View Full Version : Creative Assembly Killing the Myth: Battle difficulty in campaign
Is battle difficulty bugged in campaign games?
I used to think so.
Not anymore.
With testing custom battles I agreed with other testers, that it's bugged, since harder battles are faster not biased toward AI, in same way as easier battles are just slower and not biased toward player.
Well, the problem is that we all jumped the gun and "concluded" that same works for campaign games. Even whole debates about is M or VH battles more challenging arised.
Well, it's not true!
I did a dozen of tests on campaign maps, when I set up several one on one battles, and my conclusion is that battle difficulty works in campaign game fine.
On easy, it's easier for player to beat similar unit, on harder it's easier for AI to beat similar unit.
I hope someone else could do some tests and confirm the issue, so we could put this myth at rest.
P.S.
I modified descr_start.txt files for campaign, so I could set up several one vs one battles. Also I tried when attacking to keep same elevation with defender as possible to prevent any bias.
Also I tried when attacking to keep same elevation with defender as possible to prevent any bias.
Why not just use grassy flatlands, no chance of a terrain differential there. And if you use 1 on 1 unit the A.I. marches straight for your unit.
Wether the A.I. gets extra bonuses or not is not too much the issue, it's the fact of increased kill rates that allows the human to roll on unit over unit so quickly that makes very hard so easy.
Maybe because test is done in campaign, not in cutsom battles, which is obviously buggy.
I say, and have done tests to conculde that it is not buggy while playing campaign.
EDIT:
Haven't noticed AI routing faster at VH, since it was me who was getting routed in one on one battles, always.
I once heard that it didn't really matter and that it was harder to play it on normal or hard rather than very hard. I honestly don't care much for this. I put them both on VH. It doesn't matter for me since I cheat and my enemies never have a chance anyway! :P
I say, and have done tests to conculde that it is not buggy while playing campaign.
I still think CA should check the final release, and make sure the difficulty settings are working properly in the campaign. It's extremely difficult for the players to check this in the campaign.
Probably the reason why nobody bothered to check it campaign and assumed that it automaticly didn't worked, if it doesn't work in custom battles.
Probably the reason why nobody bothered to check it campaign and assumed that it automaticly didn't worked, if it doesn't work in custom battles.
That's a pretty good assumption to make isn't it? CA has clearly stated that they will not make known the combat algorithms. So we don't know the mechanism, and we can't repeat tests under the exact same conditions in the campaign in order to minimize statistical error and arrive at accurate casualty ratios.
I find the concept of giving the combat bonus only to the attack value to be faulty. This concept accelerates combat which alters the tactics. If the bonus was split between both the attack and defend values, combat wouldn't be accelerated as much. Since combat is so fast in RTW, putting all of the bonus on the defend value might even be preferable.
I find the concept of giving the combat bonus only to the attack value to be faulty. This concept accelerates combat which alters the tactics. If the bonus was split between both the attack and defend values, combat wouldn't be accelerated as much. Since combat is so fast in RTW, putting all of the bonus on the defend value might even be preferable.
It's not so bad, if you consider that it's bonus to AI only (in campaign, or fixed custom battles in BI).
That makes player units rout and killed faster making lower casualties for AI.
That makes player units rout and killed faster making lower casualties for AI.
Increasing the defend value would also make lower casualties for the AI without making the routing faster. What's so great about fast routing? I don't hear any players saying that the routing isn't fast enough and should be faster.
Of course, what did CA do in the v1.2 patch? They increased the rate of fighting fatigue to compensate for the fast routing instead of slowing down the rate of combat! Why? Because the people making these adjustments don't understant what constitutes good gameplay in this system. I'm supposed to simply keep increaseing the speed with which I move the mouse until I'm ready to punch the screen? I have 20 units to control. Stop increasing the speed of the gameplay!
Increasing the defend value would also make lower casualties for the AI without making the routing faster. What's so great about fast routing? I don't hear any players saying that the routing isn't fast enough and should be faster.
Well, they are increasing defend value in expansion.
Well, they are increasing defend value in expansion.
True, i seems they have listened a bit. But it is still not all that great. But I must admit that certain units in the Demo did last far longer than anticipated despite losing very badly.
Perhaps this can be credited with the comment in one preview (can't remember which) where the writer said that he felt the battles were 'more right' this time. Of course he had played Rome a good bit so he knew it, but certainly not the details like we do. But if he feels the battles are 'more right' then it isthe right course of action to move towards defence.
True, i seems they have listened a bit. But it is still not all that great. But I must admit that certain units in the Demo did last far longer than anticipated despite losing very badly.
Well it is Barbarian Invasion, so having the stinking barbarians dying like flies the way they do in RTW wouldn't do.
Whatever you say, a bonus to attack or defense values at H or VH for the AI is nevertheless 'cheating' to compensate (quite heavily) for the lack of AI's ability to conduct decent battles. Whats needed is a thorough improvement in the AI routines in order to give meaningful battles. Simply increasing the AI stats doesn't bring strategy to the battle in question, simply means the AI will make the same suicidal charge etc. and perhaps kill or rout more enemy units because of the blatent cheats.
Having said that, I understand that programming AI must be hard and time consuming. I simply hope that a good portion of the development time and resources have been devoted to AI, with tangible results.
There is no reason (with all things being equal) why AI's Hastati should kill/defeat my Legionaries on VH unless they have them flanked (or else) due to a superior tactic/strategy. Thats when its fun to lose to the AI, not because you know AI cheated, which leads to frustration.
Whatever you say, a bonus to attack or defense values at H or VH for the AI is nevertheless 'cheating' to compensate (quite heavily) for the lack of AI's ability to conduct decent battles.
Even with a better AI this method of making the game harder by increasing the combat stats of the AI units will still be used. However, in MTW the cheat was quite modest. It was a 15% combat advantage on hard and a 30% combat advantage on very hard. RTW is considerably higher than that with a 46% advantage on hard and a 95% advantage on very hard.
Talking about better AI: I've been playing a campaign in WE/MI and the AI has set up ambushes in three different battles where it split it's forces and hid the second force in trees off on a flank. When I advanced the AI held these concealed units until I engaged the AI units in front of me, and then it attacked me with the flanking force. Thinking back, I remember one battle in STW where the AI hid forces in trees on both flanks, and, when my army moved down the middle passing between the trees, the AI attacked me simultaneously on both flanks.
I did few more tests now, with defending army on cordinates 88,90 and attacker at 88,88 Both non-barbaric factions with single unit of warband merc.
I was only doing sinlge attack command.
At medium and easy player always won, at hard and very hard AI always won.
Easy win was easier then on medium, while very hard was bigger loss then on hard.
Horatius
09-03-2005, 04:13
The slower it goes the easier for the player to controll, so making it fast mode really does make it much harder.
Red Harvest
09-03-2005, 05:18
I did few more tests now, with defending army on cordinates 88,90 and attacker at 88,88 Both non-barbaric factions with single unit of warband merc.
I was only doing sinlge attack command.
At medium and easy player always won, at hard and very hard AI always won.
Easy win was easier then on medium, while very hard was bigger loss then on hard.
Did you do this triarii vs. triarii? That was the test that showed us the system was FUBAR. I'm not convinced. From what I could tell the deciding difference was often morale. Speed was clearly different. I'm very skeptical that campaign and custom would use a different combat model. Seems like about a 1 in 10 probability to me that these differ.
In tests I ran I found the custom battles scaled well with what I saw with the campaign, but that was 6 months ago.
Puzz is on the mark about defense. In the combat model RTW did a whole lot of zigging where they should have been zagging.
Red Harvest
09-03-2005, 05:19
The slower it goes the easier for the player to controll, so making it fast mode really does make it much harder.
Not once you figure out the snowball technique. Faster does have the distinct impact of making battles unfun.
Did you do this triarii vs. triarii? That was the test that showed us the system was FUBAR. I'm not convinced. From what I could tell the deciding difference was often morale. Speed was clearly different. I'm very skeptical that campaign and custom would use a different combat model. Seems like about a 1 in 10 probability to me that these differ.
It's kinda difficult to do triarii vs triarii test in campaign.
You have allies you know.
What about me doing samnite vs samnite test?
In tests I ran I found the custom battles scaled well with what I saw with the campaign, but that was 6 months ago.
Tests I did for know show that there is definetly difference between campaign battles and custom battles.
Puzz is on the mark about defense. In the combat model RTW did a whole lot of zigging where they should have been zagging.
True.
Current model (the working one, not bugged), makes first strike and flanking too important at higher levels, since they are as effective as on medium (due to same defense of AI). The rule of the tumb is to keep combat short, so since otherwise AI would win in test of endurance.
Also archery rules in harder levels, if it's only you how users missles.
By the way, if anybody is interested, the best battle conditions in campaign I found, you could get with enemy army at x 88, y 88, and you attacking from south-east (like when adding your unit to Flavius army).
The slower it goes the easier for the player to controll, so making it fast mode really does make it much harder.
This is rediculous. The player is supposed to be able to control his units. Making the gameplay so that you can't control the units defeats the purpose of the game. This is Whack-a-Mole mentality.
The battle difficulty is messed up in campaign. Very hard in 1.0 is like 50 times harder than very hard in 1.2.
You haven't battled romans, didn't you?
They lose -4 attack from fixing primary/secondary bug.
Anyway, if it is messed up, VH is still harder then H, and that is still harder then M.
I've now done tests more then several dozen times.
Just to make sure I'm not deluding myself.
Cutsom battles are completely differnt topic...
They behaive differently then campaign battles.
Well finally some confirmation about something I have felt a long time ago.
I play the Darthmod and I have lost far more battles with VH then with M.
So it is good to see that it is true ~:cheers:
sunsmountain
09-05-2005, 00:02
It might be true, it might not be.
From what i've experienced, my roman light cavalry was able to charge and kill the enemy in VH, patch 1.2, but not in VH, patch 1.1. I don't know if the attack values are or are not increased.
To me though, it's a side issue that doesn't really matter until the AI is further developed.
Talking about better AI: I've been playing a campaign in WE/MI and the AI has set up ambushes in three different battles where it split it's forces and hid the second force in trees off on a flank.
And how many months did WE/MI receive in development? How many features did the MTW AI have to take into account? Rome doesn't just look better, it's richer in ideas as well. I cannot stress this enough: A good AI takes time. So far, we've seen 1 real patch since release, with nominal improvements.
You can only really start improving the AI in the game AFTER it has been finished. Up until then it has been implemented, but not necessarily smart. Smart takes time to think about it, in rest, without deadlines breathing down your neck. In part, this is impossible nowadays as every industry performs on schedule. But i truly hope future patches will continue improving this wonderful game, that keeps us posted & posting.
And how many months did WE/MI receive in development? How many features did the MTW AI have to take into account? Rome doesn't just look better, it's richer in ideas as well. I cannot stress this enough: A good AI takes time. So far, we've seen 1 real patch since release, with nominal improvements.
That feature was in the very first game, STW v1.0, along with better use of height. The suicide general was addressed in a patch. In MTW, the suicide general was taken care of in the v1.1 patch, and cavalry was given a better flanking AI. An attempt was made to correct the suicide general in RTW v1.2 but it failed. I'm not aware of any other improvements to the battlefield AI in the v1.2 patch. CA has stated that there won't be any improvements to the battlefield AI in the BI add-on.
CA has stated that there won't be any improvements to the battlefield AI in the BI add-on.
First time I read something like this.
Care to share a quote?
CA has stated that there won't be any improvements to the battlefield AI in the BI add-on.
Where on earth have you heard that ??
CA has stated in all the interviews they have done that the AI has been improved on all fronts in BI and that BI will bring the AI up to the same level in RTW.
Where on earth have you heard that ??
It's in the FAQ.
"The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW."
That does not equate to "We won't fix the sucidal generals, nor will we improve the AI at all." It is just, as usual, a very conservative and secure statement that we can't use for much.
When they want to they do say that they won't improve the AI, so it isn't as if it is set in stone.
It's in the FAQ.
"The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW."
Well you have misunderstood then.
They are just saying that the overall concept of battles(no naval battles for example) will remain the same but that doesn't mean that the AI will remain the same.
And if the FAQ you will see that they mention AI improvements a couple of times and one of them are about the battle AI and here is some more
Gamespot:
The AI has been improved on all fronts. Both the battle AI and the campaign AI have benefited. AI improvements are a constant and ongoing process with our games.
The expansion makes significant changes to the core gameplay, effectively bringing the AI in both the battles and campaign map up to par with Barbarian Invasion.
If there have been all these improvements to the battle AI, why haven't we heard about even one of them?
"The expansion makes significant changes to the core gameplay"
"The basic battle game won't change that much"
Which is it? Significant changes or it won't change that much?
And what has anything of this with the topic about battle difficulty bug?
It's not even BI related.
They talk about improvements to the AI, I believe, in the IGN preview of BI. In particular, they mention taht the AI improvements made to the BI campaign will translate to replays of the original campaign.
I just saw the post where Jerome says "much improved battle AI". That's great. I didn't think much was going to be done with the AI in the add-on. It has a bearing on the difficulty setting in that maybe medium difficulty will be a lot more challenging now.
Going bit OT...
Well, the thing is that you first develop AI at best at you can (considering money and time constrains), and then you give it difficulty label, like Medium, if it doesn't give greater then medium challenge. Then, to keep game challenging at higher levels you give bonuses to AI.
The point is that the more compentent game AI is the less cheats are needed at higher difficulty levels.
JeromeGrasdyke
09-06-2005, 14:18
I just saw the post where Jerome says "much improved battle AI". That's great. I didn't think much was going to be done with the AI in the add-on. It has a bearing on the difficulty setting in that maybe medium difficulty will be a lot more challenging now.
Don't get me wrong, there is still a ways to go to really great AI. But the old Rome battlefield AI contained a number of fundamental flaws which have been fixed, and it definitely gives a better game now.
We've actually had the time to do some really nice stuff for BI, and are pretty happy with the result. The new much more dynamic nature of the campaign map play is particularly fun - if you play the campaign a few times you'll see some widely varying results, which represents the turbulent nature of the times quite well. It can make you wonder what the world would have looked like if a Gothic Empire had risen out of the ashes of Western Rome and had grown to reach the Atlantic.
Thanks Jerome.
I have no doubt that BI will rock our world.
Orda Khan
09-06-2005, 16:15
Don't get me wrong, there is still a ways to go to really great AI. But the old Rome battlefield AI contained a number of fundamental flaws which have been fixed, and it definitely gives a better game now.
We've actually had the time to do some really nice stuff for BI, and are pretty happy with the result. The new much more dynamic nature of the campaign map play is particularly fun - if you play the campaign a few times you'll see some widely varying results, which represents the turbulent nature of the times quite well. It can make you wonder what the world would have looked like if a Gothic Empire had risen out of the ashes of Western Rome and had grown to reach the Atlantic.
Barbarian Invasion is the game that I have been waiting for and it is great that so much will be improved/added. Thanks
.......Orda
Somehow I think my World of Warcraft toons are in for a lot of rest when BI shows up. :grin:
Red Harvest
09-08-2005, 03:13
Don't get me wrong, there is still a ways to go to really great AI. But the old Rome battlefield AI contained a number of fundamental flaws which have been fixed, and it definitely gives a better game now.
Jerome, glad to see you. More selfishly...glad to hear this. You just peaked my interest. Admission of some fundamental AI flaws, and addressing them does more to get my attention than anything else I've heard so far.
We've actually had the time to do some really nice stuff for BI, and are pretty happy with the result. The new much more dynamic nature of the campaign map play is particularly fun - if you play the campaign a few times you'll see some widely varying results, which represents the turbulent nature of the times quite well. It can make you wonder what the world would have looked like if a Gothic Empire had risen out of the ashes of Western Rome and had grown to reach the Atlantic.
Have you guys worked out a bit of a starting map randomizer? It looked feasible to me when I was playing with the files--just by changing some of the army distributions, structures, and even some non-critical territories. Nothing "novel" in it as I see it, but it would need some effort to make it work. Mainly you would need a tool to generate the new files by allowing it to tweak selected fields in the files. It could be done in a way that would still give it historical flavor without being predictable. This would end much of the strategy guide type scripting that players now learn...essentially punishing over aggressive play or making it more exhilirating at least. Things I would "randomize" when the "random historical campaign" toggle was selected: 1. Keep capitols, but assign some territories as having non-fixed ownership (might be rebel, might be in the hands of bordering faction.) 2. Rearrange army composition, strength, location. 3. Randomize build level of some existing structures. 4. Lots more possible, like money or year or populations...but others above would be a good start.
It is beginning to sound really well... Let me recap:
'Fundamental flaws' are noticed and at least some corrected
Siege bug corrected
Charge bonus issue noted and seems to be corrected
More dynamical campaign map
Hmmm... These are big issues that most certainly will please people a whole lot. I just hope the first mentioned line will contain an ability to use phalanx.
Doug-Thompson
09-08-2005, 23:12
... The new much more dynamic nature of the campaign map play is particularly fun - if you play the campaign a few times you'll see some widely varying results, which represents the turbulent nature of the times quite well.
Frankly, this gets my attention more than the battlefield improvements.
I've posted before about the "been there, done that" feel of replaying a R:TW campaign. Without Crusades, Jihads, inquisitions, excommunications and civil wars, the delightful chaos and variety of M:TW was gone. Opportunities and disasters appeared out of nowhere in M:TW. The R:TW Senate is a mere annoyance compared to the Pope in M:TW, and I played a Muslim more than half the time.
AntiochusIII
09-09-2005, 00:29
Considering Creative Assembly's past history with expansion packs, and how they left the lasting impression to a lot of hardcore fans, I have high hopes on this one, and high enthusiasm at that. Among these, the new shieldwall formation might as well be manipulated by the modding community into something that actual hoplites can finally use and break away from the old phalanx.
Unfortunately, I still want an all-out update for the old campaign to match BI's (speculated - by us) improved qualities. Possibly in a patch - is that feasible? ~:)
Edit: Oh yes, and I miss the pope. I really had a bittersweet relationship with him. You see, I hate him with all my heart and soul (and assassinated "him" after another ~;) ) but it makes me love the game much more. Ahh...the satisfaction of that blasphemous blade/dagger/spear/arrow/bolts/bullets that strikes the heart of Christendom...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.