Battle AI Challenge

[Dogfish]

I spent four years working in QA at a decent sized publisher.

After playing Empire for probably over 6 hours a day since release, I can safely say that the game would not of been allowed to ship in it's present state had the company I worked for been the publisher.

I haven't had any crashes or CTDs (which alot of people have had, apparently), but the AI is not improved from what I can tell. AI random shuffling around while I am killing them for an entire battle. My artillery and linemen NOT firing because it takes them 30 seconds to face target. Random glitches and hangs. Campaign AI being passive. Some features have also taken steps backward, such as the reinforcement system, and how the battlefield is determined by the positioning on the campaign map (no more bridge chokepoints? enemy appears behind me relative to where the stacks were on campaign map?). Naval pathfinding is atrocious, especially groups. Also you can't change the sail/speed of grouped ships.

This is all on VH/VH. Methinks I might of overhyped ETW, but I do have some hope that much of this stuff will be addressed via patch... hopefully this week.

[BeeSting]

I spent four years working in QA at a decent sized publisher.

After playing Empire for probably over 6 hours a day since release, I can safely say that the game would not of been allowed to ship in it's present state had the company I worked for been the publisher.

I haven't had any crashes or CTDs (which alot of people have had, apparently), but the AI is not improved from what I can tell. AI random shuffling around while I am killing them for an entire battle. My artillery and linemen NOT firing because it takes them 30 seconds to face target. Random glitches and hangs. Campaign AI being passive. Some features have also taken steps backward, such as the reinforcement system, and how the battlefield is determined by the positioning on the campaign map (no more bridge chokepoints? enemy appears behind me relative to where the stacks were on campaign map?). Naval pathfinding is atrocious, especially groups. Also you can't change the sail/speed of grouped ships.

This is all on VH/VH. Methinks I might of overhyped ETW, but I do have some hope that much of this stuff will be addressed via patch... hopefully this week.

I've always had lots of respect for CA's QA department.

[Sir Beane]

I spent four years working in QA at a decent sized publisher.

After playing Empire for probably over 6 hours a day since release, I can safely say that the game would not of been allowed to ship in it's present state had the company I worked for been the publisher.

I haven't had any crashes or CTDs (which alot of people have had, apparently), but the AI is not improved from what I can tell. AI random shuffling around while I am killing them for an entire battle. My artillery and linemen NOT firing because it takes them 30 seconds to face target. Random glitches and hangs. Campaign AI being passive. Some features have also taken steps backward, such as the reinforcement system, and how the battlefield is determined by the positioning on the campaign map (no more bridge chokepoints? enemy appears behind me relative to where the stacks were on campaign map?). Naval pathfinding is atrocious, especially groups. Also you can't change the sail/speed of grouped ships.

This is all on VH/VH. Methinks I might of overhyped ETW, but I do have some hope that much of this stuff will be addressed via patch... hopefully this week.

Your company is definitely in the minority of publishers then. I've seen plenty of games on the market that have far more bugs than ETW. Releasing unfinished or buggy games is what the PC market is all about these days .

[Polemists]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

[ArtillerySmoke]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

Exactly. It's about progress, and ETW definitely makes it.

What strategy game out there right now is as good as this? Dawn of War 2 is broken beyond belief (MP is unplayable...period) and there are kiddies drooling all over it left and right.

Empire is fine. It's in as good of a state, if not better, as any other title out there. For a launch? This is pretty amazing.

[Dogfish]

Yes, there are lots of games with more problems at release.

But it's not that ETW has tons of bugs, it doesn't. I haven't had one single crash or showstopping error. It's just there are several glaringly obvious bugs/omissions/"features", that, while minor, substantially affect gameplay. Like the passive AI and lack of naval invasions. Sometimes the small but glaringly obvious things like that are worse than crashes.

Crashes can occur due to obscure combinations of hardware that are impossible to fully account for when compatibility testing. I can understand any game having those kinds of problems at release. Same with memory leaks. Those things are tough to track down sometimes.

But with the passive AI and naval invasions, it feels like no playtester played through several campaigns, trying different things. Or they just made sure it "worked" and didn't care if it worked well.

Did no playtester play a campaign as GB and realize they could have no defenses at all, not a single unit, yet never be under threat? Or, relatedly, that the AI doesn't ever do naval transport? I can't understand how that would get through testing, or alternatively how it is considered acceptable AI.

Couple that with some features that looked to of taken several steps backwards, such as no blood or mud, pre-battle general speeches, drummers and other atmosphere in battles, the reinforcements system, fields of battle not being based on the campaign map... and a picture develops whereby the engine might of been a major improvement technically (graphics, campaign map, steamlined management), in other areas it's an unexpected and disappointing retreat from well-received features present in earlier iterations in the series (Like how can they leave out blood and mud? And general speeches were, to me, a signature element of the personality of the series).

My only hope is that CA recognizes alot of these omissions, and wanted to have them at launch, but will be pushing them out shortly in via patches. But if some of these things were intentional steps backwards, then I don't know what to say, other than I'm looking forward to mods, and that I am not a guaranteed customer in the future as I have been in the past.

[Galain_Ironhide]

It seems despite the wishes of CA's fans to not release the game until it was finished fell on deaf ears.

I don't know how many orgahs and other people from other forums pleaded for this.

Perhaps it is business strategy, maybe they don't use game testers, they wait on the paying public to pick up the bugs and report them, then have some guy go through and fix it. Much cheaper that way.

[Dogfish]

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

I don't know if most games have crappier AI. Some, yes. If comparing to other major title releases, I would downgrade that to "very few". Sins of a Solar Empire and Company of Heroes come to mind as recent games I've bought and played substantially (I'm not the prolific game I used to be). Neither of those games had complex AI, but at least it was functional all the time.

ETW is the only major strategy game where I've seen the AI get stuck in loops like this, like when there were 6 Huron units that spontaneously decided to have what looked to be a large group raindance in the middle of a U formed by 6 of my line infantry. The AI didn't ever attack, just kept running it's units in large circles while my troops decimated them. Or the campaign AI that was at war with me, and instead of taking it's full stack and taking Rupert's Land, defended by a whole militia unit a one hessian line infantry, it ransacked my fur trader and then retreated back into it's territory. I understand the "subtle economic warfare" this approach yields, but it should've gone for the kill shot (and yes this is on VH/VH).

On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give ETA a 3 or 4. I honestly believe I could program better AI for CA than this (I am a programmer, not just pulling that out of my rear).

[Rufus]

I haven't played E:TW as much as a lot of other people so far - maybe 10 hours so far, and several turns into Episode 3 of RTI (hard setting on battles) - but my general impression is the AI is better in campaign and battles than Medieval 2 and Rome. In all but a couple of cases, in contrast to Medieval 2, the AI has not attacked my army piecemeal in battles; sometimes it does send one unit forward, but it's usually a light cavalry unit likely intended to scout. In contrast to Rome, where the general would recklessly plunge forward way ahead of the rest of his army to attack my army by himself, the AI generally tries to protect its general. Also in contrast to Rome, the AI has not neglected to consolidate its stacks on the campaign map and hasn't seemed overly passive relative to the difficulty level (which I assume on RTI is normal - can't seem to change that). It has made reasonably good decisions in diplomatic negotiations: I offered France military access for an alliance in turn 1 of the Revolutionary War, and they said no, but once I captured another region and won some battles, they agreed but still required more than military access to seal the deal.

A bigger picture point: If the AI is more passive on the campaign map than in other games, is it possible that was intentional to stay true to the time period, which was bloody but more orderly and diplomatic than ancient or medieval times?

[Namarie22]

Though, comparing the AI to previous games, other games is rather moot.

CA flaunted this games AI to be the best around.. and frankly, it's a sequel, so that usually means progress, not a step back.. So, I'm glad that it's not a total disaster, but imho, there is alot of room for improvement on the AI.

[Cecil XIX]

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about.

I don't know if it's possible to find something that *no none* complains about, but I think most people here will agree that Shogun and Medieval I had better AI.

[DisruptorX]

If I remember correctly, its not so much that the medieval AI was amazing, it just simply wouldn't do glaringly stupid things like sit around and wait to die in the RTS portion, or send its units at you one by one.

MTW 1 had the same problem with Passive AI once you fortified your borders, though. They would never assault unless they had a large numerical advantage. Sometimes, of course, this wasn't a problem for them. I remember back in my novice days as the Almohads and picking a fight with the Egyptians. Turned out that words like "finite" didn't apply to their armies. =(

[Ordani]

I don't know if it's possible to find something that *no none* complains about, but I think most people here will agree that Shogun and Medieval I had better AI.

The Shogun AI was fantastic -- probably as a result of the simpler unit mix and the less complex playing fields, and while it had its aberrant behaviors, benefited greatly from its simplicity while still having a good repertoire of tactics.

Overall the ETW RT AI is decent -- it generally does something reasonably sound in principle, but often aberrant in details. It's always trying to flank you and take out single units or artillery with cavalry, but will periodically fail in facepalm fashion by sending EVERY unit it has, alone, in series, around to try and flank your cannon.

It also weights holding buildings in towns or fences far too highly, and yet rarely positions anything to support those fortified units, so you end up with single units defending "high value" points on the map with the rest of the army miles away. You can almost see the decision tree actioning as it steps through, then runs out of known-good choices on a per unit basis, and throws everything else into a column and tries to smash your weakest unit in the line.

You have to give some leeway the more complex the permutations of a game are. It's easy to make a challenging AI for Chess or Risk or Go, because you can exhaustively search predictive move sets based on current board set for each turn. That is not algorithmically possible in a game like ETW in which there are astronomical, as in, more atoms than available for a quantum computer the size of the planet, numbers of possible action variations over the course of a real-time event series. I am pleased that the AI will surprise me from time to time; those are the battles I enjoy the most and remember well after I've put the game aside, when I had to come up with a clever adaption to the unexpected and barely pulled a win out of it, and that's why I continue to play TW titles.

[AussieGiant]

I think everyone needs to be aware that AI comparisons to older titles such as STW and MTW is not even apples to apples.

It's like comparing an apple to a genetically modified 400 kilo cumquat.

Or

"I'm unhappy with my Audi RS4 450 horse power, quattro driven, 20 inch wheel car, because my 1960 Oldmobile had an engine I could repair myself."

[Hollerbach]

Errm, why? Just because the eye candy is updated is no excuse for regression of the AI. The TW series is almost a decade old and the progress that would be been good to have on the behaviour of the AI in battle just hasn't happened. Maybe they are trying to be too clever, the biggest problem is indecision (this occured in MTW,M2TW and RTW as well) where the AI sees no good option do just sits there, or shuffles backwards and forwards aimlessly. In this situation even a straight forward frontal assault would be preferable (or as pointed out an ordered retreat). There just needs to be more failsafes in the AI behaviour, to prevent the really quirky behaviour that ruins a battle (and can't even be fixed by intentially playing weak...).

[Vlad Tzepes]

The Shogun AI was fantastic -- probably as a result of the simpler unit mix and the less complex playing fields, and while it had its aberrant behaviors, benefited greatly from its simplicity while still having a good repertoire of tactics. [...]

You have to give some leeway the more complex the permutations of a game are. It's easy to make a challenging AI for Chess or Risk or Go, because you can exhaustively search predictive move sets based on current board set for each turn. That is not algorithmically possible in a game like ETW in which there are astronomical, as in, more atoms than available for a quantum computer the size of the planet, numbers of possible action variations over the course of a real-time event series.

I totally agree with you, Ordani. You cannot expect from the AI human intelligence or ability to learn in a game such as ETW.

On the other hand, playing on higher difficulty settings against equivalent or superior AI (in numbers and, if possible in technology) really gives you a challenge.

I'm a vet TW and have played all titles since Shogun (Shogun still is my favorite, but maybe just because everything was so new). What I can notice in ETW is the AI is much more mobile on the battlefield. It will always try to exploit weaknesses in your line. Of course, if you absolutely outnumber or dominate it doesn't stand much of a chance, but this is no surprise. Try equal or give the AI some advantage and it will be a better battle.

[Dayve]

Seriously people make me laugh sometimes.

The amount of bugs in ETW compared to games of the past is not even a iota of of things that are. I mean maybe i'm just to patient cause I remeber back when Starcraft could not patch without having to go into the code, and finding files.

I remeber Lords of the Realm II at times not working, and the only fix being, buying another copy of Lords of the Realm II.

Sure ETW has it's issues, but common what game dosn't. You guys are acting like you have never seen AI like this, when most games, Ai is crappier then this.

Seriously, go show me a game with better AI then this that no one whines and groans about. I guess people always have to moan about how easy a game is, and how they beat it in thier sleep, it just gets old.

Cossacks had better AI than this... a game well over a decade old i believe.

[BeeSting]

I think ETW is the most unpolished of CA releases. CA should've hired me as their beta testers, seriously...

[DisruptorX]

I think ETW is the most unpolished of CA releases. CA should've hired me as their beta testers, seriously...

I seem to remember MTW 1 crashing to desktop constantly. Rome was a disaster, and MTW 2 had issues too.

Empire technically runs very well for me, and many of the complaints are things we've seen before.

[BeeSting]

^

lol

OK, all the more reasons to make a change from that trend and hire TW vets on as their beta testers.

[loony]

I have noticed that the AI:
a) does a crappy job in dealing with artillery. either charged cavalry straight into my line and gets whacked or keeps running around while I shell his army.
b) is very very bad at taking cover, sometimes (when I am doing the encircling maneouver) taking cover ON THE WRONG SIDE!!!
c) is an idiot on campaign map; neither attacking nor defending with enough troops (despite having them ready and available). That way a single army is able to defeat numerous stacks because all of them come separately in 2 turn intervals
d) is a total idiot in sieges, because he does not garrison the buildings inside the fort. so I do it. and then 2 of my units killl half of his army shoot out of the windows. once I attacked a decent fort, entered with cavalry, to draw the defenders away from the holes in the walls. then garrisoned the infantry. Killed half the army but was out of ammo. So I charged one unit of those two and entered 2 other militias into the same buildings while retreating with the first two.

What the AI does wel is
a) time shots
b) flank fixed positions of infantry
c) find and attack your general (doh!)
b) generally a good job if his army is composed of melee troops mostly. It is also simple - charges with melee and then with cavalry. if there are no chokepoints, my infatry suffer losses as well


I think most improvements are needed not in Battle AI (too hard to make the Battle AI normal), but in campaign AI, so that when at war, the computer would use all of its strategic tools!

[crpcarrot]

i ahvent played that long but have a a qrond 10 battles but they have all been quite large ones minmum of 10 units a side, and i havent yet seen the peicemenal attack. in all cases the AI has either come at me with all its forces. or quite a large protion of it. in some cases its kept reserves hidden which really did suprise me the first time and ended up losing the battle. its protects its general, its tried to take out my general when possible in one case it had 4 units of light cavalry right at my general cos he was staning in a gap of the front line. its send light cavalry way round the flank to get at my arty. they went so far i forgot them till they were too close to my arty, the AI have sent one or two units at a time but as soon as i engage them it has reacted to the situation by flanking and even suding units behind cover when my units engage. ive only won a batle where i am outnumberes when the ai was seriously lacing in quality. if the ai had proper quality troops and theu outneumberes be i have only barely survived or lost. i dont say i am an expert and it took me a while to figure out how to use firearms. standing aroudn shooting was really going against my TW instincts. but i'm getting better and i havent seen the AI do anything really stupid yet. theyve been forced to do stupid stuff but i would like to think thats becasue of my monuevering abilty ratehr than me just stainding around and the AI walking into their deaths.

it would be interesting to see if the people who are complaining are what i like to call power players. they basically try to exploit the game in anyway posisble and trick the AI. i dont think the AI will ever be able to cope with that. also the difficulty seems to make a difference so maybe that is a factor to consider. i ahvent yet had a seige battle so cannot comment on that. and i have only played the grand campaign

[Bob the Insane]

I do agree that the nature of the battlefields rendered in the game now is far more complex than in earlier versions and that will cause the AI problems. Buildings (both garrisonable and simple obsticles), fences, walls, wooded areas, high ground, impassible cliffs, ground type (mud, grass, etc).

In STW there was High Ground and Wooded Areas...

However, if you chose a simple map and equitable custom battle on pretty flat terrain then complexity of the battlefield should not a large factor. Following this we do still see the Battle AI doing odd things.

Of course the units are more complex, both in their capabilities and in their extra abilities, which would mean different activities based on whether a particular feature is available to a given unit at that time.

I think it is fair to say that the complexity of the Battle AI has not kept up with the complexity of the battlefield and unit capabilities in the game series.

[BeeSting]

Here's the Battle AI use of walls. Um, facing the wrong way?


* below two circles indicate former positions of two AI units that were facing each other.... they were routed.

[BeeSting]

I do agree that the nature of the battlefields rendered in the game now is far more complex than in earlier versions and that will cause the AI problems. Buildings (both garrisonable and simple obsticles), fences, walls, wooded areas, high ground, impassible cliffs, ground type (mud, grass, etc).

In STW there was High Ground and Wooded Areas...

However, if you chose a simple map and equitable custom battle on pretty flat terrain then complexity of the battlefield should not a large factor. Following this we do still see the Battle AI doing odd things.

Of course the units are more complex, both in their capabilities and in their extra abilities, which would mean different activities based on whether a particular feature is available to a given unit at that time.

I think it is fair to say that the complexity of the Battle AI has not kept up with the complexity of the battlefield and unit capabilities in the game series.

Agreed, the battle system is now more complex.

On a flat terrain, the AI bunches up its units inflicting a lot of damage on itself with friendly fire. I have yet to see it use a clean line, not even with the European armies.