Idea: Since the campaign AI is moddable...

[Jolt]

The problem with bridge battles at the moment is that the AI always seems to commit his general to fighting on the bridge, which almost inevitably gets him killed.

Sadly true. The computer often sends the General unit right into the midst of a overly compact fight (Such as bridges and fords) and then the A.I. must be indiferent to the casualties that the General unit is suffering. While any decent player who sends his General into such a tight battle, the player normally tries to withdraw the unit once the casualties begin mounting up or increase rapidly. The A.I. just let's the General fight to his death. I had some very funny times because of it, as the entire opposing army fighting in the ford (Full stack vs Full stack) routed 5 seconds after the General died. I wish I took pictures of the river in that battle.

[Elmetiacos]

I don't have MTW2, I'm not even sure I've got enough disk space, but I'd be interested in looking at the file(s) for the AI, because I've had some success modding AI for files for Europa Universalis and Age of Empires. Is there any way I could look at MTW2's AI and make suggestions?

[Lusted]

This thread gives an overview of AI modding:

http://rtw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/f...t&f=9,6718,,10

[Cambyses]

Well, historically, a great many battles were fought at river crossings. In fact it would be interesting to get a % on it, especially during major invasions... The only big problem for EB is that the engine doesnt really represent the situation very well. Although bizarrely at least one of the custom battles in the RTW Alexander campaign does it rather excellently. the biggest issue being that the AI just resorts blindly to one massive frontal assault with its best units or sits on top of the nearest hill, not the opposite bank while defending.

Personally in my fevered imaginings I would like to see siege type options brought up at these points. ie if the defender has been there a while he can fortify the position a little (although that option would be good anywhere on the map. Im not talking about actual forts because then you have no option to withdraw and just get stuck in them and cant get out without sallying, which is a nonsense IMO.) Also the attacking side would be able to build a pontoon bridge or rafts to cross the river elsewhere with certain units etc etc. Real life rivers are often far wider comparatively than represented in the game and in many cases could not be crossed on foot at all.

[stupac]

Well, historically, a great many battles were fought at river crossings. In fact it would be interesting to get a % on it, especially during major invasions... The only big problem for EB is that the engine doesnt really represent the situation very well. Although bizarrely at least one of the custom battles in the RTW Alexander campaign does it rather excellently. the biggest issue being that the AI just resorts blindly to one massive frontal assault with its best units or sits on top of the nearest hill, not the opposite bank while defending.

Personally in my fevered imaginings I would like to see siege type options brought up at these points. ie if the defender has been there a while he can fortify the position a little (although that option would be good anywhere on the map. Im not talking about actual forts because then you have no option to withdraw and just get stuck in them and cant get out without sallying, which is a nonsense IMO.) Also the attacking side would be able to build a pontoon bridge or rafts to cross the river elsewhere with certain units etc etc. Real life rivers are often far wider comparatively than represented in the game and in many cases could not be crossed on foot at all.

True enough, I remember in reading the Conquest of Gual, Caesar had to build bridges for his 2 invasions over the Rhine into Germania. Though I'm sure there were natural fords on many rivers, they may not have been suitable for moving large numbers of troops, not too mention baggage usually carried by cart, and many rivers, like the Rhine were just too big period.

[Foot]

Personally in my fevered imaginings I would like to see siege type options brought up at these points. ie if the defender has been there a while he can fortify the position a little (although that option would be good anywhere on the map. Im not talking about actual forts because then you have no option to withdraw and just get stuck in them and cant get out without sallying, which is a nonsense IMO.) Also the attacking side would be able to build a pontoon bridge or rafts to cross the river elsewhere with certain units etc etc. Real life rivers are often far wider comparatively than represented in the game and in many cases could not be crossed on foot at all.

This is absolutely impossible. Only us to modify the AI does not allow us to add new features to the battlemap. The closest you can get is the stakes that archers can setup before a battle, but we cannot automatically add them or stop an attacker from using them. We certainly cannot add anything you mention above.

Foot

[a completely inoffensive name]

The EB team can only improve upon what the engine will allow, not create entirely new stuff for it.

[russia almighty]

Yeah, I wish people would realize that.


Which, that is a good topic for one of you EB members to post. Saying, we can only work within the M2TW and RTW engines (and posting limits) would probably stop a lot of pointless topics.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Even if the limits were posted and stickied, with outlines that said what could and couldn't be done, people wouldn't read it and just ask the question. Though it doesn't matter, we'll keep saying when things can't be done. Just don't take it personally when someone answers a good idea with "hardcoded".