View Full Version : AI in BI: Evaluation
Seamus Fermanagh
10-02-2005, 18:30
Summarize your view on the new AI.
Will it work with RTW-base?
Seamus
Both the tactical and strategic AI do seem a little better. Neither is great of course (that's not a hit on the game, just that coming up with an AI to beat a human isn't easy), but I think both are a little better than RTW.
saulot333
10-02-2005, 18:55
Much better tactically (I have lost a fair share of battles. I have even lost powerful, protected cities. Disclaimer: I don't suck, I am a Bouis' Roma Mod veteran ;) ). And a bit better strategically (The AI could be "impressed" by defeats and generally creates better, stronger armies. It even invades by sea!).
Patricius
10-02-2005, 19:45
Voted that it was worse in error. The ai is much better on the battlemap and improved on the strategic map level.. It is more more aggressive, and its conduct of sieges is better, though units which lose siege engines do not retire back to the main formation. That said, the ai could do a better job of concentrating its units. The hordes sometimes seem to prefer settling in a poorer Germanic territory rather than heading for Rome. But I have only played on the lower difficulty levels so far with BI. I only really say that it is better, but to what degree is not clear yet.
PseRamesses
10-02-2005, 20:23
Haven´t seen any utter foolishness, yet, from the AI since I got the game some 10 days ago so I voted that it´s better in both parameters. Still the strat-AI persists defending a city with just a gov and won´t come to its rescue in a decent manor. I mean, c´mon, defending Alexandria or even Rome with just a general and not even sending forth one unit, hmm. Still I get really frustrated of the amount of "running around" that the AI conducts during a siege. We all know, from defending ourselves, how devestating a good defence during a siege could be ringht?! So why hasn´t this issue been adressed?
It seems that the "hording-faction" are very keen on migrating, which ofcourse this time period is all about, but shouldn´t they atleast try and fight over their homelands instead of just pick up and leave?!
The diplomacy are better IMO too. Playing the Romans you really have a hard time finding allies while a barb.faction haven´t that problem. As mentioned the WRE and ERE stance seems to be bugged since the alliance are terminated on an alarmingly high level of times when simply negotiating a map-exchange.
Now here comes the rant: What on earth have they reduced the strat-map too? Some 2/3 of the original vanilla, or even less? Africa 5 regions, Iberia 4, Italy 4, Asia Minor 4 - jeeeees! It´s like playing that kids-game: RISK. Can´t wait for RTR or EB to release a BI-version with 200 regions to "horde around" in.
Garvanko
10-02-2005, 21:09
Better tactically and strategically. Yes, the startegic map is smaller, but perhaps balanced by being more difficult, and having strong factions all over the place. If it was bigger, one suspects playing the WRE would be a nightmare.
On the battlemap, the AI is a serious challenge. Seiges are great.
Azi Tohak
10-02-2005, 21:10
I am pleased so far. No more two unit armies flying around on the strat map, and tacitally... the AI actually tried to flank me! Yes, it actually tried it! It failed... but hey, at least no more generals impaling themselves on pikes before the rest of their army is in arrow range.
Also, the AI keeps trying to take Caesarea from me (Persians attaking my ERE), which I like because Antioch is heavily guarded. However, with a movement allowance of 200 (not 80 like standard) I can quickly run up there and smack 'em!
However, I do find it funny that the hordes seem to be ignoring me now, and keep fighting themselves. Constantinople and Thessalonica (Sirmium I surrendered long ago) have big garrisons... but no action for several years.
You suppose the Hordes are told keep heading west?
But I am also playing on hard, and the AI does have some serious guts now, no more bomb routing, except for lousy troops (levy spearmen anyone?).
Azi
Now here comes the rant: What on earth have they reduced the strat-map too? Some 2/3 of the original vanilla, or even less? Africa 5 regions, Iberia 4, Italy 4, Asia Minor 4 - jeeeees! It´s like playing that kids-game: RISK. Can´t wait for RTR or EB to release a BI-version with 200 regions to "horde around" in.
To make every settlement important and worth fighting for.
On the huge maps, losing a settlement won't do any harm what so ever but now losing a settlement can bring down your entire economy.
So it is a way to make the game harder and better and it has worked wonders too.
I voted that it is better tactically and strategically IMO.
Now here comes the rant: What on earth have they reduced the strat-map too? Some 2/3 of the original vanilla, or even less? Africa 5 regions, Iberia 4, Italy 4, Asia Minor 4 - jeeeees! It´s like playing that kids-game: RISK. Can´t wait for RTR or EB to release a BI-version with 200 regions to "horde around" in.
I like the fewer provinces better. Fewer provinces is NOT a kid's game - that's just a silly assertion. More is NOT necessarily better - more cities means more micromanaging, and I suspect fewer cities makes it easier on the AI from a strategic POV. If you dislike fewer cities, fine - just don't exaggerate the impact by calling it a kid game. I frankly didn't like all the extra cities RTR added, and I suspect it didn't make the game easier for the AI. Be careful what you wish for.
Votes, by accident, much better tactically and better strategically. But thinkin about it, it is perhaps not so far from the truth. I would just prefer something in between better and much better.
I agree with the Grif here. Cities seems to be right on the front all the time, not perhaps attacked, but you feel a need to take action right away as every single city is important.
Also, with the cities farther apart it gives the Hordes some room to play out their game. You can't come to the aid of a city in trouble as easily.
With cities farther apart fieldbattles seem more prolific. I quickly got tired of the constant breaking siege or laying siege with little in between, in RTR.
Meanwhile, how long or much of an impact would the Hordes have if the Goths, Sarmatians, Burgundii and so on all had 3-4 cities? We would see the Hordes blow their steam while those factions would still survive. With few cities the other factions will be forced out and put a much more significant pressure of the two empires.
I simply don't believe more cities are always something good.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-03-2005, 04:02
Votes, by accident, much better tactically and better strategically. But thinkin about it, it is perhaps not so far from the truth. I would just prefer something in between better and much better....
Sorry, only had 5 minutes to compose the quiz. I understand your point.
Seamus
The strategic AI still suffers from long periods of unexplained inactivity. But overall, it is better than classical RTW .
I agree that decreasing the province number was a good idea.
Azi Tohak
10-03-2005, 07:24
I am torn about the number of cities. I liked the number in RTR, lots of monies coming in, but yes, it became a war of sieges. Which was both good and bad. Good in that lots of money, and my main strategy (besiege city, let army try to break siege, crush both relievers and garrison) worked great.
Perhaps you guys can help (especially Kraxis), but I thought war in the ancient times, all the way up to the US Civil War and 7 Weeks War was mainly sieges. Not as glamorous as Gaugamela, Cannae, Hastings, Waterloo etc, but I thought that was how war worked. I'm curious, but this might also belong in the Monastery.
Azi
Well, it was mainly sieges, but often sieges were more open than the ones we have. Basically they were often just an army camping near a city, preparing to assault it. And I agree that siegebattles are very effective, but I seek not effectiveness, I seek fun (not that you can't find those battles fun, nor me for that matter).
I absolutely love the fact that it took me three massive attempts to take Hatra from the Sassanids, and nother four to even lay siege to Ctesiphon. My armies simply had to retreat after suffering massive losses to the Sassanids fieldarmies (I won of course but it was costly each time).
Why sieges in large numbers are bad:
You eliminate the enemy army completely. Often in field battles the enemy army manages to reteat some important parts, and can thus easier reform for another battle.
Doug-Thompson
10-03-2005, 15:19
I'm not sure how much any improvement in the strategy game can be attributed to changes to the AI, and how much of it results from being surrounded by enemies in a more interesting situation. Also, religion is a big new wrinkle that's not really an AI improvement.
R:TW suffered greatly from getting simpler and simpler as the game wore on. You might have a city rebel once in a while, but so what? There was no threat of a break in the succession like in M:TW, where you could have a full-scale civil war on your hands if you weren't careful, or if you were just unlucky.
All you had to do in R:TW was pound down your strongest enemy. You got stronger every turn while your enemies got weaker — and fewer. R:TW was practically a city management game by mid-game.
R:TW is less wholly predictable, and that's not just because it is new. The horde feature reminds me a lot of the Crusades and Jihads of M:TW, with the added bonus of giving dying factions a last resort.
Religion was simpler in M:TW. While there's no excommunication or inquisitors in BI, there's no priests, imans or cardinals, either. You can't pave the way to conquest with "missionaries."
I chose better/better. The tactical AI is still easy, but no longer inept. Other than sitting in front of towers during a siege, it no longer does the moronic blunders that made it easy to kill thousands while losing dozens. When given a large force with cavalry support, the AI even makes use of hit-and-run tactics and army-wide envelopment. Still easy to defeat unless heavily outnumbered, but it requires more careful planning and victories without loss are far harder.
The strategic AI seems to maintain larger armies and lead them with generals more often. It engages in multi-stack attacks more often and seems to obey ceasefires and alliances more readily. Other than with Hordes though it does not attack as aggressively as it should and it again represents more of a lack of incompetence than any actual positive ability.
Battlefield AI is better in several ways........
But the Strategy Map AI is very docile! I'm half way through an ERE campaign on VH/Vh and never seen a horde or been attacked by a barbarian. Attacked once by sassanids, but it was not really a last stand haha!
:duel:
I agree the AI is too slow. It takes forever to expand.
Or, seeing it from another point, most players are more aggressive than what CA estimated. Many fun aspects of the game don't appear until later, by which time for a lot of us it is game over.
We just should play slower ;-)
Garvanko
10-04-2005, 18:46
Exactly. People on here are too used to blitz strategies.
Firstly: Why can I post? Wow...
Secondly: I don't have BI but I'd like to reply to this...
Exactly. People on here are too used to blitz strategies.
...nevertheless.
I always tell myself oh come on, only the greeks, then I go and build up a bit. Maybe re-organize armies a little, yes, yes. All will be fine then. but it never works, because always at the end of a war I get attacked by another faction. It's freaking me out to know that I will never end the war... I mean come on, just a little example:
In a game with macedon i'm in war with the Greeks, the Illyrians (yeah, thats right...RTR!) and I believe two other factions that I could crush overtime. So I tell myself Aww, man...it's their fault, isn't it? I mean THEY attacked while I was punishing the Greeks for messing with me, right? and then I can't stop. It's like never ending...i'm such a poor soul. :/
In my opinion they should simply get rid of all other factions except yours, no more pressure to take cities and no more pressure to end the war...
Exactly. People on here are too used to blitz strategies.
I must say blitzing has become a lot harder, or at least in my experience. I'm playing the Saxons on M/M and am currently just getting myself some breathing space. After conquering Campus Frisii I got around to capturing Campus Chattii (Which was finally NOT besieged by the Burgundii) with the aid of a large army of my Frankish allies which just stood around there. In the meanwhile the WRE attacked Campus Frisii, so I quickly finished the Rebels in Campus Chattii and send most of my army westward. Quickly the Franks stabbed me in the back and captured Campus Chattii from me (it was only lightly defended). So I had to send my depleted army back after defeating the Romans to recapture Campus Chattii, in which I succeeded (with heavy losses). After that I relentlessly killed every Frankish army that came near my territory and after doing that for a while the Franks got tired of it and proposed a ceasefire. Next turn I was able to ally with them once again. This was one of the funnest little wars I had with RTW, and it actually stopped me from expanding (as my army, which was just not too large to deplete my treasury, was needed to defend my borders). Now I captured Colonia Agrippina from the WRE Rebels, but I'm carefull about where to attack next as Augusta Vindeloricum has a huge WRE garrison (despite the fact the WRE has lost about half it's territory) and an enormous Lombardii army (still my allies, though) is hanging around Alamannii territory.
And yes, AI must have gotten better. Although still easily defeated in battle, it has generals sticking to armies now and besieging armies actually taking cities (which only happened to me once in RTW). Also, it seems quite capable of knowing who to attack and who not.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.