Roman AI..too agressive

Interesting. I clearly see two different points of view in this thread, both of which have merit. As I understand them, they are as follows:

1. This is a game, which must be challenging in order to be entertaining. Since the object of the game is, basically, to conquer the world, the AI can assume (from a standpoint of playing a game) that the player will try to conquer the world. Thus, when the various factions notice the player getting powerful, they attempt to gang up on him, attacking en masse even if, individually, they have no hope of winning the war. They will fight to the last, knowing that if they accept peace, the player will soon turn his attention towards them (for he must in order to win the game). This succeeds somewhat in making the game challenging, for at least the player does not have the ability to destroy the AI factions piecemeal; if he could, each successive conquest would get easier, since the player would be more powerful and better equipped once he had finished off each faction.

2. This game models actual history, in which rulers used common sense to govern their lands. Thus, it would be absurd to go to war with a faction far more powerful than your own; to do so would only invite the destruction of your people and culture. If a ruler felt threatened by a more powerful neighbor, he would be more likely to use diplomacy to avert war, even if he had to make some concessions to his adversary. Cities, traders, and small nations tend to cling to whoever is powerful, attempting to stay on his good side; they would never deliberately antagonize him. Thus, forcing the AI to think like a game-player makes diplomacy less realistic and less important. It sacrifices realism and immersion for the sake of added challenge.

As I said, both of these points of view have merit. The issue, as I see it, is that the game does not accurately model geopolitics. In reality, there is no clearly defined "goal" for nations, and "conquering the world" is not a realistic goal anyway. Shogun was loosely based on a Risk-style board game called "Samurai Swords," and this series has never shaken free of its roots. I'm not sure that it could. In real geopolitics, there are no game-winning conditions; empires continue to rise and fall ad infinitum. It's also impossible to conquer endlessly, and far-flung empires are nearly impossible to hold on to. To make diplomacy truly realistic, a dramatic departure from the traditional premise of this series would be required.

It should be noted, however, that the Romans did, in fact, acquire an empire by defeating one faction at a time. The Etruscan kings, Carthage, Gaul, Macedonia, the Greek cities, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and others, fell under Roman power one by one. Many of them were allied with Rome for a time, attempting to use Roman power to their own advantage, only to find themselves hopelessly overpowered when Rome turned against them. They were all at one time more powerful than Rome, but were eventually eclipsed by Rome's growing power. Many empires have been formed through conquering one nation at a time, before most of the world realizes the threat.

On the other hand, Napoleon found that many nations formed alliances against him when they perceived his threat, even though individually they were weaker than him. This was his undoing. So it can happen both ways. There may be genuine concerns about this game's diplomacy system, but I hope you can at least understand each other's perspectives.

That's a fair summation, although I don't think I ever said anything about the "AI ganging up if the player is ahead" routine - which I find kind of cheesy.

Quote:

---

In reality, there is no clearly defined "goal" for nations, and "conquering the world" is not a realistic goal anyway

---

That I think is the main point. Arguing about what is "realistic" immediately falls apart when you consider that point. You can't make a realistic game when the only object is military conquest. Because that just isn't historically (or realistically) accurate. As soon as you do so, you limit the gameplay to a large degree.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to see other options in RTW other than straight-out military. But it's always been difficult for the 4x TBS game to do come up with other options.

Bh

My argument comes from the fact that I play the game simply for the sake of playing it. I am not aiming for any particular objective. Actually, I think I've only totally completed one or two games of MTW and none of RTW. I enjoy building up my cities more than conquest(not to say that sacking isn't fun), so I would like a diplomatic system that allows for this consideration. I find it disspointing that MTW's diplomacy actually is better if you play like me.

I like RTW's diplomacy more than MTW. In MTW, there was more of a sense of the AI ganging up on the player. The only usual wars were the three way battle between Egypt and Turkey and Byzantium, the three way battle between France and Britain and Germany and the battle between Spain and Almohad. Aside from that, the AI factions are always allied with each other and rarely go to war then all gang up on the player when the player gets more powerful.

In RTW, there is more of a feeling that the AI factions are trying to grab land and expand instead of cooperating against the player. I just like the fact that the AI factions are more likely to go to war with each other instead of having perpetual peace. That said, I think the AI should keep alliances more. More alliance vs. alliance fights would make diplomacy more important than the current 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. 1, etc. I also like the fact that the AI factions keep alliances with you even until the end. They don't all cancel when you conquer x amount of provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

The first one is the idiot in this game. In this game the only purpose is to expand your empire. If you're not doing that, then you will lose. Plain and simple.

---

Well, the problem is, you only see the game through "game mechanics", which is point of view that throw out of the windows about three quarters of the game.

Quote:

---

Instead of looking at it ... speaking) a waste of time.

---

Same as above. All this reasoning is based on "it's a game with game rules, and the AI must be made to challenge the player according to the game rules". Which is perhaps a little tiny bit more efficient and challenging, but again throw out of the windows the essence, the interest, and the flesh of the game.

Quote:

---

Actually, there can be a great deal of diplomacy take place in a game of Risk. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You've apparently decided that you've got the elistist "high ground" here, so far be it from me to suggest otherwise.

---

And you try very hard to not understand, as it seems.
Reread what I said.
I said that "You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games." and "But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options".
I know there is plenty of reflexion in Risk, that goes along exactly the same lines and same state of mind than you described.
What I point is that, when most of the game is BASED on cultural and historical details and flavour, then it's a WASTE of all these detail, of the essence of the game, to throw them out as irrelevant and use a mentality that is actually fits for Risk, which itself doesn't require this culture and history.

Quote:

---

What you don't understand is that the historical and cultural background of the game have nothing to do with the way the game is played. If you changed all the unit names to orcs and goblins, and changed the city names, and placed it on a fantasy map, the underlying gameplay would not change at all. I put that in bold, just so you wouldn't miss it. You see, the rules the game uses do not take any advantage of historical or cultural backgrounds. I'd be happy if it did. I'd love to see a game where diplomacy could have a big impact on things. But as long as the only victory conditions for TW games is militarily, TW will not be such a game.

---

You exactly prove my point above. Doing these changes would not, in fact, change anything to the game mechanics nor the victory condition.
But it would change the flavour, the essence, the ambiance and the immersion of the game. Which are far more important than the game mechanics, as we, human players, aren't machines reasoning in 0 and 1 and unable to see beyond the game mechanic to see the "soul" of the game.

Quote:

---

With that being the case, the diplomacy system as it exists in the game, fits it perfectly.

---

No. It fits Risk, but it doesn't fits the situation the game is trying to emulate.

Quote:

---

Please, stop with the idiotic strawman fallacies. It's quite obvious that I've never said anything about "pacman-like reflexion-level", so arguing about it is absurd. I can understand if you can't actually argue my points, but creating your own simplistic ones to argue against doesn't help you in the slightest.

---

It's you who seems to have a problem understanding simple explanations.
I'll make it even simpler :
- You only need the game mechanics to have the kind of game reasoning you described. As you yourself explained, all the cultural and historical and "role-playing" details of the game are irrelevant if you ONLY consider the game mechanics.
- As they are irrelevant, if it's to play only with the game mechanics in mind, there is no point in putting these details in the game.
- These details, this flavour, this ambiance, are in the game nevertheless.
- As such, it means that the game is trying to emulate an ambiance, trying to immerse the player into a situation such as described (taking the place of a ruling family and act as if "like here").
- Then it means that the AI should be programmed not to be strictly limited to the game mechanics, but to try to help with this immersion.

Seems quite obvious to me.

Well, seeing as I started this thread perhaps I should chime in again, if for no other reason than to save it from the flame-fest it is degenerating into.

Firstly, if anyone thinks the RTW AI is good then perhaps this is not the thread to communicate it in. I started this thread because I was unhappy with the AI-so lets keep on topic/

And yes there are examples when the AI acts 'sensibly' (if you can apply that definition) but there are many more examples of it not, and I DO NOT see a huge improvement over MTW, yes, there are more options but thats about it.

Further I do agree that this game in only about expanding empires, BUT that is the END and it is the MEANS in getting there that I think there are problems.

Nuff said.

Info and advice would be swell... ~;)

Total War is a game about conquest pure and simple, for players and the AI. Everything else is just a garnish. Those seeking a more in depth diplomatic game, or those who would prefer a less aggressive and deeper game would perhaps be better off playing Europa Universalis II. I myself like the Total War series for the conquest, both strategic and tactical, but have found EU2 to be more interesting and have a higher replay value.

Slyspy...it is somewhat funny, but whenever I get bored of too few diplomatics in MTW or RTW I start playing "Europa Univeralis II"...and that was what came up as first thought to my mind, when I read this thread...

I disagree with the whole "conquering the world" objective. It could easily be something like victory points and "get to be the super power" of the Ancient world.

Civ3 and EU2 are Diplomacy based games and Rome's campaign map engine is much alike to Civ3.

The AI Diplomacy has the same problem with defining diplomatic stances between AI factions as with the player. I personally think that there are "fixed relations" between certain alliances. Egypt vs Seleucids, Thrace vs Macedon, Greece vs Macedon, Britania vs Germania, Carthage vs Numidia and Rome vs everyone. I know that you can have and maintain alliances with your arch-rival but its very very rare and unrealisticly hard to achieve.

Also a given faction can easier ally with certain factions than other. From my experience as Greece (and as any other faction watching the Greek AI) Gaul is the most "alliable" faction. Apart from those "fixed relations" diplomacy acts decent, but those factions are usually the most crucial for you. Much like "Axis and Allies" diplomacy between ... Axis and Allies.

Maybe CA could "soften up" the given relations so it could be possible to ally (or just keep peace) with Macedon as Greece, but still hard.

Another thing is that the AI ALWAYS believe that you are a dishonorable scum, even if you have never ever betrayed ANYONE.

Maybe, just maybe its a bug (to big bad bag to get to release). If it is, then I am certain that CA will remove it in patch. CA never disapointed us with game support.
If not a bug, then it would be perfect to create your own "honorable-dishonorable" reputation (and the AI as well).

The argument "the AI acts like its in a game in order to survive" is no good. All players, or most of them, act like they are rulers so the AI should do. The game AI need to "roleplay" its factions diplomacy because it will profit from it.
An alliance with the player when appropriate could mean the anihhilation of a super power and expansion. On the other hand a war with the player could mean the total or partial distraction of the given faction.

Weak AI factions should be looking for alliances, not declaring war on the strongest faction in the game!

Heh, I am playing as Carthage currently and I am annoyed because NONE of the Roman factions have EVER declared war on anyone but me. 100+ years of attacks by all the Roman factions can be a bit trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka
Well, the problem is, you only see the game through "game mechanics", which is point of view that throw out of the windows about three quarters of the game.

---

I wrote a nice long rebuttal, but realized that's it's probably futile. Your above point is wrong. I see gameplay as an extension of game mechanics. Trying to make gameplay "the game" isn't accurate.

However, this discussion is pretty pointless. You think that immersion should come before good gameplay. I think good game play should come before immersion. It appears that CA agrees with me, as that's the way they designed the game.

Case closed.

Bh

I think that the AI is a touch too aggressive, but not terribly so. After all, this is Rome TOTAL WAR, not Pax Romana! My biggest complaint is that the AI needs to be a little more selective about who it goes to war with. It's a bit like Medieval all over again, with most AI factions fighting multi-front wars.

Gosh. You just take everything upside-down and make the absurd into logic and the logic into absurd.

Quote:

---

As usual, you are wrong. What you seem to be completely unable to grasp is that you can have a great deal of game immersion while still following the rules of the game. Breaking the rules of the game to forward immersion, however, is never a good way to make a game.

---

Yes it is.
That's breaking to immersion to make the AI stick to the rules and going against all the spirit and the essence of the game to do that which is absurd.

Quote:

---

Again, an entirely black and white viewpoint. It's about as stupid as saying that having trees in a FPS is a complete WASTE if you can't climb them. The cultural and historical details of the game are what create the atmosphere. Saying that the atmosphere is wasted if the AI makes sound gameplay decisions is just sheer foolishness.

---

And again you show an inability to graps the fundamental concept.
Trees aren't the basis of the game in FPS, neither in flavour nor in gameplay. While ruling a country is somehow the basis of RTW. If you wish to make a parallel with FPS, then it would rather be to have a huge barreled shotgun that deals 15 damage points, and a little air-propelled bullets toy gun deals 250 damage points in an area of effect.
Gameplay-wise, it's only damage points and rules. Game-wise, it's an absurd, unrealistic and anti-immersive bogus design decision.

Quote:

---

Yes, exactly. Thank you for completely proving my point. You can have the exact same gameplay, but change the "flavour" of the game and have a completely different feel to the game. In other words, the gameplay doesn't control the flavour of the game. So if the gameplay isn't linked to the flavour, then stop complaining about the gameplay ruining the flavour.

---

Wow.
You manage to got it completely in reverse.
I was saying that these details are actually the flesh and meat of the game, and you interpret it as meaning that rules of the game are what are important :dizzy2:

I'll make it simpler, then : the rules of the game and the AI should be built around the flavour and the ambiance, NOT the other way around.

Quote:

---

When "challenge" and "immersion" come into conflict, "immersion" should always lose. It just doesn't get simpler than that.

---

Well, again, the same horrible argument. I've encountered the same on Civ3 boards, and plenty other boards.
"challenge" is what is needed to maintain interest in the game. But "challenge" is not, contrary to what people like you constantly say, the end of the game. It's a MEANS.
You first and foremost build the game according to its sould and its spirit, you make strong immersion and ambiance and flavour, and THEN you try to find way to make the game challenging.

People only looking for the challenge, miss the vast majority of a game, as they are so focused on the game mechanics that they miss the subtetlies of immersion around (and don't give me the "black and white" garbage ; your quote pretty much show this disregard for the meat of the game to the benefit of "challenge").

Good games are game with a lot of immersion, not game with a lot of challenge. Of course, games with both are even better. But, contrary to what you say, it's immersion which should win any conflict with challenge. It's immersion which is the very point of a game, and even more an historical game.
No point in basing your game on history, if it's to trump it and destroy realism at each corner :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

I'll make it simpler, then : the rules of the game and the AI should be built around the flavour and the ambiance, NOT the other way around.

---

The rules of the game should be, yes. In this case, the rules were built around conquering other factions. So either deal with that, or look for a new game to play, because that isn't going to change.

Bh

Why should these smaller factions, instead of spending money improving their countries, squander it all on completely stupid and illogical wars that they can never win?

The AI should think like the leader of a nation and not like some moronic child (me have border with Rome me invade Rome oh no me dont exist any more). When they declare war on a faction much bigger they are just committing suicide! Wouldn't it be more fun/challenging to face off against that same faction if it had instead built its nation up and made better decisions? I think you should really be playing command & conquer because that seems to be your mindset. Are you new to the TW series?

Ultimately, I think Bhuric is right. There is no other path for the AI to take that might not result in a game with little or no action on the part of many factions. The fact is that a truly realistic diplomacy model would not only inhibit the AI but would curtail players in a huge way too. As it is, you are free to make war on anyone at any time. How realistic is that? Remove that ability and players would be incensed so it’s pretty tough to have a wide open war game with a lot of strings attached to who came make war upon whom.

It is goofy at times when a reasonable offer is refused by the AI for unknown reasons. If we consider the time and money it would take to develop big time strategy map AI it becomes clear we just can’t have it for $45. And that assumes that most people would like it if we had it. Diplomacy is ancillary for me (and the game too). I use it when I can but I expect armies to do the talking not diplomats. Total War.

That's somehow sad to see people who are unable to get beyond the "me fight me win !" mentality. But, well, it's their own game they are spoiling.

I just hope that CA hear the prayers of the ones who would like more realism, logic and consistency, which is part of what make games great and rememberable, rather than the "challenge challenge challenge !!!", which never made by itself a game a classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

rather than the "challenge challenge challenge !!!", which never made by itself a game a classic.

---

...and without which, no game has ever been a "classic".

Bh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

...and without which, no game has ever been a "classic".

---

Well, as always since the start of this thread, you're dead wrong.

What does this have to do with a challenge? There is nothing challenging about the AI sending fodder armies at you. A challenge would be having the AI wait to gauge your reaction and then, if they decide that you are a hostile threat, sending the two or six armies they've been saving for the occasion.

That would go along with the non-suicidal AI, which certain people claim wouldn't suit the game. I disagree. There is a differance between a challenge and an annoyance. RTW's AI factions are mostly the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

Well, as always since the start of this thread, you're dead wrong.

---

By all means, try and prove me wrong. Point out some "classic" games for which there was no challenge.

Bh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

...and without which, no game has ever been a "classic".

Bh

---

If that's the case, then I can count using my fingers the games released in the past 10 years that could be considered classics. Ever since the late Super NES/Early Playstation era, games, even PC games, have mostly been crappy on the difficulty scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

By all means, try and prove me wrong. Point out some "classic" games for which there was no challenge.

Bh

---

Final Fantasy 6/7

Anyway, read my post above. If you think that the suicidal AI is "challenging", you are not very good at the game.

also I think Akka wasn't saying that he wants the game without challenge, instead I think he meant that he'd rather more depth than constant waves of enemies beign thrown at his armies for him to repel

if we wanted that we'd go play BeachHead 2000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

By all means, try and prove me wrong. Point out some "classic" games for which there was no challenge.

---

You're the one saying that challenge is the end of it all, and that it's the main point of a game, and that it should takes precedence over anything else in a game.

If it takes precedence over the rest, it means that it's the most important point for a good game.
So it means that the most challenging games are the ones which were "classics".
Well, you pretend it's the case. The burden of proof is on you. Give me the list of games that were classics because they were the most challenging.

And then, after you've come back with a totally empty list, take a while to wonder why, if challenge is so important, all the classics were classics due to something else.

Of course, if you can prove me that all the classics (Doom, Civilization, Half-life, Dune, Warcraft, Myst, Master of Magic, Zelda, Sonic, GTA 3, Speedball, Falcon, Final Fantasy, Diablo and countless others) were classics due to challenge, you would have a point.
But hey... They were not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

You're the one saying that challenge is the end of it all, and that it's the main point of a game, and that it should takes precedence over anything else in a game.

---

No, now you are putting words into my mouth. I said challenge should take precedence over immersion. That isn't the same as saying it is the most important thing. I think that a well crafted game will have both. I've said as much in other threads. I'd be extremely happy to see RTW having options for victory that weren't tied to military conquest. And if that were the case, I'd be happy to have the diplomacy system enhanced.

My point is, however, that without any option but military conquest for victory, having a diplomacy system that takes anything other than military conquest into consideration is counter-productive.

Quote:

---

If it takes precedence over the rest, it means that it's the most important point for a good game.
So it means that the most challenging games are the ones which were "classics".
Well, you pretend it's the case. The burden of proof is on you. Give me the list of games that were classics because they were the most challenging.

---

As stated above, I never said as much, so the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:

---

Of course, if you can prove me that all the classics (Doom, Civilization, Half-life, Dune, Warcraft, Myst, Master of Magic, Zelda, Sonic, GTA 3, Speedball, Falcon, and countless others) were classics due to challenge, you would have a point.
But hey... They were not.

---

Actually, you've presented a wonderful list of challenging games. Would Doom have been a classic if the monsters shot non-damaging paintballs at you? Would Master of Magic be a classic if the AI empires never expanded beyond their capital because they didn't want to be expansionists? Would Warcraft have been a classic if instead of building up units to attack you, the Orcs decided to take up flower gardening?

...

Really, when it comes down to it, we are both on the same side of the "RTW could have been better if..." debate. The difference we seem to be having is that you are asking for half of the system. That is, you don't see a problem with keeping the system of "only military victory", but designing the AI to not be interested in military victory. I do see a problem with it. But I think we would both agree that an option other than military victory would be the best solution (at least, I hope you would agree to that).

So how about we stop this rather pointless bickering and agree to disagree?

Bh

I don't know what the complaint is about. It's 215 BC in my game and the Brutii had only conquered a whopping 1 province(appollonia), and the Jullii 2(sardinia and orca) I wished they were much more aggressive since I had to do all the work (28 provinces by now), securing their border regions for them. In fact, they are both rich as hell, with all large cities and at least 3 full stacked armies, just camping at their borders(they now only border me, but they've been camping there since the beginning of the game).

The AI in this game for diplomacy works on an "anger" meter. If you insult them, attack them, siege them they will cut off ALL diplomatic relations in that you cannot get anything done with them. Lets take two examples here.

Example 1) You are the super power, you, or they initiated a war, you are winning. You continue to occupy their towns and destroy their armies. Under almost no circumstances will they accept a ceasefire, and if they do it is only at the return of their cities. The way to get a ceasefire is to sit back and let things cool down for awhile, go ten years or so without active hostilities and they will readily accept a ceasefire. I can't count the number of ceasefires i've attained like this, Gaul, Dacia Greek_Cities, Armenia, Pontius, Thrace, Brutii the list goes on. I mean for real, you just occupied their capital and now you're offering peace, sorry but only an idiot would accept those terms.

Example 2) You are the little guy, look they have no reason to offer or accept a ceasefire, they are in control. Everything is done on their timetable.

It's very simple, the AI behaves in a fairly realistic way when it comes to peace. The AI is a little quirky when it comes to interpretting diplomatic advances, in a recent campaign as Armenia, I had the seleucids cancel our alliance because I kept trying to trade maps with them. I was even given several popup warnings.

For a real life example, lets look at WW2. The AI does not subscribe to the French style of diplomacy, they go more for the British/Soviet style. They don't surrender after a couple battles, they will force you to exterminate them and forcibly occupy every inch of their country. Im glad the AI doesnt act like the French did in ww2 or this would be an extremely fast game ;p

Well, firstly the french were uttely crushed by the German blitzkrieg, as were the allied British forces with them. Unfortunately the French couldn't exactly retreat like the British did and had no other option. They held off the Italians just fine. Not a good analogy.

Secondly, The AI will refuse ceasefires for 20+ years, because *they* are the ones sending fodder armies in. That's just stupid, any way you look at it. It's not like they are wearing me down, either. They are being sent home in peices doing little or no damage in fruitless seiges.