Printable View
John,
I think one of the best ways to make the harder might be to use a script that spawns a Generals unit for the AI every 5 turns or so as long as they're underneath a certain amount cf to their city number. The AI using captains to lead big armies does a lot of harm.
Originally Posted by Jambo:
Whilst I don't deny that what you say is true, do you really think that its inevitable and can't be fixed?
So, make mental note everybody - don't buy a TW game for a challenge. Buy it for immersion (sometimes), graphics and ... um... fun...
Originally Posted by Didz:
I'd love to say no Didz, but I really believe the current format of TW games makes them impossible to make difficult per sé. They're just too complex with too many variables to enable competent AI to be designed. Maybe under the "Risk" style of campaign map, as seen in Shogun and Med I, the campaign element could have been made more difficult?
Whilst I don't deny that what you say is true, do you really think that its inevitable and can't be fixed?
However, the Battle AI hasn't improved one iota from the days of Shogun and Med I so it's difficult to believe it's going to improve drastically in subsequent titles as the maps, units, etc, get more complicated in design and function.... What I'm alluding to here with respect to Med II is that the complexity of siege warfare has far surpassed the ability to program competent AI to deal with it.
Where did they go wrong? Well, for starters I believe the more advanced campaign map was a bad move. While there's no doubting that it adds to immersion and realism, I'd argue it's far too complex for the AI. I'd have much preferred a more traditional and simplified boardgame style of map layout; one which has less freedom and the AI can utilise choke points, river crossings, high ground, etc to its full potential. Secondly, the idea of captains... urgh. Why o' why captains? They're the bane of any AI army. All armies should automatically contain a general unit thereby eliminating this particular AI weakness in a oner.
Jambo,
I do think the AI can be improved to the point that it will challenge any player. Half of the problem is that they don't have any way to push updates for the AI scripts on a regular basis.
If you take a couple hundred players who like to mod and let them regularly update the campaign AI to counter existing player tactics and strategies, you will eventually get an AI that can be a challenge. I'm not sure how long it would take to do so, but I'm pretty confident in the abilities of the players to come up with continual tweaks to make the game better.
One behavior that I personally think needs to be changed is the predictability of the AI. I personally think there should be multiple different AI scripts to reflect different leadership styles. One for an isolationist AI, one for an expansive AI, etc. By having varied responses to a given player generated situation you will find out that the player has a hard time coming up with a "Best solution", especially if two scripts behave radically different to the same player actions.
Think of how a player would react to an AI that follows AskThePizzaGuy's blitzing strategy. That could result in just enough of a stalemate for the player to allow several other AI factions to really get ahead.
Why everyone is complaining about the AI.Just don't play this game if you don't like it,go and play Bomberman and Packman.
@Jambo
Well I would like to say your wrong but I have yet to play any strategy game other than chess and backgammon where the AI managed to provide a challenge without using the standard 'mass unit production' and 'universal knowledge' cheats.
I do think that the AI could be improved though, particularly at the strategic level where it does make a lot of really dumb mistakes. Battlefield AI is much more of a problem as its difficult to isolate the poor how much of the poor performance is down to the strategic AI and how much just to poor tactical handling.
In my current 0.5 years per turn game, I've noticed that the biggest problem the AI has is in army composition. With all its cities and castles fully developed one would have expected it to have a full choice of troops. But instead of using this to generate balanced armies that are engineered to maximise its performance against mine, it has developed a fetish for Venetian and Hungarian armies heavy in pavise crossbowmen, trebuchet's and hussars. The result is usually a turkey shoot for my horse archers against the hussars followed by a mounted raid to wipe out their exposed trebuchets and then a mass charge to overrun their crossbows.
However, Egypt did manage to pull off one surprise victory last night when an army heavy in Royal Marmalukes destroy my fully stacked Turkish army on its way to beseige Gaza. That army still had far too many trebuchets wasting units slots, but the combination of heavy infantry and elite mounted archers was enough to wear down my battleline and eventually cause it to rout. Lots of flanking by the marmalukes too, which is something I've not noticed since RTW.
Certainly, good army composition (e.g. Armies designed to counter the strengths of their opponent) by the strategic AI would make a big difference to battlefield performance as would a clear strategic goal that avoided wandering army syndrome.
Originally Posted by Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes):
Very constructive...
Why everyone is complaining about the AI.Just don't play this game if you don't like it,go and play Bomberman and Packman.
If we wouldnt like the game we wouldnt be here, what we are trying to do is make a good game better.
Basicly, the biggest frustration the game has is how good it COULD be if it functioned correctly compared to the current state of the game.
If the games functions all worked correctly this would be an outstanding game of the century, but in the current state you will have to be very forgiving to enjoy the game.
[QUOTE=Kadagar_AV]John_Longarrow,
"I wouldnt mind if they removed the diplomacy altogether, as an example. Why? Because I'd rather have a game designed around non-existing diplomacy, than as now, a game designed around broken and bugged diplomacy.
Like today.... I offered HRE cease fire, 30k gold and 2 provinces, and they just wouldnt take it. The very next turn (nothing had changed), they ask for peace and give me a province as thanks... :wall:
Is it any wonder many experience the diplomacy as rather random? "
Question did something change? It is now their turn. This brings up the question does the AI use old data? Half way through my turn I ask the AI if it wants a cease fire, does it looks at data from the start of its last turn for the answer? Then at start of it's next turn recalculate and want a cease fire? If looking at old data it would not know that I have taken 3 cities and broken its army this turn. It may still think it is on the offensive about to take one of my cities. SadCat :clown:
Originally Posted by SadCat:
I suspect it has less to do with old data and more to do with the AI being imperfect at providing a "human" perspective on diplomacy.
Question did something change? It is now their turn. This brings up the question does the AI use old data? Half way through my turn I ask the AI if it wants a cease fire, does it looks at data from the start of its last turn for the answer? Then at start of it's next turn recalculate and want a cease fire? If looking at old data it would not know that I have taken 3 cities and broken its army this turn. It may still think it is on the offensive about to take one of my cities. SadCat :clown:
If you offer to give/sell a province or two to another faction (even at odds very favourable to them), they'll often refuse - with the rationale that they can't trust you (not to take the province(s) back soon after). This also applies when you attempt to initiate a ceasefire and offer provinces.
However, when they initiate ceasefire discussions, the AI does not seem to consider that your proposals may be dishonest and takes them at face value - and is therefore prepared to give up provinces in return for a ceasefire.
This seems crazy and is - but it's also a reflection of how complex the issues the AI designers were dealing with. If you initiate diplomacy and are less than Reliable, the M2TW AI will automatically suspect you of chicanery because you initiated the dialogue and may therefore be planning something tricksy. However, if the AI initiates the discussion, it will give credence to your position so long as it feels you are responding fairly to its requests - and doesn't consider that you're double-crossing them because they made the initial approach.
What's the alternative? That the AI never trusts you? No point having diplomacy at all at that point. That the AI always trusts you? Too easy to exploit and, again, a case for not having any AI.
So CA had to tread a path between these two extremes and it chose this one. It's not ideal but I don't think it's too bad. I regularly have to negotiate in my job and know that concessions are far more palatable if they made seemingly on your terms, not those of your opposite number; the current approach reflects that.
It could be better but it could be much, much worse.
Originally Posted by diotavelli:
It shouldn't be about trust in the first place in my opinion. The AI should base its decision on whether it is in its best interests to accept or not. If its a good deal for that particular AI faction why should it reject it just because it thinks your a lying toad, and if its a bad deal why would it accept even if it thinks your a saint.
What's the alternative? That the AI never trusts you? No point having diplomacy at all at that point. That the AI always trusts you? Too easy to exploit and, again, a case for not having any AI.
As for not accepting a gift becuase it thinks you intend to take it back again....why the hell should that matter?
Surely, what matters is whether the AI faction feels confident that it can hold onto the gift long enough to make it worthwhile to accept.
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP:
Agreed entirely.
Auto-calc'ing city battles removes a small factor of difficulty as auto-calc ignores walls.
Effectively, though, this just shows what we already know, blitzing in any way breaks the game model, and the strategic AI is grossly incompetent. That last is true of all the TW games, IMHO, I'd be surprised if there was any realistic situation a player couldn't win their way out of on the strategic map.
I admit, I didn't even become a decent general until my War for Independence campaign forced me to use... archers.
When one can easily field massive all infantry and cavalry armies and blitz straight through all resistance using superior strategy map positioning and recruitment... why would anyone need to learn to battle effectively? You can always simply massively outnumber or outmaneuver them.
I HAD to blitz by a certain TURN number in order to give the AI a chance. The faster I move, the weaker I am on the field, the fewer troops and funds I have, and the less advantageous my strategic positioning. Actually having to win seige battles with only a unit of cavalry is difficult.
Winning seiges with basic militia infantry and archers, while undermanned, is very difficult.
Blitzing gave me that. But only when I had the much more difficult house rules of War for Independence did I even begin to meet real resistance from the AI.
Thread necromancy is bad. That's how the Zombie Apocalypse starts. We don't want to start the Zombie Apocalypse, do we?