated on one flank before the other could link up. It's missing from RTW.

Deus ret.

08-15-2005, 11:32

The R:TW AI goes after the primary attacker/defender and ignores reinforcements until they get into view. It is sometime since I played M:TW, but I remember a few battles were the AI would always go for the weaker enemy army and destroy it before the stronger was in a position to help.

~:confused: AFAIK MTW didn't know several armies attacking from different directions, that was introduced in RTW by dividing tha camp map into tiles. So usually it didn't have to cope with more than one group of enemies.

I've never really been a fan of custom battles though, it might be different there.

It never just backs up onto high ground in the rear during a sally.

Yes it does. At least if you have onagers/long range attackers inside the walls, and sometimes also if you haven't.
However in general the RTW AI can easily be outsmarted especially during sally battles.

Instead of being unhappy with the lame RTW AI, you could as well ease the annoyance. There have been efforts to alleviate this state: Try e.g. the Darth mod. I even had fun while losing battles thanks to the nasty AI.

screwtype

08-15-2005, 12:20

The AI is better in MTW/STW. Archers, for example, never behave like melee units in the earlier games. And you don't get silly behaviour like AI units drowning themsleves.

AI armies in the earlier games maneouvre more as a group, and it's also harder to entice them out of position. In RTW there appears to be next to no co-ordination at all after the initial deployment. Units just go and do their individual thing. It's easy to get AI units out of position and pick them off one by one in RTW.

And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In MTW/STW you will lose some battles, and even when you win, you usually take significant losses. In RTW you almost never lose, and your losses are usually negligible. Of course, this is also due in part to the slower combat and routing of the earlier games but it also has to do with the AI.

Puzz3D

08-15-2005, 14:08

And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In MTW/STW you will lose some battles, and even when you win, you usually take significant losses. In RTW you almost never lose, and your losses are usually negligible. Of course, this is also due in part to the slower combat and routing of the earlier games but it also has to do with the AI.
The faster combat in RTW depresses morale more, and I don't think the AI considers that when deciding to send it's units in to fight. It appears to use morale in deciding whether to stay and fight or withdraw, and that's what I've observed in all the Total War games. After that, in STW and MTW, it will attempt to make direct attacks with units that are stronger than the target unit and indirect attacks with units that are weaker. LongJohn added some scripting to MTW to make cavalry flank more often, and stop the general from attacking.

RTW seems similar, but a little more prone to make direct attacks against the weakest part of the enemy line while doing some flanking with cavalry. The timing of these attacks seems wrong, and is better in battles where movement speed and combat resolution are slower. In modded battles, where the fighting last longer you will even see the AI flank with infantry units, and it's effective. The number one cause of the AI failing in vanilla RTW battles is that its army routs. Obviously, the AI is underestimating the ability of its units to stand and fight.

CA could move away from an AI that tries to make individual unit matchups, and plays in a more grand tactical style which is actually more realistic. Have the army maintain the battleline, flank in force with a group of units that are suitable for that task and use a tactical reserve to block breakthroughs or exploit gaps that develop in the enemy line. Get rid of the low morale so the fighting can last longer. This means you won't be able to win with 10:1 or 20:1 casualties inflicted unless you have a much, much better general than the enemy.

The low morale is there for one reason, and LongJohn stated the reason during discussions about MTW. He said it's there so that you win when you rout the first enemy unit. I suggest that CA move away from that idea eventhough I know that some multiplayers want to keep it. The easy routing hurts the Strategic Campaign by allowing the human player to inflict massive attrition with practically no loss to himself, and in multiplayer it causes players to increase the money available so they can boost morale with upgrades, but that has the disadvantage of damaging what little RPS the units have in them.

Red Harvest

08-15-2005, 15:37

~:confused: AFAIK MTW didn't know several armies attacking from different directions, that was introduced in RTW by dividing tha camp map into tiles. So usually it didn't have to cope with more than one group of enemies.

In both STW and MTW battles vs. multiple enemies happened several times a campaign. I've seen four large armies on the field before. In RTW this is almost entirely absent (it is one thing I really miss.) Fighting multiple AI armies in RTW is not challenging except in very specific circumstances (sandiwiched between two much larger forces for example.) The AI suicides itself most of the time when this happens.

Yes it does. At least if you have onagers/long range attackers inside the walls, and sometimes also if you haven't.
However in general the RTW AI can easily be outsmarted especially during sally battles.

Backing out of range is not what I was describing. It will back out of range, then pivot itself into a hole as my sallying force comes around.

Instead of being unhappy with the lame RTW AI, you could as well ease the annoyance.

I used the "Quit Playing Mod." I had done quite a bit of modding myself, but fixing battlefield AI deficiency was not really possible. As my sig says, RTW was a DIY project.

Feanaro

08-15-2005, 16:22

well you were a noob as well!

The hell you say! I came out of my mama with a Nintendo NES, swearin' at the dog in Duck Hunt. I was nursed on Commander Keen, Nexus 7, Betrayal at Krondor, Descent, and Super Mario Brothers. My friends had names like "Zelda", "Grue", "Threepwood", "Sir Graham", "B.J.", and "Kane". :laugh4:

Instead of being unhappy with the lame RTW AI, you could as well ease the annoyance.

Eh, what? You are saying that the people who bought RTW should stop whining and fix the AI(in so many words)? I always figured that was CA's job, since they made and marketed the durn game. I have tried to code before. It is tedious and boring. And to fix the AI in RTW... whew. More over, no player should not have to. Of course it sure would be nice to fix the AI but such an undertaking isn't easy nor short. It wouldn't be worth the effort to me and I think most players would agree.

For all the problems I can find with RTW, however, I still enjoy playing it. I just like gripin'. ~D

Slyspy

08-15-2005, 16:40

I would agree that RTW and MTW have virtually the same AI. That is what lets RTW down so badly. The AI simply doesn't work with the new strategic aspects of RTW, while it was sufficient for the MTW Risk-style map. At least MTW saw massed armies not sad little stacks. At least the Risk-board meant that generals fought with their armies not by themselves. Certain flaws in the tactical AI keep reappearing in each release (suicidal generals, marching aimlessly around under a rain of arrows etc) even when some of them have previously been addressed in patches.

antisocialmunky

08-15-2005, 16:44

MTW never had to. It's unfamiliar with things like Phalanxes, and if you flank Chivalric Sergeants or Swiss Pikemen, the effect is no different from flanking Chivalric Men At Arms or even Chivalric Knights (remember Cavalry/Infantry doesnt matter in MTW engine), if their morale levels were equal.

Um. yes it did. Cavalry always gave infantry a morale and attack penalty. Spearmen are MTW phalanxes and the AI was good at lining them up and keeping them together.

Chuffy

08-15-2005, 18:18

The hell you say! I came out of my mama with a Nintendo NES, swearin' at the dog in Duck Hunt. I was nursed on Commander Keen, Nexus 7, Betrayal at Krondor, Descent, and Super Mario Brothers. My friends had names like "Zelda", "Grue", "Threepwood", "Sir Graham", "B.J.", and "Kane".

Man that's awesome.

Wait, so the RTW ai is the same as the MTW ai?

I must've missed that part in MTW when the entire enemy army ran fowards in a incoherant mess, exposing it's flanks and not flanking itself.

Maybe I missed that part from playing the game for an entire year solidly?

Volstag

08-15-2005, 19:30

Having recently played a few rounds of MTW, I sorta have to agree with the OP. The TacAI might be marginally better than RTW but, in the end, it's not by a whole lot -- and I really think that with a few minor changes, the TacAI in RTW would be superior.

But as far as everything else goes: RTW wins hands down. The interface, the sound, the graphics, the empire management "tools", etc. The map change is way, way better than MTW. While the "risk style" movement of MTW isn't all that bad, the operational movement afforded by the RTW map is, IMO, totally superior.

If the StratAI in RTW would do a few simple things: attach good generals to big stacks, keep weak stacks out of harms way, etc, this would all translate into tougher encounters on the tactical map.

The one thing I wish they would add (since STW) is a simple city/general overview screen. For example: all the citites listed on one screen that you can sort by income, population, unrest, corruption, etc. Manage your recruitment/construction queues, etc. It's rather tedious to individually move through each city. An overview screen for generals/family members would be awesome as well -- sort it by command rating, influence, management, age, location, etc. As with cities, it's somewhat annoying to have click all over the map, hand examining every person, etc.

-V

JJU57

08-15-2005, 19:45

I've waited and read all the posts. Hee are some more comments. First off ToranagaSams, It was patched VI MTW and patched RTW. To say someone is inexperienced without kowning just means you like to draw conclusions without facts. I may not have played THIS game as long as others but that does not mean I'm not experienced.

I noticed a number of observations and conclusions. One conclusion was that MTW was harder then RTW. But the harder result wasn't due to AI but instead to gameplay. As you had to travel a long distance in MTW, when attacking, your troops were more tired. Right or wronf starting troops closer means different complexities and results. Also remember that on attack you had to accept MTW's setup but in RTW you determine placement.

Almost, but not all of the differences in difficulty mentioned are due to gameplay and not AI. I do agree that the general chaging in RTW is bad and a quick counter attack usually resaults in a mass rout. This is a claer difference.

As for archers it is gamepaly and actually poor gameplay that made MTW more difficult. On flat ground with tons of troops in front why are the first two rows accurate but not the others? After all these are not crossbows as they shoot in an arc at a piece of ground. This is unrealistic in my opinion. It also menas the game is harder because you have to stretch out the line, exposing flanks, and some might be too far away to attack. In a rectangle 10 men deep it is easier to control. But again this isn't AI.

And I think the single biggest issue is that in MTW the units retreat if outnumbered. There are almost no battles where you have a substantial superiority over the AI's armies. Let's face it, as humans we do most of the attacking in a game. MTW was structured to make it harder through gameplay like terrain, distance, formation management, etc. In some defensive battles I've achieved 10, 15 an 20-1 kill ratios in MTW just like in RTW as long as I've keep my units from charging off on their own. In fact RTW sometimes does better like in bridge battles. In MTW the Golden Horde attacked and I had 4 groups of X-Bows, one archer and two of the chivalric spearmen. The X-bows just decimated them. In RTW I had four archers and two calvery and two hoplites against four armoured hoplites and assorted units. The armoured units were in a second group. The first group did not attempt to cross the bridge and setup a defensive position in case I crossed. Then they sent the hevily armoured units across. My archers were almost useless and after losing both of my hoplite units they formed a defensive beachhead till they brought across the other units. I hoped they would move forward and my calvery woulod flank them. It was a good showing for the AI and I had to retreat.

The bottom line is that I've seen very bad decisions made by both AI's and once in a while both AI's surprised me. I started this post because I read many othe posts that said MTW had a better AI and as proof they described how the game was harder. I argree it is harder in most situations, but this is due to gameplay elements and not AI. Heck I can make all AI units have no morale problems while your troops are paper tigers. You are also exhausted after taking two steps while they can run 1000 miles carrying 500 punds and not break a sweat. I bet the game would be much harder and all my AI had to do is mass attack.

I enjoyed the thread and all the posts.

bodidley

08-15-2005, 20:13

There are some pretty essential differences between gameplay in M:TW and R:TW, but the AI also tends to behave differently. In Medieval the terrain is more varied, as opposed to the very generic R:TW terrains, and the effects of terrain are very noticable. The AI can successfully position itself on the highground and defend that position in Medieval, whereas in Rome the high ground is so broad that the AI tends to reposition itself off the highground as you approach. I suppose that doesn't have as much of an affect as it should anyways, because the affects of terrain in Rome are very slight compared to Medieval. What's really unfortunate about the AI in Rome is that it often breaks up its army to attack from many directions at once. That means that the player has to start a click-fest to counter, but in the end it's fairly easy to destroy the enemy in detail. In Medieval the AI had more of a tendancy to keep its units together.The problem with less depth of gameplay in battles is that you end up fighting a large number of battles that are short and similar; that gets old pretty fast.

sunsmountain

08-15-2005, 20:22

... and i hope this thread is far from over! Hurray to your initiative!

Your conclusion agrees with CA in the sense that they focused a lot of their development time into making the gameplay easier.

And this is indeed misunderstood by many here, me included initially. For example:

Originally Posted by Red Harvest
It has either a "camp in place, do nothing" or "ATTACK!, ATTACK!, ATTACK!" as its approach. The MTW AI *marched* across the map. RTW charges to its death, fatigued.

Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Funny enough, so does Medieval, the only difference is that MTW does so at an army level, keeping everything together before engaging. Rome reacts a little jumpy on unit level, and easily charges towards its inevitable doom.

Originally Posted by Ludens
Not exactly. For example, when defending a ridge in Medieval, the AI would change its formation according to how you approached, maximizing its defensive strenght. In the R:TW, the AI merely swivels its army around, oftentimes actually allowing you to get higher than they. I have forced many armies of an advantageous position simply by marching around them.

I'm not saying that the MTW AI's approach isn't effective, like RTW AI's sending units in fatigued.

The point i was trying to make was that an army in MTW was only able to only march as one and maintain one formation, not as individual units. This is part of the possible gameplay, and not part of the AI. It certainly allows for less options for the AI to choose from.

The fact that you can "Push the enemy army out of a corner" is due to a new approach to location in the game, so also part of gameplay. The MTW army was located where the general is, and the general is on the back row. He knows his position can only get worse if he moves. If he doesn't move, his army doesn't move.

In Rome units are allowed to "think" & move for themselves, which leads to some units thinking: Hey, it's slightly better for us over there, while their buddies stand still and think: Noooo....

I conclude that gameplay in MTW was more limited, and thus it's harder for the MTW AI to make mistakes: limited choice means a higher chance of choosing the right thing (logic). It also means you need to write less rules for the AI when options are limited.

Now we all know how overboard CA went with 'ideas' (read any developer diary) during development, so you can imagine the compounding problem for writing an AI to cope with all that!

So let's hope CA succeeds in this (better late than never).

Puzz3D

08-15-2005, 21:32

Now we all know how overboard CA went with 'ideas' (read any developer diary) during development, so you can imagine the compounding problem for writing an AI to cope with all that!
CA has lots of great ideas and they keep putting them into the game up to the last minute, but at some point all these features have to work properly and together to make the game function up to or at least near its potential. I would say it's better to have less features which all work properly than to have more features which don't work properly. Just look at the primary/secondary and charge bonus bugs for two examples of things which should never have gotten out the door. The number of things that were fixed in RTW v1.2 is mind boggling, and charge bonus still escaped detection with the pri/sec problem just getting in under the wire and that was found by a modder over at TWC.

The past games, STW and MTW, were simpler, and v1.0 of those games was in better shape than RTW v1.0. That allowed those games to be effectively brought up to a status you could call finished with the patches although a few problems still remained. RTW is in danger of having major issues preventing it from operating near its potential still unresolved after the game is end of lifed. The Total War game system has become more complex than the earlier efforts, but it would be to CA's benefit to find a way for v1.0 of the next release be in better working order than was RTW v1.0. Then the community could better contribute with suggestions to fine tune the gameplay rather than spend a year doing bug hunting.

Red Harvest

08-15-2005, 21:39

The fact that you can "Push the enemy army out of a corner" is due to a new approach to location in the game, so also part of gameplay. The MTW army was located where the general is, and the general is on the back row. He knows his position can only get worse if he moves. If he doesn't move, his army doesn't move.

In Rome units are allowed to "think" & move for themselves, which leads to some units thinking: Hey, it's slightly better for us over there, while their buddies stand still and think: Noooo....

But that is not how it is happening. It isn't individual moves doing it. The whole army changes face as a unit. This is not unit match ups from what I see. MTW would change facing, but it also tried to prevent flanking through parallel moves. MTW/STW should have had a harder time of doing this because *the terrain was more varied.* There was usually a point that was better suited for defense, but that was not within the allowed placement zone.

The RTW battlefields are fairly bland. Huge slopes with few intervening hills and ridges. Very little forest or other terrain on battlemaps.

Feanaro

08-15-2005, 22:12

On flat ground with tons of troops in front why are the first two rows accurate but not the others?

Ostensibly because the back ranks cannot actually see what they are shooting at. I don't know if the archers could or could not see, I don't have a bunch of Medieval bowmen on hand to ask. But it does makes sense if you assume the back ranks cannot see. They are aiming without any kind of sight. Whether or not this is realistic is up in the air an,d in a game that is only loosely based on reality, I doubt it matters.

Shaun

08-15-2005, 22:12

well thats cos the battle maps in RTW are so small!

JJU57

08-15-2005, 23:35

Ostensibly because the back ranks cannot actually see what they are shooting at. I don't know if the archers could or could not see, I don't have a bunch of Medieval bowmen on hand to ask. But it does makes sense if you assume the back ranks cannot see. They are aiming without any kind of sight. Whether or not this is realistic is up in the air an,d in a game that is only loosely based on reality, I doubt it matters.

But the first two rows wouldn't be able to see either! They are standing right behind a bunch of spearmen yet there is no accuracy penality for them. My point is that these are all tricks that you had to learn in MTW. Once you did learn these tricks then the battles were very easy.

ToranagaSama

08-15-2005, 23:54

@antisocialmunky

Just read your sig:

Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.

Who is the author of the quote? Sounds like Sun Tzu.

I love it, that's precisely the way I approach the Campaign.

Grey_Fox

08-16-2005, 00:10

Who is the author of the quote? Sounds like Sun Tzu.

I believe it was a WWI admiral speaking of how to defeat the German nation.

Yawning Angel

08-16-2005, 10:10

econ21

08-16-2005, 11:32

The seeming inevitability of the campaign in RTW, for me, makes it more boring to play.

I agree that I find it hard to return to vanilla RTW because the lack of challenge makes it boring. However, the AI is not so brain dead - unlike, say the AI in Homm4 or CTP2 - that the game can not be fun if modded. Part of the reason that the vanilla game is unchallenging is because most factions (aside from Roman ones and Egypt) are weak. If you play a mod where you have a weak faction and the AI has strong ones, then it can be very challenging. The Roma mod for RTR comes to mind here - Romans are so nerfed, you have to exploit the poor AI to win. If you play RTR 5.4 in a less cheesy way, the game can still be fun as Rome.

I am having a blast in RTR v6.0 as Romans with a handful of self-imposed rules (one only missile per stack, half the stack non-Roman allies, historical proportions of 2V/2H/2P/1T, few mercs etc). On VH/H, a pitched battle with a full strength stack of Seleucids leads to my men suffering pretty high casualties. Three such battles have virtually destroyed my initial invading stack - I am having to send it back to Rome to be retrained up to full strength. Coupled with the need to garrisons large towns far from home, conquest is slow. Overall, I think the game is more challenging than vanilla MTW (which was very handicapped by weak AI troop picks). The RTW AI is a little worse, but I can't say it makes modded RTW feel that qualitatively different from vanilla MTW.

ToranagaSama

08-16-2005, 19:43

Is everyone paying attention to Simon?

You've GOT to play with RULES!

econ21

08-17-2005, 00:03

Is everyone paying attention to Simon?

You've GOT to play with RULES!

Not sure if you are pulling my leg, but here are the house rules I've found make RTR 6.0 fun. Something similar might work for vanilla, but you are short of allies. This is a post I just made on the Rome Total Realism forum:

I had the problem of zero challenge in my first RTR v6.0 Roman campaign. I think identified two problems:
(a) missiles just cut down unarmoured troops (most of your early neighbours). 3 funditores in a stack will tend to kill around 300 enemy per battle and ruin the enemies morale in the process.
(b) Roman infantry vastly outclass their neighbours. Just compare principes (let alone triari) to Gauls or Greeks. The defence stat is the killer - they just don't die.

However, reading Adrian Goldsworthy's book "In the name of Rome" gave me the idea of some house rules that would be historical and make the game more challenging.
(1) Only half your army (stack) can be Roman. The others should be Italian allies if in Italy or Gauls, if in Gaul. (I have not made enough progress in Greece, Africa or Asia to know if the Romans get any AoR troops there). For Italians, I would go for proportions: 1 skirmisher-1 sword - 1 spear; for Gauls, 1 warband - 1 sword - 1 auxiliary.
(2) Your Roman half of the army (stack) should be two "legions", in the historical proportion - 2 velites, 2 hastati, 2 principes and 1 triarii. I deploy them in the manipular formation for fun - it's actually rather useful for its flexibility.
(3) You can have only two cavalry per stack and one slinger or archer (when I get to Asia, I stretch to 1 of each).
(4) You can have only two mercs per stack and mercs cannot be used to garrison towns.
(5) Never exterminate a city population.

The above house rules make a really challenging game.

The Gauls put up a fight but are eminently beatable.

I kicked the Greeks out of Italy easily, but now they are back having taken Illyria and have many many full stacks of experienced decent troops. I lose 200+ men per battle to them and after a couple of battle, my army is rather weak to fight again.

The Seleucids were getting close to 40 provinces so I launched an invasion of Asia. They are very strong - multiple full stacks like the Greeks but better troops (love those 2HP units). Progress is particularly slow because the towns you capture are big, of alien culture and far from home.

Its around 244BC, I have around 30 provinces but its still one of the most challenging TW games I've ever played.

Feanaro

08-17-2005, 01:16

But the first two rows wouldn't be able to see either! They are standing right behind a bunch of spearmen yet there is no accuracy penality for them.

I am not totally sure but I believe archers behind a unit(if they are not on an elevated position) do get a penalty to their accuracy. It always seems that way to me.

Puzz3D

08-17-2005, 13:13

I am not totally sure but I believe archers behind a unit(if they are not on an elevated position) do get a penalty to their accuracy. It always seems that way to me.
CBR and I tested this in MTW/VI, and the results were inconsistent. Sometimes archers which had a friendly unit standing in front of them killed 40% less of the target unit, but at other times they killed just as much as an unobstructed archer did. It was unclear iin these tests what condition was turning this 40% effect on an off. The test was archers in 4 ranks on flat ground firing at spearmen in 5 ranks who were exactly 2 tiles away. We saw the 40% reduction in kills in two tests, each using 8 archers, when friendly spearman in 5 ranks were placed a distance of about 5 ranks in front of 4 of the archer units. We didn't see any difference in kills in two other runs. So, it seems to be an on/off effect, and we don't fully understand what triggers it.

ToranagaSama

08-17-2005, 17:54

No, I'm not pulling your leg, those are a VERY nice rules! If you recall, in the MTW days, I authored a set of rules I called "the HARDCORE RULES". I always play with them and was in the process of incorporating them to RTW, when I just lost interest in RTW.

(1) Only half your army (stack) can be Roman. The others should be Italian allies if in Italy or Gauls, if in Gaul. (I have not made enough progress in Greece, Africa or Asia to know if the Romans get any AoR troops there). For Italians, I would go for proportions: 1 skirmisher-1 sword - 1 spear; for Gauls, 1 warband - 1 sword - 1 auxiliary.
(2) Your Roman half of the army (stack) should be two "legions", in the historical proportion - 2 velites, 2 hastati, 2 principes and 1 triarii. I deploy them in the manipular formation for fun - it's actually rather useful for its flexibility.
(3) You can have only two cavalry per stack and one slinger or archer (when I get to Asia, I stretch to 1 of each).
(4) You can have only two mercs per stack and mercs cannot be used to garrison towns.
(5) Never exterminate a city population.

I like very much! *My* rules pretty much got me to 2 and 3, and I never use Mercs as a rule of thumb, as I think it Cheesy to *buy* your way out of trouble. (1) is really interesting, as it never occurred to me. I would usually *fill* with Hasti, but your view is BETTER! When I decide to return to RTW, probably to try out the EB mod, I'll incorporate (1). Right! Extermination shouldn't be used to bolster the Treasury, not to mention that Romans weren't quite Mongols!

What's your basis for (5)? History? I think the penalty for Extermination is a good one. If a player plays with some economic restrait, the Extermination could be rather costly, as one waits and waits for the Population to grow so you can upgrade and build *good* buildings, etc. With some cities, *Order* might require Extermination, but you pay the penalty.

antisocialmunky

08-17-2005, 21:52

@antisocialmunky

Just read your sig:

Who is the author of the quote? Sounds like Sun Tzu.

I love it, that's precisely the way I approach the Campaign.

Well, that's actually is one of my quotes. I know for a fact that people have stated that in so many words though.

Deus ret.

08-17-2005, 23:15

What's your basis for (5)? History? I think the penalty for Extermination is a good one. If a player plays with some economic restrait, the Extermination could be rather costly, as one waits and waits for the Population to grow so you can upgrade and build *good* buildings, etc. With some cities, *Order* might require Extermination, but you pay the penalty.

I'm not sure about Simon ~;) but if he decides so on a historical basis he is correct.
There were good reasons to be afraid of the Huns and later the Mongols you mentioned, mainly their relentless pillaging of entire kingdoms. This is also what dominates the common memory of these invasions. The Western Roman empire collapsed because of many tribes fleeing westwards (thereby pillaging themselves), away from the invading Huns.

That said, although wars were at least as cruel back then as nowadays, invading armies looting repeatedly and systematically were a rather rare sight.
Extermination of whole cities was rarely conducted, and most occasions are still memorized today, e.g. the destruction of Troy at the hand of the Greeks around 1100BC (?) or the burning to the ground of Carthage in the "3rd Punic war" 146BC.
Cities were looted, but generally not exterminated (something I miss in RTW). The Gauls plundered Rome in 387BC but the city state wasn't thrown back too badly. Rome was looted again in 410AD but lost its real splendidness only gradually due to repeated maraudings in the course of the 5th century....

In RTW, extermination is often too good an option to be left out; that is why it is wise to restrict yourself for gameplay's sake. It may even be really useful to keep a city intact: If it just passed a population threshold so that you can instantly build the next government building, thus largely eliminating culture penalties after a few turns of suspense.

econ21

08-18-2005, 00:48

(1) is really interesting, as it never occurred to me. I would usually *fill* with Hasti, but your view is BETTER! When I decide to return to RTW, probably to try out the EB mod, I'll incorporate (1).

Yes, I don't know about EB, but in RTR - and probably vanilla RTW - Roman heavy infantry is just very powerful compared to most neighbouring ones. I suspect that this is historically accurate, but if you have a lot of them in a stack, it just makes the battles dull. From Goldsworthy's book, it seems a common Republican army was two legions and two alae (sp?) of allied troops, often Italians or Gauls. Filling out your stack with these makes your Roman units seem precious and also gives a reason to bother with the nice AoR system of RTR. Battles are more tense, as half your army remains good true Romans but the other half is - if anything - inferior to your enemies (at least the Greek type enemies).

What's your basis for (5)? History? I think the penalty for Extermination is a good one. If a player plays with some economic restrait, the Extermination could be rather costly, as one waits and waits for the Population to grow so you can upgrade and build *good* buildings, etc. With some cities, *Order* might require Extermination, but you pay the penalty.

It's a mixture of history and gameplay. It just does not "feel" right to be exterminating every captured city - if that was what was done, surely the Romans would have been universally detested? However, from Goldsworthy's book, there do seem to have been occasions in which the Romans did massacre everyone in a city if it had bitterly resisted a siege - apart from anger management and looting, it had the side effect of terrorising other cities into not resisting.

But more importantly, I find that there is not much of a penalty in gameplay from extermination - big conquered cities often have most of the buildings you want and you only need a few cities to recruit from (in RTR, you can only recruit your best troops from older cities, not newly captured ones). If you lost the extra upgraded buildings with extermination, there would be a genuine trade-off. But extermination gains you a docile in tact city and allows your army to move on to the next battle. By contrast, even enslaving a faraway, alien city of 12,000, I find I still have to leave virtually an entire stack there for several years to keep it loyal. It really slows down conquest - and eats into your treasury as you need many more stacks - making the late game more of a challenge. A slower expansion is also more historical, I suspect.

screwtype

08-18-2005, 17:00

But as far as everything else goes: RTW wins hands down.

I totally disagree. I will probably never play RTW again, there's so little challenge it's boring and pointless. On the other hand, I can definitely see myself playing Shogun again. I almost fired up a new campaign just a day or two ago.

The interface, the sound, the graphics, the empire management "tools", etc. The map change is way, way better than MTW. While the "risk style" movement of MTW isn't all that bad, the operational movement afforded by the RTW map is, IMO, totally superior.

The interface in RTW is worse. It's big, bulky, ugly and dysfunctional. The group commands don't even work.

The sound is definitely not better. Shogun had by far the best sound of all three games. Great music, great atmospherics. All RTW has got is a bunch of boring speeches at the start of every battle that soon do nothing but irritate. (Is there a way to turn the speeches off? I'd like to know). Oh, and the silly voices in the battle itself stating the obvious.

And the operational movement on the strategic map serves no purpose, indeed the new map creates game problems that didn't exist in the earlier games. It's a pretty good example of bad design.

The one thing I wish they would add (since STW) is a simple city/general overview screen. For example: all the citites listed on one screen that you can sort by income, population, unrest, corruption, etc. Manage your recruitment/construction queues, etc. It's rather tedious to individually move through each city. An overview screen for generals/family members would be awesome as well -- sort it by command rating, influence, management, age, location, etc. As with cities, it's somewhat annoying to have click all over the map, hand examining every person, etc.
-V

That feature is already extant in RTW. From memory, just right click on the cities tab and you will get a scroll listing all your cities on the LH side of the screen. You can sort them in any order you like just by clicking on the column headings.

You can also bring up an individual city scroll at the same time by right clicking on a given city row in the LH scroll.

A lot of people miss these features of the game, I missed them myself for weeks, they are a bit obscure. The one thing that is missing IIRC is a field in the city list telling you what level each city is being taxed at.

screwtype

08-18-2005, 17:10

CA could move away from an AI that tries to make individual unit matchups, and plays in a more grand tactical style which is actually more realistic. Have the army maintain the battleline, flank in force with a group of units that are suitable for that task and use a tactical reserve to block breakthroughs or exploit gaps that develop in the enemy line. Get rid of the low morale so the fighting can last longer. This means you won't be able to win with 10:1 or 20:1 casualties inflicted unless you have a much, much better general than the enemy.

Yes, I'd like to see that too. The individual matchups paradigm doesn't work very well at all. IMO, the AI should keep its army in some sort of formation until just before it engages the enemy, and then do its individual matchups.

The easy routing hurts the Strategic Campaign by allowing the human player to inflict massive attrition with practically no loss to himself, and in multiplayer it causes players to increase the money available so they can boost morale with upgrades, but that has the disadvantage of damaging what little RPS the units have in them.

Yeah, but it's not just the easy routing it's also the fast kill rates. I played RTR for a while which has substantial increases in morale, so much so that with a good general even my humble militia pikes would almost never rout, even if they were beaten down to one or two men. But they take casualties so quickly, it only takes a moment or two and an entire unit gets wiped out. Both things need to be fixed to make this a playable game again.

Geoffrey S

08-18-2005, 18:12

player1

08-18-2005, 18:27

But the thing is that good player is always better then any AI made, especialy after while when all tricks beacomes known.

Only way to increase difficulty after that is to make AI troops feel tougher, by adding bonuses.

And that is good enough way to make a challenge trust me.

Only problem is that it's bugged with 1.2, so VH battles are not really more difficult then M.

P.S.
Reminds me of Civ3.
That game can be tough for begginers, but I won my middle difficulty game (no bonuses), from fist time and never looked back.

At one point, highest difficulty level become too easy for some players (Deity), so developers made ultra-hard difficulty in expansion called "Sid", so those that beat deityy could play something.

sunsmountain

08-22-2005, 23:00

Well, you can be sure they're saving siege status in the 1.3 savegames, and you can be sure the positive attack modifiers will be gone for the player on Hard/Very Hard.

Other than that, expect nothing in the AI department, so you cannot get disappointed. You have been warned. :(

On a positive note though, RomeTW still has awesome potential. ~:)

Red Harvest

08-23-2005, 02:18

But the thing is that good player is always better then any AI made, especialy after while when all tricks beacomes known.

This isn't really true. In certain situations a decent AI has a big advantage. Heavy Fog/Snow/Forest battles in STW/MTW for example. You had to work hard to compensate for this--because the AI was effectively seeing more and reacting faster. Same has been done in RTW to a degree by making the game so fast ALL the time. The pause button gives you time to actually issue commands. RTW is masking the AI's relative incompetence.

Another aspect where the statement isn't true is in some similar unit matchups in other games. The AI in Civil War Bull Run does a very good job of placing and using its artillery. A good player has a hard time matching the AI because the AI can *see* the best positions more easily, and will halt when it finds them, rather than going too far and hunting for the right position (like the human.)

The AI should be better at skirmishing if properly programmed. It should know to automatically withdraw when attacked. This is an area that shows weak AI, since the skirmishers often don't behave like skirmishers. Anything that requires constant re-evaluation should be in the AI's advantage.

The AI can respond more quickly to flanking moves...if properly programmed. In fact, 1 vs. 1, you will see phalangites reverse facing rapidly vs. cav, etc. Where it is having trouble is in ANY higher level situation.

A proper AI should execute the simplest situations nearly flawlessly, whereas a human should be prone to basic error. Watching RTW, it is clear this isn't the case...watching the AI charge elite archers into infantry for example.

conon394

08-23-2005, 04:23

Red Harvest

CA hamstrung their own AI with the smaller relative battle fields in RTW when it comes to skirmishers. May just be my perception, but it seemed like you needed at least one horse archer and one good light cav to hunt down a single AI horse archer in MTW (and most of the battle time). In RTW, by contrast it takes a not half so long to trap skirmish units in ‘corners’.

edyzmedieval

08-23-2005, 07:18

Red Harvest

CA hamstrung their own AI with the smaller relative battle fields in RTW when it comes to skirmishers. May just be my perception, but it seemed like you needed at least one horse archer and one good light cave to hunt down a single AI horse archer in MTW (and most of the battle time). In RTW, by contrast it takes a not half so long to trap skirmish units in ‘corners’.

Because the units went in the corner. Stupid AI.

The AI in Rome sucks.

Puzz3D

08-23-2005, 16:10

Because the units went in the corner.
It's not that the AI unit goes to the corner. It's that you can chase them there fairly quickly. The maps in RTW are physically smaller than in MTW, but also the temporal size is smaller because it takes longer to travel the same distance in MTW than it does in RTW. In addition to that, you will incur more fatigue in MTW, and the recovery rate is slower as well. Chasing a horse archer is usually not a good idea in MTW. Chasing anything in MTW is a decision that has to be carefully considered because your army can easily become so dispersed and fatigued that it's no longer and effective fighting force.

The entire RTW game has been accelerated to attract a group of gamers who have a low attention span. It seems like a classic case of the audience driving the product in a particular direction. It's a very common effect in the entertainment industry. I think there are a lot of people out in the world now who have a low attention span and need a constant barrage of action and quick changing images, so it's a very big market.

Zenicetus

08-23-2005, 19:54

Just to bring back an earlier point, if CA decide to make the game more accesible to new players that's fine; but it would be most welcome to craft the difficulty levels so they actually make the AI more challenging and intelligent rather than using an absurd system of morale penalties or bonuses for enemy armies.

Agreed. In a good combat flight sim, changing difficulty levels will alter the way the enemy pilots fly. Higher difficulty gets you more advanced pilot AI's who will challenge you with vertical maneuvers, instead of just horizontal tail-chasing. This is a much better approach than just using the same AI for all difficulty levels and then juggling the stats for gun accuracy, damage per hit, etc.

Of course for that to work, you need a reasonably challenging AI program to begin with, so you can dumb it down for the easier levels. That's what seems to be missing from RTW.

edyzmedieval

08-23-2005, 20:36

It's better than in RTW, the pace of battle is faster.

But some ideas from MTW could have been taken, like the units hidden in forests, and you couldn't see them only when you came near them.