...the AI.....
ive only played maybe a dozen battles in M2TW, but so far, the only tactic ive really seen by the AI is running headfirst into your lines or waiting for your moves. no flanking, no nothing.
just putting it out there.
Printable View
...the AI.....
ive only played maybe a dozen battles in M2TW, but so far, the only tactic ive really seen by the AI is running headfirst into your lines or waiting for your moves. no flanking, no nothing.
just putting it out there.
We could always use help in this regard. Care to take upon a little responsibility, anyone?
Foot
well if they just run agaisnt me I wouldn't be that pissed at first , it's good for my ego :smash:
I agree with you, hooahguy. The battle-AI in M2TW is sadly lacking when it comes to tactics. Unfortunately, my skills att modding such things are even more lacking...
if someone would teach me how to do the basics of editing the tactics the AI uses, i would be happy to do it. meanwhile, there is probably a mod out there that added real tactics to the game....
Seems to be a TW thing in general. Playing DLV though there has been a fleeting attempt at flanking with cavalry now and then. Not sure what AI mod they use, its not stock though. Usually the general will try to charge through my infantry to attack my archers.. sometimes he even makes it.. its always :oops: soon after though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
funny because whenever I play EB I am all focusing on my main battle line and infantry, I usually just leave my General behind, and the AI always makes an attampt to sneak some cavalry behind my lines and attacks my general and I never notice! Now of cousre I watch for it but the first 3-4 times I was caught by surprise
Foot
Actually, played DLV (europa mod) yesterday and payed more attention.. on several occasions the AI snuck skirmisher cavalry (horse and camel archers) around to the flanks or rear of my army to harass me.
When the battle started, assuming that the General had not suicided on my infantry, he would try to circle around behind troops in close combat (assuming the lines had broked up) and charge.
While its still not perfect, it may well be an idea to see what AI mod was used in DLV?
At several occasions I found myself cursing the skirmishers who were being immensely irritating by doing this...
Quite good really.
that would be interesting. is there a way of making this idea faction specific (out of curiosity). It woiuld work for all of them, but I want to see if diferent tactics can be implemented according to style of fighting.
Now I'm no modder so I wouldn't be able to point you to the files or anything, but there's something different about the way the Mongols (in vanilla M2TW) fight on the battlemap
They hang back and try to provoke you into a fight by sending small groups of horsearchers forward to pepper you with arrow fire and then retreat
If you chase them and get too close, all the Mongol heavy lancers charge you en-masse
It's not too difficult to defeat them once you've worked out their (only) tactic, but it certainly seems to suggest that there is the possibility to have faction-specific battle AI. I haven't seen this behaviour from other horse-archer / cav heavy factions like Turks or Egyptians..
Does the Darth Formations mod work for M2TW or can it be modified to work for it? From my experience, the Darth Mod improves the battle AI to the point where you might actually believe that there is an "I" in the "AI".
Probably not. However, he and other modders have created formation/A.I. mods for M2:TW as well.
I am no good at modding so I dont know the reasons or how to change this, but I used to play Imperial Glory, which is a basic (in comparison) game which is much like Shogun or Medieval 1.
The AI seems to handle battle tactics in this game much better than in Total War, for instance the cavalry pretty much always heads around the infantry and attacks the artillery behind the lines, and infantry will often deploy into defensive square formations if a cavalry charge seems likely.
Like i said I dont understand why or how any of these things work, but would a skilled modder be able to spot differences in the code or whatever makes this games AI better, and impliment it into the code of Total War?
The code won't even look the same. There isn't some code that is used for AI in every game, it depends on the base engine for each game.
Foot
In addition to what Foot said, modders don't change the program itself. The program files are generally encrypted and distributing altered program files is illegal. What modders do is change the data files. Now in the TW series it is possible to change A.I. battlefield behaviour by altering their formations and priorities. However, you cannot reprogram the battle A.I. itself (well, technically you can, but that is very, very difficult, and it still would be illegal to distribute altered .exe files).
I thought code might look different depending on the game, but surely the modder knows what they are looking for? Or is it that you would have to be seriously skilled or actually took part in designing the code...is it really that different for things so similar?
Just an idea, there are a lot of mods out there which have made the AI better so if you want to have better AI why don't you try asking them for some help. It could speed things up a bit but its your decision in the end.
We will certainly ask for advice, but it is something that we will need to work through and tweak on our own, as we will have designs and desires of our own to complete.
Foot
This is compiled code, only readable by a computer program (the executable).Quote:
Originally Posted by Baen
This is a fragment of Lisp code:Quote:
Originally Posted by Baen
(* (- 3 4) 5)
This also is a fragment of Lisp code:
(* (- 5 4) 3)
And that is just a very obvious example which hasn't even been compiled to binary not to mention encrypted. Now imagine that the functions *, -, 3, 4, 5 were much more complex, decision making algorithms written to influence behaviour of the cavalry in battle? How should it be (immediately) obvious what changing order of 5 and 3 does to the final outcome?
Slightly OT: The reason why I choose Lisp for the example is that it is/has been a popular AI language, programs written in Lisp can be made such (and often are, by design of the language) that these modify themselves at runtime. Such properties allows AI written in Lisp to 'learn' as you play.