AI Blunders

I was defending one of my Greek cities from the Julii. When I came to deploy my units I stationed armoured hoplites at the open gates. When the battle started the Romans threw down their ladders, abandoned their seige towers and rushed my open gates. An entire army was held in the gateway by a single phallanx and were massacred by boiling oil. There was a great big pile of charred remains. It looked and sounded horrible. ~:eek:

Playing the Britons I stationed my chosen swordsmen at the end of a bridge and placed my light chariots and slingers on either side to catch the Julii in my crossfire. Again a full Roman army rushed the bridge and were massacred in a hail of arrows and rocks.

Does AI have a death wish?

Yes.~:)

yea that happened a couple times in a pbem campaign i had started with me friends ^^ first by Carthage, then by the Scipii in syracruse spys had opened the gates for them and they came charging in, wasting elephants on me it was sweet

Yes, I've had elephants wander up to my gates only to get toasted - a Baba Q ~D

My favorite typical AI blunder is when the enemy general rushes well ahead of the army straight into a spear unit and routes long before any one else comes.

I once had elephants that charged at my pigs. What a flamming mistake.

I'm not sure that this really counts as a blunder, but I routinely turn the Khan into a porcupine on the bridge when they attack Kiev in 1232 or 1233. He has no heirs and suddenly they are rebels!! This happens every game I play when I am in the east.

Xp

Also in MTW: often times an opposing faction will decide it can't win the battle and retreat when there's either no way for them to retreat or it's their last province. This either makes me rich off the ransom, or in the second scenario makes a faction die without a final battle.

Another goofy occurance was today when the Almohads reappeared in Tunisia with 3 stacks of fuedal sarges, which was already weird. Then, in the battle they all retreated after a small skirmish with my swordsmen, and wave after wave of sarge would run across the map to me, almost make contact, then run away. At least my archers were able to get some kills.

Of course most people aren't without their fair share of blunders too. Like today I accidently clicked for my spears to move right before they received a heavy cavalry charge. The move broke their formation enough for them to take HEAVY casualties, although luckily I was able to recover with some flanking and win.

And then there's the blunder when you let the AI control your reinforcements onlt yo watch them charge helter skelter at the enemy, losing your general and half your army in the process.

Note to self: "Never again"

~:mecry:

What I find very amusing:

When you have the same amount of troops except you have archers and the AI doesn't
Most of the time in these situations the AI finds himself a nice high mountain or hill.

So you move slowly towards them for a head on attack.
Dangerous sure.
But as you are coming closer the AI move's slightly backwards.
Giving you the advantage of the hill.

Needles to say the poor bastards get massacred.

When i was playing in Iberia as the Berbers and the Sarmatians were laying siege to Corduba the only thing troubling me was the possibility that the Sarmatian faction leader, Boz, had recruited some graal knights (what are british graal knights doing in the Iberian Peninsular??). In the battle i lured the graal knights with some horse archers and the graal knights blindly followed dangerously close to my walls. They stupidly got so close that they got bombarded with javlins and stones from my missile troops. I have tried this tactic before but with mixed success but i see it as sheer stupidity on behalf of the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majikos

When i was playing in Iberia as the Berbers and the Sarmatians were laying siege to Corduba the only thing troubling me was the possibility that the Sarmatian faction leader, Boz, had recruited some graal knights (what are british graal knights doing in the Iberian Peninsular??).

---

You can pick up an occasional Graal Knight in France but the spawn rate seems IMO to be lower than in the Brittish Isles. Isn´t it amazing though how stupid the AI is - chasing light cav with heavy cav!!!?~:eek:

Here is another classic AI blunder:

Today i started a campaign as the scipii and was told to take Syracuse. So i assaulted the city and managed to drive into the heart of it. The greek general decided to meet mine in combat. So he ran out from the midst of his hoplites, only to catch himself on one of their sarissas. The cutscene saw him flying off a pike and killing himself in the process.

So there you go, more AI stupidity.

last night one of my stone-walled cities was besieged by a cavalry/chariot army with only two infantry units. Needless to say, after my archers had destroyed their ram and my principes had wiped out the men in the siege tower, the rest just turned and ran.

I also had one siege where they never bothered to use the sap point even though i destroyed all their other siege weapons. Of course, this sucked from my point of view as i had to leave the safety of the walls to kill of the rest of their army which just stood there waiting :(

The most iritating blunder I made was to 'trap' a unit of enemy spearmen on the bit of wall that was left after using two adjacent sap points. By that time my archers and onagers were all out of ammo, and the spearmen were out of range of my infantry javelins :( I had to win that one by holding the town centre for three minutes for the first time ever.

the AI can do some damn silly things, but i reckon even bothering to fight a siege you don't need to counts as a blunder, and hereby award the prize to, er, me, for attacking a ring-walled, cutrain-walled, balllista-towered fortress with 400 FS and two trebuchets...final score, 353 dead sergeants, 2 dead trebuchets with extremely perforated crews, and one slightly damaged castle...sigh. repeat after me, 'you must use cannon, or failing that, don't bother.'
it would've fallen the next turn anyway.

i've seen the AI attempt to force bridges with light cavalry though. hoho.
:charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemusAvenged

My favorite typical AI blunder is when the enemy general rushes well ahead of the army straight into a spear unit and routes long before any one else comes. .

---

Yes, that is my favorite blunder as well

The general unit charges at me first all of the time

Dunno if this counts as an AI blunder or not, but when I'm fighting a siege it often ends up in a big melee in the city square as the defenders make their last stand, surrounded by a mass of my roman legions. Sometimes some enemy troops arrive behind my legions... if they get routed (as usually happens) they run *through* my legions to try to get to the centre. Obviously, they drop faster than stones ~:)

What battlefield difficulty settings are you using? I've found that Medium (M) is more challenging than Very Hard (VH), as the AI / human player won't receive morale and / or combat bonuses. Typically, a battle in VH lasts for a few minutes - almost soon as you make contact with the AI (or very rarely, your own) their units will rout one-by-one. This of course depends whether you (or the AI) has a general on the field, what his command ability is, and whether he has any retinue members that encourage / discourage battlefield morale.

However, a battle in M tends to be more prolonged IMO, at least the various melee units will fight for longer before (and if) they decide to leg it. Test it for yourselves in custom battles using both similar and different units against each other.

In terms of battlefield deployment and movement, the AI prefers to march (or stand still) in an over-extended single line with hardly any reserves. If you manage to kill their commander near the start of a battle (this is usually too easy IMO), then the AI has few hopes of putting up a serious challenge. The AI in RTW needs to make you work harder and think for longer before you choose to engage / skirmish, or prepare to defend your position.

yeah, i agree Seasoned Alcoholic, flanking the AI's 'standard line of battle' is ridiculously easy. it either does nothing, leaves some highly inappropriate troops like archers to skirmish helplessly in front of your heavy knights, or attempts to turn its entire army around to meet your flank force, thus leaving your main line free to charge.
given the preponderance of line troops (spears) in VI, this move has now become something of a joke and i'm experimenting with alternative methods of winning battles. massed artillery works well, but happily for the game balance the AI has not yet proven silly enough to frontal attack 6 catapults and 6 mangonels backed by Celtic Warriors and Welsh Bandits...:san_cheesy:

My favorite glitch has been resolved as far as I know, though it shouldnt have! I think it added a bit of realism to bridge battles. Did anyone notice in the 1.1-1.2ish patches for RTW, when you fight on a bridge, sometimes the horde of AI coming over doesnt quite...make the platform? I recall one battle I played where the enemy Britons were attacking and happened to send their chariot general towards the bridge. Only he missed the bridge and plummeted into the river. The first death by drowning I think I ever saw for a general in RTW. Though often the eles and chariots as well as large cavalry formations would sometimes drown themselves trying to get over. I wish they didn't fix that, it was especially funny in multiplayer to see your opponent lose large contingents of cav trying to cross :san_cheesy:

AI blunder or just a bad general. playing ERE the sassanids came at me with 2 3/4 stacks. it must have been the onagers because his clibinari immortals stay back and watched his army get decimated. once the onagers were out of ammo they attacked. by this time i surrounded the immortals with 6 units including a rear charge by my general. so much for immortal. AI did sneak some camel raiders around and hit my now out of ammo archers. my blunder, bring more calvary

Unlike me, in MTW the AI never waits, fully prepare and tidy up their reinforcement in non-river battles. In other words, there is no such thing as "second wave." Their units of reinforcement advance one by one. This costs them the battle when they bring 5-6 siege engines and my troops are too tired to march across the map and destroy them.

Quote:

---

This costs them the battle when they bring 5-6 siege engines and my troops are too tired to march across the map and destroy them.

---

heheh, it's always bringing siege weapons and parking them miles out of range!
i think the AI has an obsession with them...sometimes it'll march half way round the battlefield to get out of the firing line of my siege weapons.

MTW: VI - no patch

Situation: 1330 AD. I am Polish. Empire consists of Norway, Sweden, Prussia, Poland, Silesia, Hungary, Croatia, Venice, Serbia, Greece, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Carpathia, Moldavia, Crimea, Kiev, Volhynia, Lithuania, Livonia. Also have Nicaea, Trebizond, and Georgia but don't want them. I had to take the latter three in ransoming Byz Monarch. GH holds eveything east of me save for Novgorod and Finland. As you know, Georgia borders Khazar, which has had at various times 4K-9K troops since the initial 25K invasion. Georgia has been garrisoned by a whopping 26 men for 65 years! Yet, the Khan will not invade it. Instead he sends his lackeys to die in the Crimea, Lithuania, or Kiev once every decade or so. Why will he not take advantage of this situation? I am trying to give it to him. He could take all three of my Anatolian provinces and I would not care. ALL are garrisoned by less than 50 men! What gives? I WANT him to take them and become stronger! Could it be that the fortification are too big? All have citadels. Would he be forced to assault them because of the small garrison? Does he not think he can afford the losses he will take in said assault? One note, I built them to that level. I took them with mere keeps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Darkhorn

ALL are garrisoned by less than 50 men! What gives? I WANT him to take them and become stronger! Could it be that the fortification are too big? All have citadels. Would he be forced to assault them because of the small garrison? Does he not think he can afford the losses he will take in said assault? One note, I built them to that level. I took them with mere keeps.

---

Well, the A.I. would indeed lose a lot of men trying to siege that out. Also, it seems that the Golden Horde is programmed to go for Kiev in reference to any other province.

Umm the biggest AI blunder...Attacking me :san_laugh:

AI Blunder I had MAXED OUT NUMBERS OF FORESTER WARBANDS against Maxed out numbers of Paetarion Cavarly and they just stood their getting killed... like bison would bison hunters

Once while playing MTW, I was fighting the Egyptians in Arabia (I think). I went into battle with mostly spearmen and archers. The AI had the Egyptians positioned on the highest hill on the map. But there was a small curved ridge connecting a smaller hill to the larger one. So I slowly maneuvered my men up onto the ridge to try and take a position on the back of the large hill, just behind the enemy. Well, being that I was outnumbered, I thought for sure they'd make mince meat out of me. But instead, they moved aside as if to say: "come on up, the view's great!"

Then, the AI made an even dumber move yet. As I moved my spearwall completely onto the hill with the archers following - instead of attacking me, the AI moved its army off the hill and into the valley below. Needless to say, it was like shooting fish in a barrel!

I had one battle where I believe my computer was drunk, or stoned.

I can't recall the specifics and unfortunately don't have the replay I saved. I was playing the Danes vs the Spanish, and I sent my Turcopoles out for some initial missile fire. What happened was very strange. As I lured the spanish troops out (mostly one at a time) they would approach, and then subsequently turn around and sit there taking arrows. After a few losses they'd either turn around and attempt to approach, or run back to their main forces. I moved up all the rest of my missile troops and continued to pelt the enemy. Every unit that approached would get to some point between their starting position, and my position, turn around and continue to take the missile fire.

There is even a moment when some Feudal Men at arms begins to charge my Turcopoles, and at the last moment they stop, turn around and keep taking it. It was as though they thought I'd be coming from the opposite direction and couldn't figure out why they were taking so much damage.

I've experienced these kinds of things almost everytime I go into battle. I've even had the enemy general's unit approach my archers, stop for a few moments, take on heavy casualties from my arrow fire, then flee the battlefield with the rest of his army following. How stupid is that?!

What level of the game do you play on? I've seen these kinds of things happen while playing on the "normal" level, but have never played on "hard" or "expert." I'm about to move up and start playing my next game on "hard." I'm hoping to meet a more challenging AI.

I'm also wondering if there have been any improvements made to the AI in latter mods of MTW/VI or in RTW. It would be interesting to fight a more intelligent AI - perhaps one that would even deploy certain battlefield tactics that have been used throughout history, such as the pincer movement or double envelopment (or even better yet, an AI that can detect when I'm using a certain tactic, then take counter measures to try and stop it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexios

What level of the game do you play on? I've seen these kinds of things happen while playing on the "normal" level, but have never played on "hard" or "expert." I'm about to move up and start playing my next game on "hard." I'm hoping to meet a more challenging AI.

I'm also wondering if there have been any improvements made to the AI in latter mods of MTW/VI or in RTW. It would be interesting to fight a more intelligent AI - perhaps one that would even deploy certain battlefield tactics that have been used throughout history, such as the pincer movement or double envelopment (or even better yet, an AI that can detect when I'm using a certain tactic, then take counter measures to try and stop it).

---

In M:TW and S:TW the battlefield A.I. got more canny as you increased difficulty level. For example expert A.I. would activily scout for ambushes if your visible army was smaller than the at the pre-battle screen. It also got a slight stat bonus for its units. The R:TW A.I. gets a big stat bonus but doesn't get any smarter.

A.I. in Total War is hardcoded, but we can alter it's preferences to some extent. Modifications for M:TW mainly focus on the strategic side. The XL mod increased farm income and decreased trade income thereby compensating for the A.I.'s inability to form ship lines. The MedMod changed building preferences so the A.I. focused more on economic development and ship productions. In both cases the A.I. generates enough money to field decent armies as opposed to peasant hordes. However, I don't think the battlefield A.I. was touched in either.

In R:TW the A.I. has got rather bad standard battlefield formations. DarthMod and DarthFormations improved this, leading to a more competent A.I. (though I heard some reports that DarthFormations actually makes the new 1.5-patch A.I. perform worse). Also slowing down combat improved performance, as the A.I. seems tuned for slower battles. I recently started playing with Europa Barbaorum Beta and so for I am quite impressed with the A.I.: it finally seems to work, even though the Beta still works in patch 1.2.

Okay, thanks Ludens. Perhaps I'll just skip over "Hard" and go directly to "Expert" and play an MTW game on that setting to see how challenging it is. After that, I'll probably go ahead and install VI, which I purchased just the other day, then look at installing XL or one of the other mods.

So would you say the AI engine in RTW is superior to that in STW and MTW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexios

Perhaps I'll just skip over "Hard" and go directly to "Expert" and play an MTW game on that setting to see how challenging it is.

---

If you want the most intelligent A.I., hard is sufficient by my knowledge. It also increases the combat stats of A.I. units with 10-15%: not so much you'd notice, but enough to give it an edge when equal units are fighting. On expert the A.I. gets a bonus of 30% as well +5 morale. The latter is important as it makes A.I. last far longer than yours. I do not know what the differences are on the campaignmap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexios

So would you say the AI engine in RTW is superior to that in STW and MTW?

---

Actually, I would say it's inferior to S:TW and M:TW. There has been a lot of debate about this in the Coloseum, and some people argue that the R:TW A.I. is the same as that of M:TW, but is handicapped by the increased battle speed and decreased balance. This may be true, as slowing down and balancing the game does improve its performance; but M:TW A.I. would never frontally charge a unit with a weaker unit whereas R:TW A.I. does. In M:TW the computer would scout for hidden units whereas R:TW forgets about them even if had seen them take up ambushing positions. M:TW A.I. could do ambushes itself, but I never seen R:TW pull one of on the battlefield. The M:TW A.I. clung to hills when defending and would relocate if you managed to get higher than them. In R:TW you can just walk around them to get the higher ground and it would never try to stop you.

R:TW is somewhat more flexible with formations, but its general performance in battles is nowhere near that of S:TW or M:TW. BI and the latest patched did improve things, but it still not at the same level (though I haven't tried BI yet). All in all, the A.I. is a lot worse in battle. It can be improved through modding, though.