Traitorous AI

[rossahh]

The problem with Retrofit is that the strategic AI becomes too soft. On Very Hard for instance, in Vanilla the AI would go out of its way to get you (including launched bizarre naval invasions and marching across others' territory to invade yours), but in retrofit the AI has become docile. Some might say it's more realistic, but it gets ridiculously easy to play on Very Hard in Retrofit. There's just no challenge, and isn't it fun when you're fighting everyone?

The game shouldn't be called Total War for nothing, after all.

[Rhedd]

Matter of opinion.

Of course, I don't play to WIIIN, I play to hold the traditional lands of France, plus any heathen lands I can get ahold of, until 1530, so my requirements may be a bit different than the average player.

By the way, being red isn't so bad as you say. Take it from me. ^_^

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's possible to hold alliances with those who aren't on your borders or who can easily attack you by sea, at least for a time, even on vanilla.

However, I tend to see the AI as untrustworthy no matter what, and I don't consider them my equals in any sense, and I am as genocidal and ruthless towards them as they are towards me. I will keep my reputation high enough to score a bunch of alliances, trade rights, map info, territories, florins, you name it.

Then I mass a huge force and take whatever they don't offer me via diplomacy. Stupid computer, humans are here to kill you; don't offer me anything except endless warfare until I am stone dead.

Would anyone care to edit the game files in such a way that makes them refuse all diplomatic offers, ally against me from the start, and relentlessly attack me until I am dead? I want to see how long I can last. depending on the faction, I still predict a win.

Bwahahaha...

[PBI]

I had a particularly good instance of this last night.

In my current Milan campaign I had taken Arhus by crusade some time ago. I was allied with the English and assumed I would be relatively safe from betrayal since I didn't share a land border with them and we are both at war with the French who form a buffer between our lands.

You would think that the AI would concentrate on defeating its existing enemies before going out of its way to gain another. However, instead they land a full stack of levy spearmen at Arhus and begin the siege.

In what kind of distorted logic can this action possibly seem like a good idea? To take huge numbers of troops away from the war against a hated and dangerous enemy, to put them on a boat and send them on a long voyage to attack a city belonging to a faction which is not only your long term ally with excellent relations, but which is also by far the most powerful empire in the game. Not only that, but to attack against a city of only dubious value, defended by the same full stack of crack crusader troops who took the city in the first place, whilst ignoring many other easier and more tempting targets on the way belonging to either enemies or weaker factions.

I've seen the AI do many insane things in the past but this one takes the cake. I just don't see how on earth the AI comes to the conclusion that this is a good idea. What possible upside is there to it? I am starting to think that an alliance actually makes the AI more likely to attack rather than less; in the same game, I have had land borders, often underdefended, with Portugal, Poland and the Turks for many years, all of whom I am neutral with, and have never had a hint of trouble from any of them. Meanwhile anyone I ally with seems to not only betray me but go to extreme lengths in order to do so.

[Askthepizzaguy]

remember folks... the ai doesnt decide anything. its not capable of making educated decisions, it's a series of hardcoded commands which uses a database to make it's random choices.

Arhus might have been taken because the English are hardcoded to land there and attack, no matter what the circumstances, in that version of the game anyway... they will eventually land there.

It doesnt give a flying dingleberry who its allies are. Thats the part thats broken.

[PBI]

It doesn't seem to be random... it seems to be very definitely deciding to attack its allies in preference to anyone else, even if it means going to great lengths to do so. Surely it should have some mechanism for deciding which of the possible targets to attack are good ones? The English never seem to have been particularly interested in Arhus in any other campaign I've played.

And Arhus was never taken, that's the point; the AI decided to attack it even though it was heavily defended.

I suppose I should recognize the futility of getting angry at an emotionless machine and revert to my second instinct when confronted by anything I don't like about the game:

Anyone know how to go about modding the AI?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think the computer makes a point of attacking the human instead of the AI.

Example: If you're France or England on migration... Sicily shows up in southern france to conquer you.

In no other circumstance does Sicily invade southern France.

Gotta be hardcoded to attack the human.