AI faction wars?

[Midnight]

One of the things I loved about MTW was that the map would look different 50-100 turns in on every campaign, as the AI factions didn't always do the same things. Variously, I saw the Egyptians in Russia, I saw Sicily carve out an empire in the Balkans (and take Constantinople!), I saw the Spanish\Almohad, English\French and Byzantine\Turk\Egyptian wars all go various ways in various campaigns. I saw the Polish dominate the centre of the map, I saw the Danes seize Britain and I saw the Almohads conquer half the world.

In RTW, I see Carthage dying every time. I see the Romans expanding, with very little variation, every game. I see Egypt crush the Seleucids every game. The biggest surprise was when Macedonia expanded north, and became notably powerful. That was once, out of many games. The Parthians, Numidians, Scythians, Spanish - nothing. It's almost always the same, every time (depending, of course, on where I am). This has been one of my biggest gripes with RTW, given what MTW managed.

I really, really hope that M2TW goes back to MTW's much more dynamic geopolitical map. I think faction re-emerges helped to shake things up at lot, but the AI just conducted wars so much more efficiently on the simpler risk-style map than it does on the more open map.

Fingers crossed.

[Husar]

Well, part of what you want can already be seen in BI, various factions end up at various places, especially hordes are not very predictable. But I agree that in Rome this was not very nicely done.

[Darth Nihilus]

Midnight, you just hit on one of my biggest gripes with RTW. That is one thing I absolouty loved about MTW was the extreme variation, but in Rome I have never seen the Egyptians not conquer Asia Minor (unless of course I'm over there). I have never seen the Romans not steam roll everyone else. I suppose the Roman part is historically accurate, but the point of the game is to re-write history isn't it? BI does fix it a little, but certianly not to the extent that MTW did. Hopefully with MTW2 there will be a lot more variation in who rises to power. Mods change it a little I guess too, but its still not as fun as good 'ole MTW.

[Furious Mental]

Well hopefully things like Crusades and the Mongol and Timurid invasions should stir things up a bit.

[Midnight]

I hope so! At the core of it, though, is the AI's ability (or otherwise) to wage war as effectively as in MTW, with the same variable results.

Anything, really, to keep the game fresh and make things a little different each time through would be appreciated (I would have loved to have seen a non-player sack of Rome...).

I also hope that the Swiss and Burgundians come back as waiting-in-the-wings factions.

[Horatius]

I know this won't be the most popular reply, but I liked the Rome Map style better, I just thought it seemed more real.

[polak966]

even with BIs random hordes they always seemed to go to the same place;
slavs into denmark, huns would always settle in pannonia, and every other horde moved into gaul. once i had an amazing chance of seeing the sarmatians conquer all of italy.
nonetheless, even the horde invasion patterns were the same.

[redriver]

I'm not sure which RTW ya playin'. mine looks diff. everytime. stuff like England takes over Spain and Germany over most of Europe... try to reinstall the game from scratch and patch it up to 1.5. don't now if difficulty matters though.

[Faenaris]

I wonder: in BI, every faction had its own objectives, right? WRE must hold this city, Huns must capture that, ... So, in the end, the computer strives to fulfill his objective. In MTW, factions did the same, but the computer always ran into another faction. This was so because of the risk-style campaign map.

In BI, armies could very well pass eachother without initiating a fight. This resulted in every faction doing its own thing and voila: repetitive gameplay. I don't mind the idea of faction-specific objectives, but the over-arching AI was a bit too obsessed with its objectives while it should have focused more on its immediate surroundings.

In RTW, I think it was more an issue of the PC wanting to capture rebel cities over faction cities and large provinces. Just take a look at the Egyptians and Carthage: They all had armies wandering around the desert and the save/load bug would wipe the objectives those armies had, resulting in big armies, doing nothing and hurting an AI faction.

To conclude: While the RTW campaign AI was a step forward, it was not enough. I still think that MTW was better in that aspect because it was less complex and thus, more easy for an AI, making it seem more "tougher".

So, I hope CA can boost the campaign AI a lot for M2TW, so that we can enjoy some great games and relive the days of MTW. :)

[professorspatula]

The difference between the MTW and the RTW maps, was the MTW one was far more dynamic. Much more could happen in a short space of time than in RTW. In many ways, the starting conditions of the factions influenced the eventual outcomes in RTW. Factions placed in rich lands and with good units that in auto-calced battles perform very well, typically won over their neighbours everytime (eg, Egypt, Britons). There were some different outcomes and surprises, but many factions are up against it from the start.

In MTW, smaller factions could always take advantage of a stronger faction's sudden weakness. A faction with 2-3 stacks of troops could invade and seriously upset a larger faction's economy by invading when the stronger opponent's forces are elsewhere. Then a civil war breaks out in the larger faction and suddenly it's a free-for-all and provences are up for grabs all over the place. Re-emergent factions, crusades and excommunications etc could further create an unstable world, which was wholly lacking in RTW.

In RTW, a strong faction is virtually impregnable against a smaller, weaker one. There is just no way for the AI to maneouvre it's smaller forces to strike at the stronger faction's weak points. It takes too long to attempt a capture of an opposing settlement, and the larger faction will just have it's numerous stacks of men get their first.

I think the RTW map wasn't a bad idea, but the AI wasn't ready for it. BI's hordes provided a bit of a shake-up, but it isn't really enough. What I think needs to be done on this type of map, is for alliances to be far more important. Factions should work co-operatively to prevent other factions from bulldozing their way across the land. It's just too easy for a strong faction to send its forces whereever it wants. You meet the occasional army on your way to the enemy city, but kill them easily with your superior numbers, and then the city awaits capture. Ideally, to prevent this, your foe will be joined by their ally's army in defence, and suddenly taking the city is a challenge - or the enemy's ally deliberately attacks your lands whilst you're busy. Still, it would still happen all too slowly. The AI really needs to work on it's co-ordination of various armies and agents. Here's hoping.

[sunsmountain]

Travel times are much shorter in MTW because of boats, and collisions between armies are not just more likely to happen, they are guaranteed. ~:)

If the Rome campaign map AI can be improved to be more aggressive that would be great. But then again you don't want it to attack with peasants...

[IrishArmenian]

I agree, I just played Medieval and I say it is a great game. Espeshially in this aspect. I would like to see more realistic attitudes from the AI, because Rome was somewhat lacking.

[B-Wing]

I agree with all of you (except Horatius :laugh4:). I didn't play RTW as extendsively as MTW, and part of the reason was because it just didn't seem as exciting after my first campaign. I never realized what specificly about it wasn't as exciting, but now I think the predictably repetitive faction development was the primary disappointment. I didn't have some of the specific experiences some of you citing, but my campaigns definitely had a nearly universal (in game terms) set of repeat performances.


I wonder: in BI, every faction had its own objectives, right? WRE must hold this city, Huns must capture that, ... So, in the end, the computer strives to fulfill his objective. In MTW, factions did the same, but the computer always ran into another faction.

I actually doubt the bolded part. Except maybe for the "historical achievements mode" or whatever it was called, I don't think the AI factions had any specified goals beyond their designated general behavior pattern (expand, defend, navy, etc.). I think that's what produced less predictable results than in RTW/BI. Each faction was simply looking out for its own best interest, taking advantage of whatever opportunities were available, instead of focusing on achieving any one particular thing, whereas factions in RTW were programmed to either attack certain factions or try to take certain locations every time (I think it was the later).

But I'd like to emphasive the general notion among fans that the TW games are more about changing history than simulating (and therefore repeating) it. I prefer historical realism when it comes to battle physics and unit types, but as far as the actual behavior of the factions go, I'd rather let them do whatever the heck they want than have them mimick their real-life counterparts. It just makes for better gameplay, to me.

[Mikhal]

I know this won't be the most popular reply, but I liked the Rome Map style better, I just thought it seemed more real.
Exactly, i also liked Rome more just because it seemed much more realistic, it feels to wierd when egyptions invade russia or poland dominates europe.

some one said thats the point is to re-write history - well yes but IMO it's more fun when you (the player) are the one that rewrites it, not the AI.

[Mikhal]

and yes, after thinking over my memories from MTW; it useally dosen't re-write it as much as it messes it up

[B-Wing]

some one said thats the point is to re-write history - well yes but IMO it's more fun when you (the player) are the one that rewrites it, not the AI.

Oh how I disagree, friend. ~:) Its also worth noting that gameplay will be much more challenging if you can't predict the course of events before they happen. Even if you switch up which faction you play, knowing that Faction A is always going to invade Faction B while Faction C is just going to sit there makes your manuevering significantly easier.

[Ignoramus]

Exactly, every time in Rome, the Scipii invade Carthage they win, the Julii invade Gaul, they win etc. What is the fun in that? In Medieval, however, you could see all sorts of interesting things.

[Dr_Who_Regen#4]

I think to make AI conflict and varied gameplay better CA should add lots of objectives for each Nation given different situations they could be in. Then in each game one of these objectives will be chosen for each AI nation (perhaps it could change with the death of their leader to keep players on guard). This way their will be somewhat varied play which makes each game unique and exciting to keep playing.

Anyways I hope the game does not stay to closely to what each country did. They should have major world events happen, but there should be no reason that England and France should go after each other the whole game or any other classic conflict. Of course they could fight, but things could be different each game and vary from history...this is a game not a history book.

[Darth Nihilus]

When I first started playing MTW back in the day, it drove me nuts how there was always another random superpower that rose up that I would have to contend with. I was always like "the Alamohads own half of Europe, what a joke" but I came to love that feature because there was always a challenge. In hindsight, thats what always kept me playing. Now in Rome, the Romans and Egypt stomp everyone into the ground everytime.

This is not a rant, and I like the RTW style map infinantly more, but the AI wasn't up to par with the awesome map. I like what CA did with the map, but obviously the AI needs to be implimented a little better this thime around. Anyway, other than the 225 turns in 500 some years of gameplay idea, I can't wait to play this game.

[Mikhal]

well judging from these thread there are 2 kinds of players (or atleast you guys and me): one that want a game or actually more a realistic historic simulator which they can immerse themselves into and those that value the gameplay the most and just want a fun game to play. maybe they should make it a setting if you want MTW style AI or RTW style.

Sure, it might be more challenging when you don't know which faction will become the superpower and suddenly strike you somewhere where you dont expect it but even if you would know exactly which faction trashed (which you didn't in Rome, not exactly)who, the AI would still attack with different armies in different ways which is good enough for me

and from the interviews i've read CA clearly states that the AI will be updated and maybe thats the campaign map AI to, so who knows maybe we will get something even better.

[hoetje]

Exactly, every time in Rome, the Scipii invade Carthage they win, the Julii invade Gaul, they win etc. What is the fun in that? In Medieval, however, you could see all sorts of interesting things.

Not so sure about that....In my game the scipii are still in sicily,and(WOW) Numidians took carthage -_-.
I also saw scythians invade Turkey and nail down the Armenians (rofl!)

[econ21]

I believe the AI behaviour has got more dynamic with patching of RTW. The save-reload bug probably stalled the AI to some extent, so 1.5 is better. At least, that's what people playing RTR Platinum - which uses 1.5 rather than 1.2 - are saying.

I've also tried running RTW with the BI exe and it seems to lead to better campaign AI than the RTW 1.5 exe. An experiment running through 10 turns with and without the BI exe suggests that the AI is more able to take territory with the BI exe. It consolidated its little stacks into larger ones more and was more aggressive taking settlements.

Different campaign settings may make the AI more dynamic too. EB outcomes seem more varied than RTW 1.2. BI is a more dynamic campaign than RTW etc.

[iwantmyaccountdeleted]

My RTW 1.5 (from Total War : Eras - I sold my RTW & BI to buy Eras) works fine with the ai. My AI actually does things with some level of intelligence.

For example, playing as Gaul. Germania, Dacia, Roman Houses & Senate, Macedon, Spain, Britannia and Scythia all ally against me. They do not break their alliance until I break Germania's armies down into mincemeat (This by itself took me around 10 turns with 6 full stacks. The Julii were dead, but the Brutii, Greeks, Macedonians and Thracians sent at least five full stacks at me in total( Germania had at least twenty.)

Playing as Seleucids, I had the Greeks trapped in Pergarmum, but they were continiuing to produce large stacks. I checked, and found that the Romans (Brutii) were sending them money - presumably to finance the war on me! At the same time, Numidia - Brutii's ally - assassinated my spies in the three Egyptian border cities, inserted their own, causing mass riots and promptly invaded. Coincidence? So while two stacks were dealing with Greece, one with Macedon, one subdigating Armenia, one for Pontus, Numidia attacked my borders! Cleverness or luck? You decide...

But yeah, an even better AI would be good. I'm tired of Armenia constantly sieging Hatra with the same army setup every other turn. They still haven't figured out that a garrisoned full stack and my elite full stack can take out 95% of their troops each battle.

[Dr_Who_Regen#4]

Maybe what would be truely helpful is an AI that learns from its mistakes and adapts to the situation so as to not keep doing the same foolish attacks. I am sure this gets very complicated though because you also don't want an AI that just sits back and waits to be destroyed...

Going back to the original topic I hope the M2TW AI will fight each other and you in a more thoughtout manner (and more varied) then in RTW (although some have found variation from time to time).

Hopefully some of the improvements in diplomacy that are mentioned by CA will address this as they mention the AI will remember how you have treated them in the past (and hopefully remember how they treat each other). This way even as you grow in strength groups of AI might come against that have worked together before (assuming they are stuck in their own squabbles).

I also hope there is some way for the AI to realize who is growing strong in each region and then have the weaker nations try and gang up on this stronger group. I think this is pretty hisrtoically accurate type of event to occur throughout history. This would help to provide a challenge as the player progresses in strength. Of course if the player (or stronger AI) some how gets knocked down the alliances might shift as a new power rises in the region.

[haggis monster]

there is something of this being implemented in that when you own a certain amount of the map, people will just gang up on you and not really fight each other. however, this idea can only be extended so far - soon you just make it impossible to finish a game or even take any more territories than say 50% of the map. there has to be some sort of balance between making it hard but not too hard, one which ca have not found yet but is very tricky to get exactly perfect.
in rtw it was more of a problem than mtw, although frequently in my mtw games exactly the same thing happened everytime: the turks would always be crushed and egypt would always be huge. mtw xl changed this slightly by tweaking a few things, and so now the games i play are much more interesting - i have had denmark (who in my vanilla mtw games did nothing) take over northern europe, sweden take over england (although france quite often did this in mtw)

[Hepcat]

I think CA will probably try and implement it, they did after all try with BI so I think we can be fairly optimistic about it.

[Azog 150]

I think that it will be a bit more like medieval, not so samey because the provinces are smaller, so its less easy to by pass armys and there are more provinces resulting in more variation to how each campaign plays out.

[Midnight]

I truly hope so. I'm coming to the end of an ERE BI campaign, and the lack of movement is shocking. Even the Huns and Vandals refused to anything other than basically camp north of the Danube, because I'd fortified the river crossings so as to protect Constantinople. It never occured to them to go and strike for their other objective, Rome.

Based on what other people have reported, though, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not just horribly unlucky in my campaigns - very few seem to have factions as persistently lethargic as mine!

[econ21]

Based on what other people have reported, though, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not just horribly unlucky in my campaigns - very few seem to have factions as persistently lethargic as mine!

I have got a vague memory of people saying forts can stall the AI. Forts near river crossings maybe doubly so. It's one reason I never use forts (except to simulate staging camps).

Personally, I've started refusing - as Romans - to deploy on a river crossing or bridge in BI. It just gets very boring, fighting a horde over a river six times. Letting them roam around a little and threaten your cities is more fun.

[DisruptorX]

This is not a rant, and I like the RTW style map infinantly more, but the AI wasn't up to par with the awesome map. I like what CA did with the map, but obviously the AI needs to be implimented a little better this thime around. Anyway, other than the 225 turns in 500 some years of gameplay idea, I can't wait to play this game.

People always say that, but nearly every problem related to RTW was related to the fact that the map was huge, empty, and boring. I do not play RTW single player because the map is so.......lifeless. Also, the fact that every campaign is identical has been mentioned. It really was not better than medieval's at all. I suppose it has the potential to be better, and we'll see when MTW 2 is released if they can pull that off.

[Orb]

I'm finding some interesting things with a 1.6 Julii campaign on the Imperial campaign map. I'll turn off FOW for a turn to see how things have tumbled about.