Passive AI is not fixed.

Greetings

I thought it necessary to post this. This is mainly an informative post of my experience with Update 1, with regards to passive battle and campaign AI.

I'm playing H/VH.

I've just done a bridge battle, and for the 5th or 6th time (this is only one example) out of slightly more than a dozen or so battles, the AI has just stood there. It's worth mentioning that the AI army was shouting orders in loops but no action was being taken, damm rebellious troops! ;)

In a few battles, actually in most, the AI still allows itself to be shot up, it does not move.And if it does anything at all, it is a 20 second charge and then back to the wall for the firing squad. of course the problem also may be that the AI is not making enough investment in anti-missile troops (e.g light cavalry).

It's better as it does'nt happen all the time, but passive battle AI is not fixed.

I can see 3 armies for a total of more than 2200 men, amassed on one of my borders. I have 600 men defending that border, my army is sitting on a road in flat terrain, ideal ground for a battle. The Polish AI is clearly in the superior position yet for about 8 turns the situation has remained the same. No attack and no movement.

Incidentally I also have 4 Crusade armies for about 3 turns now close to the same spot, in the same province (you can imagine the combined armies of these foes would be overwhelming) They don't attack, and they don't move either. Possibly because the Bosporus is blocked at both land bridges by my fleets, fact remains they don't attack, withdraw, or move.

The campaign map AI is much better, as I see fewer instances of this, but it is not fixed either.

That's 2 points off the readme which are out.

This needs to be reviewed for update 2.

No, its not fixed!

In fact it happens more often (passive AI). To me at least.

Also new crashes to black screen with permanent turning MTW2 hourglass during some battles.

Definately seems fixed to me. Haven't encountered it at all yet, they've been very agressive from what I've seen. Even when they're defending.

I am seeing the hard crash during battles now too. Never had a crash of the game before patch.

I am also seeing suiciding generals again dammit. I was sieging the Spanish and first the king, then after he is dead one prince, then later the other prince all suicided straight out the gates and into my lines before any of the rest of their army got on the scene.

And cav losing cohesion seems at least as bad and maybe worse. And it doesn't charge worth a damn still and has a heck of a time killing some routers.

And yes, my game does say 1.01 and I did start a new campaign. I am pretty damn disappointed!

No its not fixed, not nearly.....in atleast half of my bettles the evemy just stands there and, no wait they do not just stand but they are continusly changing they formation but they do not attack.

One more thing I have noticed is that when they do attack they allways send their archers first but the rest of the army is too far behing the archers so I can usually just charge my calvary and cut them down before their other units start to charge......another stupid bug, dont know if it was mentioned

hey just got patched :sweatdrop: - its not perfect but it deffinetley doesnt stand around anymore ... as for bridge battles - if i remember from RTW the AI almost never tried to cross and attack and always waited for you on the oter side ...

Wow, I am seeing a very aggressive battlefield AI. It almost sounds like there were two different patches released... :dizzy2:

Well, as far as I can see the passive AI bug is fixed for normal field battles. I've encountered very aggressive AI behaviour during my campaign with the patch installed compared to before. But when I sally forth this is not the case at all. During sallies the enemy always patiently waits while my pavise crossbowmen form up and reduce his lines to piles and piles of dead. During my last sally I had reinforcements coming in from the enemy's rear which resulted in five units of crossbowmen lining up towards the front and rear of his army. The result? Most of his knights dead including the general.

Isn't this part of the passive AI bug that was supposedly gone?

I've not seen the passive AI bug at all since the patch. On the other hand there is a very obvious "cue" point in any battle - the moment any troops engage in melee combat, the computer opponent decides to attack with as many melee troops as possible.

It looks to me something like:

IF (I have lots of melee) AND (player has lots of missile) THEN ATTACK WITH MELEE
IF (I have lots of missile) AND (player does not initiate melee combat) THEN ATTACK WITH MISSILE
IF (I have lots of missile) AND (player initiates melee combat) THEN ATTACK WITH MELEE

The computer still just stands there if you leave all you forces near the back and just send in mounted missile troops round the back. Once somone runs out of ammo and takes a swing in melee then off goes their army towards your lines.

As was said, the computer still just stands in range of your archers if you sally forth and will even allow you to send mounted missile troops out of the front, round the back of them to murder their general.

As far as I can see..there are still problems..

AI seems more responsive..in general..but not always...sieges are a huge problem still.....passive sitting back...AI wasting time attacking towers..but not engaging with the army.

Cavalry still wandering off...hard to control..a little better in some ways.

Deployment sometimes a bit dodgy with units in the city...not 100% fixed..

Pathfinding seems even worse! major problems for cavalry in a city....

Not really very good overall...and have had some crashes too...

Patch 2 is a long way off...it had better be pretty darn good...

myea just tested the sallying bit against a AI sieger ... still passive tho this seems the only way it still happens - the ai still doesnt make great decisions.. its more aggresive but most often it charges its melee troups right in front of my pavise line...

AI attacks more. Cavalry charges working better. Most of the line engages instead of just the few in front. Seems to be a bit better but 1.2 needs to better adress old issues.

True, AI it's clearly more aggressive on the battlefield (had tough time yesterday against Scots in some woods), but clearly the same in sally battles.

AI just sits in front of the gates, out of towers range, and waits as I deploy all my cav behind its lines.

At the beginning I used wide circling maneuvers to place myself behind, fearing a fast reaction, now I just walk happily by AI's flank. In RTW (and even MTW), placing troops behind the AI made those waver (or at least quite worried), now it's like they never even notice all the heavy cav getting ready to send them to hell... 40 yards behind.

AI reacts at a point, it's true: after losing men and in an unbalanced battle (in my favor) during a missile duel, it decides to retreat.

Lets try something different. I have gotten passive AI treatment too, I am playing M/VH (in Lusted's Lands to conquer mod though).

I suspect that the battle difficulty may have an effect on the AI. It may be that the VH difficulty just often brings the AI to a decision where it does not assault you if it does not have a clear advantage and if you play smart you never give such an advantage -> passive AI.

However, if someone has tried with M or H battle difficulty, I would like to know if it is different. It may in fact be a bit more risk taking behaviour that is required to break the passive "lock" that seems to happen way too often.

So when you comment the AI, please list the difficulty levels you are using.

My experience:

Battles at VH -> passive AI occurred in battles where I sallied with missile superiority and melee was about even.

Battles at VH -> passive AI did not occur in a field battle, me assaulting AI. I had clear missile superiority (6 longbow vs. 2 crossbow militia), AI had about +20% more melee troops.

Battles at VH -> "even" battles (no more than about +20% differences in melee or ranged) seemed to be free of passiva AI too.

I think that the sieges are a major pain for the AI and often result in passive or suicidal behaviour. The problem is that in the game sallying is a common thing for the player as the AI sieges you often with equal or slightly worse troops. Solution for me has been to station armies in the field (with general) to avoid boring sieges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad Tzepes

True, AI it's clearly more aggressive on the battlefield (had tough time yesterday against Scots in some woods), but clearly the same in sally battles.

AI just sits in front of the gates, out of towers range, and waits as I deploy all my cav behind its lines.

At the beginning I used wide circling maneuvers to place myself behind, fearing a fast reaction, now I just walk happily by AI's flank. In RTW (and even MTW), placing troops behind the AI made those waver (or at least quite worried), now it's like they never even notice all the heavy cav getting ready to send them to hell... 40 yards behind.

AI reacts at a point, it's true: after losing men and in an unbalanced battle (in my favor) during a missile duel, it decides to retreat.

---

My experiences during sally battles are exactly the same.

1. I march out my troops, crossbowmen in the frontline.

2. My cavalry circle around the enemy's rear.

3. I send my crossbowmen to start diminishing his lines.

4. I send in my cavalry to take care of my opponents remaining cav + general.

5. AI decides to finally react by retreating or routing...

Sally battles are hardly challenging if the enemy lacks enough missile units, and even then it's way too easy to take out the enemy general with a charge from the rear.

It may be better after the patch, but the AI is definitely too passive sometimes.

Playing last night as the Moors, I sallied to attack a sieging Papal states army made up of mostly infantry (Swiss guard, pikemen and halberd militia) and crossbowmen, along with a family member. My army was made up of 5 militia crossbowmen, ~4 Granadine jinetes, a family member and a couple of infantry units. I moved my jInetes to the rear of the enemy's formation and destroyed the Papal bodyguard unit with Javelins. Then the jinetes + my bodyguard destroyed the enemy crossbowmen (which were out in front of the rest of the infantry) with a few charges. Finally the rest of the enemy infantry just sat there while my crossbowmen emptied all of their ammunition into them.

The moral of the story is that the remaining infantry units, which were full strength before my crossbows started firing at them, just stood there and took ~80% casualties from missile fire alone. (The other moral is that javelin-throwing cavalry are *really good*).

Surely there should be some sort of trigger when a unit takes more than 50% casualties from missile fire - it should attack (or the formation of which it is part should attack) the nearest unit firing on it.

*edit* This is playing on H campaign, VH battles. *edit2* Normal unit sizes.

The only time I have had difficulty with Sallying is if the A has lot of cavalry, in that case I have seen it charge home with these troops as I have tried to get mine out of the gate.

Mind you this was pre-patch...

Yes, I've also seen it pre patch (been modding, haven't taken the time to play post patch :sweatdrop:), this shouting-orders-but-not-moving fast loop. I think it's a pathfinding thing, as it happens most often in sieges. I haven't been able to nail what exactly causes it though. It's not the same thing as passive AI though.

Passive AI is when the army will not even try to move, this is trying to move but failing for some reason.

As for the crusade stacks, well there you have it : you're blocking landbridges, which is something of an exploit that the AI isn't programmed to take into account. The code tells them in this situation that the faster route is through the landbridges, and issues the order. Then the order fails. Cue next turn. The AI is not a neural network type of AI, it doesn't learn from its mistakes :laugh4:.

The AI still seems to have pathfinding issues in sieges and these can lead to passive AI. What units sizes are you all playing under? It's possible the passive AI caused by pathfinding problems is only apparent at huge (and large?) unit sizes?

I don't tend to conduct many sally from castle battles, so I can't comment on the AI during those situations.

Field battles seem to work fine for me.

Huge forces = huge problems. I only noticed later that you can't see the German forces camped 10ft outside my walls on the screen shot. Even my Javalin men were able to lob horrible death onto them.
https://img178.imageshack.us/img178/...eigern9.th.png

Well, had a bridge battle yesterday, I was attacking.
The AI stood on the other side of the bridge and I sent a single unit of militia crossbows onto the bridge. The AI had two units of peasant archers and about 10 units or so of feudal foot knights who were lined up in a single line towards the border of the battle map on one side.
I had my militia crossbowmen fire at the archers and nothing else happened because I had more range, the AI didn't even move the archers a few meters forward to fire back. After doing that with three units of crossbowmen and after they all ran out of ammunition, I set up my mercenary arquebusiers. Took them some time to use up their ammunitione with only 6 or 8 men in front on the bridge. Then my unit of regular arquebusiers and after them my second and last unit of arquebusiers who hadn't even used up half their ammunition when the enemy ran.

End result was a victory for me with not even a single loss, Crossbow militia killed about 100 men each while the arquebusiers and mercenary arquebusiers had about 500 kills each! They slaughtered about 1000 dismounted feudal knights who just waited there.

I've not seen this problem either. Ai seems more aggressive, and even when I have a large missile advantage they either attack or back off. No standing around. 'Course, I don't really do sally from seige battles either (usually I bring in reinforcements, which means no sally).

Cav seems also to be greatly improved; charges actually charge and the horsemen seem a lot more responsive to my commands.

On another note, I don't like the Byz...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danfda

I've not seen this problem either. Ai seems more aggressive, and even when I have a large missile advantage they either attack or back off. No standing around. 'Course, I don't really do sally from seige battles either (usually I bring in reinforcements, which means no sally).

Cav seems also to be greatly improved; charges actually charge and the horsemen seem a lot more responsive to my commands.

On another note, I don't like the Byz...

---

If you don't like the Byzantines, try Lusted unit export file. With his upgrades, fighting the Byzantines similiar to fighting the Mongols. They are tough....actually probably a bit too tough.

This is just my opinion. CA have used a game enging that still needs plenty of work, it is far from finished and we could be on patch number 10 and still finding problems.
I would gladly give up pretty graphics in order to at least return to MTW AI. Not perfect either, I agree, but the game as it stands is not worth the effort

........Orda

I have also found passive AI behavior is sally battles (both pre and post patch) where the AI is laying seige with an inferior force. Sometimes they stand correctly out of missile range, but sometimes they are in missile range and I can pepper them until I run out of ammo. They don't respond to units running around their back very well either. There should be some process that the AI should have to let them know they should just retreat out of missile range, to at least make me come out of the walls. Or better still not to beseige superior forces in the first place.

I also have observed the suicidal AI general charge, where his unit is the first through the gates and he gets himself killed. Doesn't happen very often, but its nice when it does.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Keep em coming.

At this moment, it should be reviewed for Update 2, from the amount of people who still experience this. I'll add a post to the bug list, eventually, if this number continues to grow.

Of course if anyone else wants to add to the buglist, go right ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rothe

Lets try something different. I have gotten passive AI treatment too, I am playing M/VH (in Lusted's Lands to conquer mod though).

I suspect that the battle difficulty may have an effect on the AI. It may be that the VH difficulty just often brings the AI to a decision where it does not assault you if it does not have a clear advantage and if you play smart you never give such an advantage -> passive AI.

However, if someone has tried with M or H battle difficulty, I would like to know if it is different. It may in fact be a bit more risk taking behaviour that is required to break the passive "lock" that seems to happen way too often.

So when you comment the AI, please list the difficulty levels you are using.

---

I play medium battle difficulty and in literally every battle I have played since the patch, the AI just stands there and does nothing.

Very frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

This is just my opinion. CA have used a game enging that still needs plenty of work, it is far from finished and we could be on patch number 10 and still finding problems.
I would gladly give up pretty graphics in order to at least return to MTW AI. Not perfect either, I agree, but the game as it stands is not worth the effort

........Orda

---

I sadly have to agree...there are some fun and great moments in this game..but they are too far and few between the frustrating ones...sure a few bits work..but to me the game is not finished...

I noticed lots of RTW code in the program (look for yourself)...but I wonder why it is still there? Messy coding? I think so myself...cut/paste job? Even that wouldnt explain the level of problems..

The bottom line is in its present form..the game is broken..aka not working as it should...and it should not have been released like this..end of story. Xmas period or not...this needs more work..summer 2007 it probably would have been perfect...

I only wish it did have MTW AI..!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

This is just my opinion. CA have used a game enging that still needs plenty of work, it is far from finished and we could be on patch number 10 and still finding problems.
I would gladly give up pretty graphics in order to at least return to MTW AI. Not perfect either, I agree, but the game as it stands is not worth the effort

........Orda

---

You know what? This is so strange... A couple of months ago, waiting for MTW2 to launch, I loaded a Shogun campaign... and started my favs, Takeda... And I was really surprised by AI's agresivity and cunning. It would always go for my flanks and give me a hard (but fun) time.

I love all the TW games, but I feel something was lost along the way, during the quest to find new gizmos that would charm the eye.

By the way, I lost the 2006 Takeda campaign :laugh4:

Yeah, this might get me warned or banned but it seems to me that CA has sold their soul for money. I am sure they wrote STW for the love of the game but at this point they seem to have lost that and are writing for maximum sales. Too bad really. I loaded MTW up again last night on my new computer and started a VI campaign as the Northumbrians. I have already had some GREAT battles and the campaign is damn challenging. Those Huscarles certainly are aggressive and have no trouble swinging their two-handed axes and killing my cav!

Well, I've played on M/M and haven't noticed any passive AI.

In battle they are very aggressive and respond reasonably properly. Even tried to lure me out by going up to them (after/during long skirmishing). When my heavy infantry marched forth theirs retreated to higher ground giving me a disadvantage, as their missiles also retreated in skirmish mode to pepper my oncoming infantry (- I had only short-range missiles). I knew standing there would be useless I had to charge and so did they going downhill having better ground.

Their heavy cavalry also broke through my infantry line sometimes flanking units. Of course they take advantage of weak spots: my missiles were in the back undefended. They sent cavalry at them so I quickly responded sending some own after them from the battle's side.


When the AI attacks in sieges it sends its infantry with ladders, towers, and the ram (or two). They get on the walls and I repel the schwein (I'm playing HRE ;) But(!): they send in the rest of infantry and cavalry through the main gate - all of them! Hoping for a forceful breakthrough. And as far as I've seen on M/M it's always the same maneuver.

During one siege where it attacked, they had reinforcements coming from the other side. Unfortunately this army didn't have siege equipment so it took a long slow walk to get to the front too late when their comrades were slaughtered already.


So I conclude this: the AI ain't the smartest, but it ain't the dumbest either. At least there is no passive AI on M/M in battles as far as I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Well, I've played on M/M and haven't noticed any passive AI.

When the AI attacks in sieges it sends its infantry with ladders, towers, and the ram (or two). They get on the walls and I repel the schwein (I'm playing HRE ;) But(!): they send in the rest of infantry and cavalry through the main gate - all of them! Hoping for a forceful breakthrough. And as far as I've seen on M/M it's always the same maneuver.

So I conclude this: the AI ain't the smartest, but it ain't the dumbest either. At least there is no passive AI on M/M in battles as far as I can see.

---

Try a sally, before they attack.

Agree, AI is good... some times... but could use a hand... many times. ~;)

The AI is certainly not fixed from its "passive" state. It is slightly improved, but still turns itself off now and then.

My general, and faction leader, salleid out from a city where around 1200 milanese were camping. My garrison was only around 200-300 militiamen.

For some reason known only to the bankers, these milanese were town and spear militia only. Yes! A milan stack without Genoese crossbowmen can exist.

The general rode out and around them. Once behind them, set up the charge, charge in. Wham. 80-90 militiamen dead the first few seconds and the rest mopped up almost immediately.

Sometimes the BG unit came in contact with another unit than the one they were supposed to be charging. The enemy then attacked. So I had the unit fall back, causing the enemy that had become activated to move back in line.

Rinse. Repeat. 800+ dead, 300+ captured. 10-15 dead Bodyguards.

I mean.. Did anyone at CA or SEga actually play this game?

Also, the Campaign AI still attacks cities or blockades ports, then sues for peace immediately after. this is on Both Medium and Very Hard.

The battle AI strikes me as somewhat improved, but not fully fixed. I have run into the completely passive AI when I sally at times, but if they have catapults the AI is more than happy to bombard the snot out of me. About half of the battles now feature the AI troops sitting and being shot up by arrows, which is a big improvement over nearly 100% of the time before.

The campaign AI seems much less passive, and it's been attacking me like mad on a number of fronts on M/M.

I had problems with one battle: I crusaded to Jerusalem, but the HRE took it first. Since I was in the neighborhood, I seized Gaza and Alexandria. The Mongols them wiped out the HRE in one shot and came after me in Gaza. Every couple turns, a full stack would besiege me and it got pretty hairy (no passive AI on these battles, whatsoever). The third stack, however, was a particularly grandiose one, with the faction leader at the head of it. When I had wiped out many of the footsoldiers, the Mongol army turned tail and ran. After I took the option to continue the battle, I chased the routers for a while and got a CTD. Irritated, I tried again and got the same CTD. A third time, I took the option to end the battle and it worked satisfactorily, and no CTD in battle since. :sweatdrop:

Inquisitors seem less of a problem under the patch. I did kill two of them with the surround-and-drop cheat:smash: , because they had pretty nearly wiped out my family tree, but ever since I've had little problem with them (which is a good thing since I've stacked the College of Cardinals 11/13 from my faction, and every pope since the first one has been one of my English priests).

Id like to add that the problem isn't quite fixed yet (M/VH).

Sieges units still get stuck in the 'orders' loop.

The AI now will run 1 or 2 missile units to attack yours (sometimes all of them), but after they have been taken out the AI either just stands there, or sometimes attacks.
It acts as if it's 'trying' to do something, but just isn't quite there yet.

On the other hand, the Danes always seem to just go gung-ho and charge no matter what.

I've noticed the more you outnumber the AI, the worse it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad Tzepes

Try a sally, before they attack.

Agree, AI is good... some times... but could use a hand... many times. ~;)

---

The way I understand it: when you sally out of your city/castle you are attacking the besiegers, right? This means the player is the one who has to engage them. No wonder the AI just waits for you: it'll wait until humanity has colonized Mars :laugh4:
I'd do the same if were in that position. They choose to attack so I defend and if they do nothing, I win (and continue to starve them out).

Unless you mean I have to sally when I'm defending?

You got a point, but well depends on the state.

If the AI is stonger or not. If it has siege equipment it should be using it. Hey nice trebuchet you got there Johnny... does it work ? Wow what a formation of archers, with all that shiny Genoese armor, and those long range flash bows. Can they shoot ? Man those knights have nice powerful steeds, can they move ? You see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

The way I understand it: when you sally out of your city/castle you are attacking the besiegers, right? This means the player is the one who has to engage them. No wonder the AI just waits for you: it'll wait until humanity has colonized Mars :laugh4:
I'd do the same if were in that position. They choose to attack so I defend and if they do nothing, I win (and continue to starve them out).

---

The problem is that the AI doesn't 'defend', it just stands there while you send a unit behind its formation to attack its general, or destroy it with missile units. No one is saying that the AI should charge you at any cost.

My impression is that there were two "passive AI bugs":

1) When sallying out, the AI scarcely moved (as described in the post above).
2) When attacking against superior missiles, the AI would advance in range, stall and get shot to death (despite have superior numbers and a good chance of overwhelming the defender).

I never experienced (1), although it is being reported both pre and post patch.

(2) killed my pre-patch English campaign: it just got ridiculous, slowly shooting down ranks of excellent AI melee troops on parade. I have not seen sight of it post-patch, but it's early days./

I abandoned my turks campaign over a week ago because of the ai's fear of running it's melee troops at my archers and ha's, and it's inability to turn around and at least face the ha's shooting at it's back.

When i started a new turks campaign after the patch my disappointment couldn't have been bigger finding out this isn't fixed in any way. Playing a archer heavy campaign like the turks and probably the russians becomes very boring: encircle the enemy with ha's and shoot the opposition to pieces, then charge in and insta rout the enemy.

It gotten up to the point where i was genuinly surprised and taken off guard seeing a cavalry unit charge straight at my ha's after the enemy sallied from the town i was besieging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

When the AI attacks in sieges it sends its infantry with ladders, towers, and the ram (or two). They get on the walls and I repel the schwein (I'm playing HRE ;) But(!): they send in the rest of infantry and cavalry through the main gate - all of them! Hoping for a forceful breakthrough.

---

Maybe this isn't as stupid as it seems on the first glance.
The defenders get a bonus defending the walls but I'm not sure if the same applies to the gate area. If they don't get a bonus in that area, the AI actually makes sense rushing the gate because chances are that a pushthrough can be made easier than on the walls, where peasants can repel DFK's.

R'as

From what I've seen so far post-patch, the AI is almost too aggressive, but I don't want to confuse the conversation!

The Passive AI bug has gone from horrible to strangely inconsistent. Playing as the Sicilians I had a sally battle last night where one unit of Sergeant Spearman, three units of Peasants and three units of Peasant Archers sallied forth against a Moorish army consisting of three units of Desert Cavalry and one unit of Desert Archers. FYI, I am using the 1.1 patch.

Prior to sallying out through the gates I was impressed to see the Moorish army maneuver further back and the three units of Desert Cavalry deploy to the rear and flanks of the Desert Archers. I was hoping to see them keep their distance and use their superior missiles to inflict as much pain on me as possible before retreating. As I tried to deploy outside the gates of my wooden castle the Moorish army suddenly charged forward to exploit my lack of readiness with it's Desert Cavalry coming alarmingly close to my flanks to fire while its Desert Archer unit kept its distance and loosed fire arrows into my ranks. My ranks were quickly being depleted by their arrows and I was personally shocked to see such an aggressive move on the part of the AI. Had the AI possessed heavier cavalry I might have lost everything right there. I quickly recovered by dispatching some of my Peasant units to charge the Desert Cavalry and keep them 'honest'. The AI then retreated it's army further back... only to close the distance and try again! I was ready for them this time and with my army fully deployed I put all my units in open formation and marched forward. However, just when I thought this was going to be a 'normal' battle the Passive AI bug kicked in and one of the AI's Desert Cavalry units simply decided to stop and do nothing... no harassment, no skirmishing, no missile fire, no nothing. I assigned one unit of Peasant Archers to take it out and sent the rest of the army forward. It was a bloodier battle than I expected, both the AI and I lost our generals (both captains) but I still won due to the Passive AI bug and the fact that the AI was too stupid to call it a day and retreat.

It was nice to see the AI try to make a go of it with its unusually aggressive opening moves but it was equally depressing to see the Passive AI bug kick in for no reason. The second patch cannot come fast enough.

- Oops, forgot to add that battle took place during a campaign game on Hard/Very Hard difficulty.

Have CA lost the plot or something?
We were told CATEGORICALLY that they were aware of this bug and that THEY HAD IT FIXED.Then they held back on the patch so they could include a load of other stuff that was wrong.
Now I read in this thread that the passive AI is both fixed and not fixed :inquisitive: So much for the patch then. What happened to the flippant " AI on VH will really test a TW vet" statement? Just what will the AI test? Your patience?
It sounds like this game engine is too complicated to understand

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinningman

The problem is that the AI doesn't 'defend', it just stands there while you send a unit behind its formation to attack its general, or destroy it with missile units. No one is saying that the AI should charge you at any cost.

---

Oooooh, now I get it. I seriously thought people... well you get it :)

Well, haven't tried to pull off an easy trick like that. I usually just take them head-on if I sally out and flank them if possible. So far the AI (M/M) hasn't given me any annoyances on that. Actually, if I even come close enough they sometimes start to move and come after you.
I'll try the "picking off the general move" then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Maybe this isn't as stupid as it seems on the first glance.
The defenders get a bonus defending the walls but I'm not sure if the same applies to the gate area. If they don't get a bonus in that area, the AI actually makes sense rushing the gate because chances are that a pushthrough can be made easier than on the walls, where peasants can repel DFK's.

R'as

---

It looks like the breakthrough is more effective indeed. The only way I noticed to repel them is to just put spearmen all in front of it in half a circle and then put to guard, and have some extra infantry or cavalry to just back them up. Very messy.
But even better if you add some heavy cavalry to it from their rear. It's nice to deploy some cav near the other gate and have them march around the outside walls, and strike them when they try to break through. Always works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Have CA lost the plot or something?
We were told CATEGORICALLY that they were aware of this bug and that THEY HAD IT FIXED.Then they held back on the patch so they could include a load of other stuff that was wrong.
Now I read in this thread that the passive AI is both fixed and not fixed :inquisitive: So much for the patch then. What happened to the flippant " AI on VH will really test a TW vet" statement? Just what will the AI test? Your patience?
It sounds like this game engine is too complicated to understand

........Orda

---

Do you EVER have anything HALF-DECENT to say about CA?

Sorry if it was confusing: what I'm talking about is the situation when the AI is besieging a city and I, Zee Human Player, am defending the said city/settlement/castle whatever.

If and only if the AI has missile troops (archers, mounted missile, artillery) it will attack and try to hamper your movements. Meanwhile all the foot units just stand there. If no missile troops exist, then the AI doesn't move at all.

Yesterday I was besieged by Spanish AI. They had Jinetes, some catapults, some archers or so and foot units (pretty well balanced stack anyway).

I, on the other hand, was relying heavily on Cav - Mailed Knight and Mounted Sergeants, and some militia to man walls. I exit the castle with cav only and deployed all my cavalry behind AI's line, while the AI used it's missile units to harass me. Okay up to now, quite logical.

Then all my cavalry is lined for the charge behind the AI's foot units, which still face the castle. A couple of missile units still fire upon me, they're the only ones that turned to face the new threat. :inquisitive:

I start the charge, single-click, cav starts moving slowly towards the AI's foot units. Still no move. :inquisitive:

Cav lowers lances, starts running, death imminent. AI calmly awaits. (maybe AI's suggesting I'm a coward if I try to attack their back? :laugh4: )

Impact. Bodies fly. Short melee. AI foot units routs. Jinetes counterattack, but too late.

And it happens all the time (I play m/m), in every siege, pre or post patch.

I too feel we're witnessing unfinished business here. :thumbsdown:

My main worries with the post patch AI are...

If you sally forth, the computer sits its units just out of archer range, but if you stick a unit of archers on the raised bit between the two towers above the gatehouse, the extra height brings the enemy archers into range and lets you pummel them. Once the archers are dead you can circle missile cavalry round the back of the enemy to have some jolly good fun, followed up by a heavy cavalry assault (again from the rear).

If the enemy has no ranged units or shorter than you ranged units they sometimes won't react to a single unit of archers wandering into range and unloading all their ammo.

The AI is sometimes too aggressive. It'll lob an entire army up a narrow pass on an almost verticle hillside despite having archers raining arrows at them, a line of spears to welcome them and a load of heavy cavalry ready to decimate anything if the spearmen get bored.

As the Moors I was assaulting my way through France and grabbed Angers, sacked it, noticed the 2 full stacked armies on the boarder with Paris and thought bettter of it. Sold all the buildings and retreated back to Bordeaux. One full army then charged across Angers...... all the way to engage the English in Rennes. They won and headed off to take Caen. Despite there being no defence force at all and being at war they left it alone, it didn't even rebel, so 4 odd turns later I reoccupied it.

I appears to me that if a huge army is on its way to kill one of your provinces, you can retreat all your units out and sell the province to the Pope. Once done the computer continues its assault on the now Papal state. Happened twice so far, but as I was Moorish at the time it's difficult to see what exactly was happening. Next turn Milan lost a whole lot of Alliances....

Just wondering, has anyone tried Hard battle difficulty, on vanilla campaign with no mods?

I havent.. but I think that perhaps since most of us are using mods that were made before the patch, some of the passive ai fix isnt working because of that?

It just seems stupid of CA to announce that its going to be fixed, and then not fix it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garnier

Just wondering, has anyone tried Hard battle difficulty, on vanilla campaign with no mods?

---

Me. I've always played M/VH. Pre-patch I encountered the passive AI now and then.

In the post-patch, I ran several tests before using Lusted's mod and found no passive AI whatsoever. Also, I was using the Battle Limit as well and that might be a factor. Even with Lusted's mod I still haven't hit anything yet.

It might be somewhat more helpful to determine the AI problem if all the posters would give some idea of the type/makeup of the armies they are utilizing!

We have some gamers who have no complaints whatsoever post-patch with the ai being passive, and other posters who have reportedly continued to see the passive ai post patch.

It seems that we might be able to better determine the possible causes if we had more information. Just posting "the ai works great now", or "the ai still sucks", and not giving any additional information does not provide any helpful clues, so please, provide more info with the pro/con ai posts.

Okay, I've now seen some passive AI playing France M/M, but I might be wrong.

One big English army, and one smallish, against my French army. The AI was the attacker and their big army just stood there. They had archers and light infantry, some heavy cavalry. I had the same kind of setup, but a bit bigger.

I've noticed before that the AI was passive when it attacked with two armies on M/M in the field. One of their armies would attack (no matter how big), and the other would stand still. But this time I'd seen nothing like that. This time, it might be that they were just waiting for reinforcements, but then again their reinforcements weren't that great a power, so could've just engaged me. Then again(!) that extra bit of units might've been the AI's decision, to wait for it.


With HRE (M/M) I sallied out to repel the AI's siege attack. I deployed Reiters within the walls at the gates. I moved one unit onto their right outside the walls, thinking I could sneakily surprise them, but I was had. Well, not really: they immediately responded quickly by sending heavy cav though I could just shoot zem down.
So I couldn't at all get to their general in the back to pick him off.

yeah, the patch didnt do anything for cavalry charges neither. They still walk into a fight no matter how close or far away you try to make the charge from. Tried it up close. medium distance, and far away. CA either lazy or they dont know how to fix it.

Not sure which is worse the fact they didnt fix it before release or fix it in patch. Truly dissapointed. :thumbsdown:

Ok, passive sally AI exists. I've not experienced it, but then I don't sally as I've usually not got enough men defending. Anyway, is there a way to fix it? Possibly...

In config_ai_battle there's a section on defending sally outs:

Code:

---

        <!-- defending against a sally out -->
        <defend-sally-out>
                <!-- reform to this amount times the tower range -->
                <tower-range-scale>1.5</tower-range-scale>
        </defend-sally-out>

---

This reforming code could be preventing it from coming forward to engage? In otherwords, the AI could be trying to attack but this code insisting it reform at 1.5 times the tower range is preventing it from moving forward.

Does changing this value work? Dunno. But I guess some of you should try several variations, say a value of 2, 3 and removing it completely.

Then feedback.

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

What happened to the flippant " AI on VH will really test a TW vet" statement? Just what will the AI test? Your patience?
........Orda

---

I've played TW since conception and concider myself a vet, but I've never thought myself an expert or anything. Problem is; I've only ever lost 1 battle, and that was when my loan general was ambushed. In a stand-up fight, seige attack or defend, I've yet to fail to win. Sure, I'm choosy about when to attack and try to use overwhelming force when necessary, but even when I get surprised by a full stack of Danes attacking Antwerp I still manage to win - it just means getting an heroic victory instead of a clear one. Ho hum.... maybe they'll add a VVH level?

As far as Passive AI goes, even post patch I get to annihilate armies with my longbows whilst they just sit there. I've noticed occasionally that they'll charge me (and die) or just move back a little and wait for me to reform and fire again (much better than before) but still - many, many armies are almost wiped out before my infantry engage.

In my opinion a difference must also be made between battles on open field and sieges. The passiveness on open ground has been greatly reduced (!). The passiveness in sieges still is there.
I have besieged about ten settlements since the patch. Everytime I was successfull with the following tactic.

1. Shoot a hole into their walls
2. The AI will send troops to that hole and keep them there.
3. March some crossbow-units in front of that hole.
4. Line them up.
5. Ready
6. Aim
7. Fire!

So far, the AI never attacked my by moving thorugh the hole, even if my crossbows were NOT backed up by some other unit.

I don't get it. I've seen NO passive siege AI at all when I sally out, but I will try it again, to see what happens. I might also check that piece of code, Jambo, but the way it is now it's basically good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steinfeld

1. Shoot a hole into their walls
2. The AI will send troops to that hole and keep them there.
3. March some crossbow-units in front of that hole.
4. Line them up.
5. Ready
6. Aim
7. Fire!

So far, the AI never attacked my by moving thorugh the hole, even if my crossbows were NOT backed up by some other unit.

---

To add to this: I've done the same from 1 to 7, but they all moved out of the way to avoid missiles.


Can't they just make it with this principle: if shot at unit has better stats and enemy missile unit is unprotected then engage? I'm not a coder, but y'all get the point.

But what I've seen so far with the siege when you are the attacker, is that they really defend. I can understand that a shot at unit doesn't go out and attack, because it would be too far from the rest and the safety of the walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

What happened to the flippant " AI on VH will really test a TW vet" statement?

---

My $0.02. I seem to recall you saying that you don't game Orda except for the TW series... While this statement is subjective, it's really just marketing hype and crap which is to be summarily dismissed, you get used to it after awhile. I never listen to marketing types anymore because most of what comes out ranges from patently untrue to highly subjective legal-esque statements that will vary in interpretation depending on who's reading them. I remember seeing the amusing threads on rpgcodex where the forums took all of the hype statements for Oblivion and summarily dismantled them piece by piece, it wasn't pretty. To me, the bottom line is that there are a (fairly large) number of TW players who are "vets", and will never get a decent challenge out of the game AI even with the computer "cheating" to gain advantages. The human mind is just too devious, tricky, and conniving and the limited abilities of programmers, code, and today's hardware means that there probably won't be a real challenge for a long time. Given there are currently a number of opportunities for improving the game AI right now, even all said and done there are still going to be a good deal of folks who just won't get a challenge except possibly in multiplayer. /shrug Take that as you will, and with a grain of salt.

Back on topic, oddly enough I've never experienced the passive AI, except maybe once or twice pre-patch in custom battles. I've done a good number of siege battles since the patch, both me attacking and sallying, and the computer has never just stood it's ground during any of those, it's always done something to attempt to bring me under fire or attack. Interesting reading about others experiences though, perhaps I'll encounter this sometime in the future. I suspect though that without a very in-depth, detailed analysis we probably won't be able to deduce under what conditions this occurs.

Cheers!:balloon2:

Playing Danes defending Brughues against French siegeThey had ladders, a tower and a ram. When assaulting, a spy had opened the gates for them. They dropped the ram, climbed the walls with tower and ladders, ignoring the opened gate.
Meanwhile, I was preparing to defend the square with my inappropriately small force of viking raiders and dismounted huscarls. I was expecting my anihilation and ready to enjoy watching my own army's destruction.
The french force stood on the wall doing nothing. All they had to do was either archer me, or rush me with its infantry and Knights. It did nothing.
Although I like a good fight I'll never give up an advantage no matter how unfair. So I waited til the clock almost ran out, knowing I would win this thing, and in the last 3 minutes advanced toward the wall to see what was going to happen.
Half way there some of the hundreds of Frenchman came down "en masse" (full on) to charge my bunch. I WIN!!!

The French sued for peace. This sort of thing affects the game immensely when you consider the domino effect on future turns.