I know it's been said before, but...

... the campaign AI really DOES suck, rather badly.

I'm just finding out now because I recently installed the RTR mod which has been fun enough to keep me playing the game for several days running (I couldn't play vanilla RTW for more than a couple of hours at a time before quitting in disgust over some lame bug/feature/result or another).

Just to give an example, in my last campaign playing as Thrace, I was at war with both Dacia and Macedon almost from the start of the game. I quickly ran out of cash and really struggled to build any units. Meanwhile, Macedon began to accumulate armies on my borders. In the end, it had EIGHT FULL STACKS sitting on my borders but rarely sent even one or two of them to attack my cities!

Admittedly it did siege two of my cities on two separate occasions which were broken when I had to reload the game, but even without the loadgame bug it broke off several sieges for no reason at all. But most of the time, it left those eight full stack armies on my borders doing nothing at all for turn after turn after turn, while my cities were barely held by half a dozen units of greek levies apiece.

Even the dumbest human player could have wiped out my entire faction in the space of half a dozen turns. As it was I didn't lose a single city in, I don't know, must have been at least 50 turns.

Finally to add insult to injury my navy was utterly nonexistent, and the sea around my coastline dotted with numerous Macedonian ships, yet only now and then would one pop in and blockade one of my ports for a turn or two, before wandering off for no apparent reason.

This really isn't good enough, and I hope when it comes to the expansion pack that CA are going to create a much more competent and aggressive campaign AI, because there aren't many thrills to be had in beating such a pitiful opposition.

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not cool when you are playing VH/M and AI don't even bother about your ports. For example in the beginning I don't spent money on building big fleet because it's not much use.By the way AI rarely attack your ships if they are in the docks. :furious3:

With 1.2 no one can attack any ships that are in port. Another feature!! I love it, let's put that one in the Happy Thread!

Yeppp, AI sucks...
I had a Julii game where the other Roman factions were twice more powerful and rich (having conquered the profitable regions while I was collecting pennies from the north), but when it came to the final show down, they never moved their stacks of units properly (litterally dozens of Armies filled with Urban cohorts, etc.). They repratriated all of them to Italy, leaving their back lines totally empty (so I conquered them with a couple of Armies sent by boat). As for the armies rapatriated to the country they would send them no more than 2 at a time against my cities and make the other 10 stacks wait around their capital. And to cap it all, everytime they would siege a city I would just sally out and crush them as they would not react to my cavalry attacks... Rome Total Useless AI!

Is the AI really that bad?

I hear so many people complaining about it and saying they are not going to get the expansion because CA is not giving enough support.etc etc

I don't care though the AI seems hard enough for me.
I was playing this game at my mates house. On the prologue i lost my capital, my only city to the rebels who besieged it. 4 town watch 2 histai and that 10 star general guy(from the start) all killed by 8-9 regiments of gaul warband.

After I tried the siege of sparta historic battle. The one you assault a town with a small garrison and a relief army coming your way. Well do you want to know how many guys i lost to the relief army?(played on easiest)

Don't worry, the learning curve is fast as hell.

You'll soon be sneering at the AI.

I'm fielding full HA armies against Egypt and just realized a human opponent would send a full stack of desert cavalry against me and hunt me down.

Instead, I slaughter army after army of pikemen.

I sure hope they decide it's now time to seriously work on the AI. Unfortunately, it seems they don't listen to fan input, and they don't care what the fans want.

They don't seem to understand that someone has to PAY for the game for them to make money. So if they piss off all their fans, who will remain to pay them for their games? The reality-distortion field they've constructed for themselves is ruining their games and their behavior on .com proves they don't know jack sh*t about being a game company for the long term.

There are a lot of game franchises out there that suck more than RTW, but they still make money anyway because the companies treat their customers with a degree of respect, unlike CA. I get the feeling that the next TW that doesn't do so well will be the last one, because CA has built up absolutely ZERO fan loyalty.

Well i'll tell you how many i lost to the relief army.

0. none. no one. Why? because my entire army got wiped out by the garrison.
The end stats were something like "enemy killed 87,enemy kills794"

btw i been playing MTW for a few months. Never have i had such a defeat ~D . But then i only win under these conditions "MY army elite units/number/valour/general's command all> than enemy elite units/number/valour/general's command" thank goodness for my civ3 strategies or i'll have no chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leftenant Moley

On the prologue i lost my capital, my only city to the rebels who besieged it. 4 town watch 2 histai and that 10 star general guy(from the start) all killed by 8-9 regiments of gaul warband.

---

That doesn't seem like such a strange result to me. Town Watch are pitiful units, they can't form a phalanx and they break and run at the first sign of trouble. I learned that the hard way. And BTW, hastati suck too, especially against spears. I didn't half get tired of running my hastati away from the front of enemy phalanxes when I was playing the Romans, LOL.

Anyhow, I was talking about the campaign AI, not the battle AI. Although there are obvious problems with the battle AI too, the main one being the way the AI constantly fragments its army into little groups or individual units that you can smash with the greatest of ease, even when you're outnumbered.

If only the battle AI would keep its darned units together in formation, like when it first deploys, it would be so much harder to beat.

Town watch are pretty good for handling small bands of rebels. I don't expect them to kill, but I do expect them to hold a bunch of slaves in place while I flatten the area with arrows and cavalry. There's a tactic out there that calls for peasants as bait for missles or horses, but that's trying to hold back a tank with a water hose. Hastati are decent against barbs as I can build principes and triarii but for economic reasons(I'm Julii) It's not cost effective to recruit and ship to my front. I notice the AI in Custom doesn't sent hastatii against phalanxes either. It charges triarii, if it has them, instead.

I think one reason that the AI breaks it's units like that is a tendancy to use a unit like another unit if that other unit is absent. It doesn't seem programmed to do the best with what it has available. It's tactics may be based around a full well rounded army even when it has none.

Who knows it may be using tactics for one formation(in the formationsAI file) butsits short on a certain unit, so it's improvising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Maxentius

I think one reason that the AI breaks its units like that is a tendancy to use a unit like another unit if that other unit is absent. It doesn't seem programmed to do the best with what it has available. It's tactics may be based around a full well rounded army even when it has none.

---

I don't think so, my impression is that the AI takes the easy way out and assigns individual units to attack other enemy individual units. In other words there is no co-ordination, they all behave independently of one another and that's why you get this ridiculous situation of the AI army breaking up into small or single units and then wandering off all over the battlefield to be crunched piecemeal.

It's just so silly the way the AI will begin a battle with a beautiful and quite formidable looking unbroken phalanx line, only to watch the line immediately break up into separate units all doing their own thing.

There needs to be some code written to co-ordinate units. A phalanx line should stay together and it should attack the main body of your troops. The cav and missile should stay in support of the phalanx line, not wander too far away from it. Especially when the human player is fielding cavalry.

Larger phalanx armies should also probably form up into a double line which also co-ordinate their movements. This would prevent its main line from being easily outflanked and attacked from the rear. I mean, heck, it isn't hard to figure out what needs to be done to make the battle AI really formidable. I just can't understand why after five games in the TW series it still hasn't been done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leftenant Moley

Is the AI really that bad?

I hear so many people complaining about it and saying they are not going to get the expansion because CA is not giving enough support.etc etc

I don't care though the AI seems hard enough for me.
I was playing this game at my mates house. On the prologue i lost my capital, my only city to the rebels who besieged it. 4 town watch 2 histai and that 10 star general guy(from the start) all killed by 8-9 regiments of gaul warband.

After I tried the siege of sparta historic battle. The one you assault a town with a small garrison and a relief army coming your way. Well do you want to know how many guys i lost to the relief army?(played on easiest)

---

Yes it is that bad. When my campaign stats read 180 odd wins, and four losses, there is an issue. The AI is horribly inept, doesn't have any form of learning, and does the most stupid things at times.

Besides, this is about campaign AI, you are reffering to tactical AI.

Just what we need, another thread slagging the AI :sleeping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

... the campaign AI really DOES suck, rather badly.

[...]Meanwhile, Macedon began to accumulate armies on my borders. In the end, it had EIGHT FULL STACKS sitting on my borders but rarely sent even one or two of them to attack my cities!

---

This is one of the big failings of the new strategy map system - the AI has armies it can't co-ordinate. Toggle fog of war on in the Romeshell console, and you will be dismayed by the AI's actions. With the Risk style map of previous TW games, all units in the provence are available to battle, so taking the provence will probably result in a large battle. Instead we have mini-battles and cities left undefended. It's a shame CA implemented this great new map, but clearly haven't got an AI advanced enough to fight well on it.

Still, it's all been said before. And there's always a flicker of hope that things improve with the expansion. Although why you should have to pay for basic improvements is another thing.

The strategic AI is not great, but its one area where I think CA should be 'cut some slack'. CIV wasnt built in a day, and even that AI (which is arguably the best for games of this type/complexity) is pathetic compared to the deviousness of a human player.

see sig for further opinions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorspatula

it's all been said before.

---

I said that before ~:)

But seriously though folks, I don't think it hurts to bring up these problems more than once. After all these are ongoing and important issues, I'm sure we'd all like to see a fix for them, and if nobody ever mentions them they are that much less likely to get fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

The strategic AI is not great, but its one area where I think CA should be 'cut some slack'.

---

I'm inclined to agree. But I'll be very disappointed if there aren't substantial improvements to the campaign AI in a future release.

Well if CIV is a good model, then the strategic AI will improve with further iterations but at the cost of game complexity.