The best improvements that could be made to the AI -

A thread for what you think the best improvements that could be made to the AI are? - i.e. a constructive post only.

Here are mine:

1. AI defending its cities and castles with more units!

Big siege battles in M2TW are epic to look at and awesome fun to play, particularly when the AI is defending (mainly because the AI is stronger). However, all too often the AI doesn't have enough defending units present to really bring out the epic glory of the great siege environments. At the very least the AI should always strive to have the minimum number of free militia units in all of its cities, plus the odd archer and elite units. Castles don't allow free units but these should still be well defended.

This is even more critical when the big siege weapons are available since it's then possible to assault a city on the first turn of a siege. Obviously, this is something the human will take full advantage when the AI leaves its cities inadequately protected.

2. Make the AI more willing to negotiate for the "Military Access" and "Become a Vassal" diplomatic options.

At the moment these are both nigh impossible to attain.

3. An interesting thought might be to make the square that decides which stacks enter the battle on the campaign map a little bigger. This would enable more of the surrounding stacks to get involved in the battle/siege and might encourage more multiple-faction battles.

4. AI actually using the pre-opened gates when attacking in a siege with a spy.

If the AI were to actually rush some of their infantry units through the pre-opened gates, that might cause more to a defending human player since they don't get to the deploy their troops. As it is the AI will still use its siege equipment, which gives the human enough time to regroup and reorganise defences.

What do you all think? I reckon these would up the anté considerably! :hat

Agree with you on 1, but i would not like the ai tied down too mcuh in its programming to leaving huge garrisons. I would like to see it leave itself vunerable when at war with other nations by moving troops out to go fight in the war.

On 2, i would like both to be a bit easier to get, but military access more so than vassal, as vassal is a pretty demanding thing to be asking.

3 is interesting, maybe have the area from which armies for a battle are drawn from bigger, but they still fight on the same tile, so the armies further away take longer to get there.

4 would also make sieges more interesting.

1.Having superiour melee troops and less ranged units, even when on defense, the AI should engage in meelee and deny the opponents use of ranged weapons.

2.Having superiour ranged troops the AI should try to extend the skirmish phase longer and keep its forces out of harms way until the opponent is considerably weakened.

3. The AI shall lay sieges only with more then enough troops and consider the defender sending reinforcements to the besieged city. At the moment the AI just compensates the defending forces which is almost never enough since the player has the advantage of brains.

4. The AI should not declare war for opportunistic BUT extremely short term gains.

5. The AI should try harder not to be excommunicated. If the pope tells it to cease hostilities it should think harder if the gains justify the harsh punishment of excommunication.

6. The AI should forgive a player or other factions unfriendly acts slowly over time, so once a faction is abysmal to you you will at one point - having been friendly to them - able to have friendly relations again.

Dont have so many small stacks wandering around its borders (and even inside my territory) when its at war with me. These small stacks are just fodder for my generals to boost their stats on, and allowing me to destroy your army piecemeal isnt the best way of winning a war.

So, more grouping of smaller stacks into large ones please.

Would make both historical and more challenging, for siege defense, to have a proportion of the population take up arms and join the defenders. These would be low rank militia, of course, equiped with what was available in town, bows, spears, etc...

I guess numbers would have to be tweaked... but as a concept is seems to make sense. This would also make it impossible just to walk into a undefended settlement. Of course, with no standing army a static siege would be shorter, perhaps.

Saw me a CA post in here. Madness am I going?

Weeble?

My impression of AI development and implementation is:
Hey code monkey, we finished (insert game title here) now hurry up and make it work, because it has to go gold next week. So, based on my probably misguided and foolish impression of how things work, I suggest.

1) Double the AI programmer(s) salary to increase moral.
2) Put AI programmer(s) in luxurious office(s) to increase valour.
3) Create a dedicated AI team for continuos research and development.
4) Design and develop future TW games to take advantage of existing AI possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadKow

Would make both historical and more challenging, for siege defense, to have a proportion of the population take up arms and join the defenders. These would be low rank militia, of course, equiped with what was available in town, bows, spears, etc...

I guess numbers would have to be tweaked... but as a concept is seems to make sense. This would also make it impossible just to walk into a undefended settlement. Of course, with no standing army a static siege would be shorter, perhaps.

---

Now there's a good idea! That would really help the AI out.

I think the militia aspect is taken care of with the free upkeep militia units.

The idea, I guess, is that these are population of the city that are armed in case of an attack - which makes them free as they have something else to do when they are in the city during peace.

Quick note, Castles/Fortresses etc have the upgrade of tourney fields which have the advantage of 1 (i think) free upkeep of a unit.

I've had several very interesting city sieges (my castles happen to be behind my lines lol) in antioch the mongols attacked twice, once without seige engines and with seige equipment and once with both. The first siege was great because my upgraded walls (ballista) destroyed the first ram they tried to employ (they had 3 more that they didn't try to use) and 1 seige tower (of 2) so 1 tower and 2 ladders made it to the wall. My dismounted knights and billmen held the walls well against they're 6 (maybe) foot units while all the cavalry stayed out of range of the walls. My mortars pounded the cavalry while the infantry were slaughtered on the walls and they went home.

The second was much harder but I managed to destroy the trebuchets (only after 3 holes in my walls were made) with the mortars and the rockets they employed seems fairly ineffective. My billmen/dis knights managed to hold the routes into the city and once one wall opening was cleared my cavalry hit the other breaches from behind.

2 wins :)

My assualt on lisbon was not so easy, no siege engines - only equipment i took the walls and the street fighting was protracted and the attrition rate was v high amoungst my men (poor buggers), very fun though and I've learnt my lesson.

I'd personally say that the AI can hold there own but lisbon was the only city that portugal held so it was fairly stacked with units and they weren't at war with another faction. I think the circumstances are the issue in most campaigns.

A 'how to improve tha a.i thread' already?
Gosh, glad I haven't got it yet then.