I think ETW is the most unpolished of CA releases. CA should've hired me as their beta testers, seriously...
Re: Battle AI Challenge
I think ETW is the most unpolished of CA releases. CA should've hired me as their beta testers, seriously...
'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'
Re: Battle AI Challenge
I seem to remember MTW 1 crashing to desktop constantly. Rome was a disaster, and MTW 2 had issues too.Originally Posted by BeeSting
Empire technically runs very well for me, and many of the complaints are things we've seen before.
"Sit now there, and look out upon the lands where evil and despair shall come to those whom thou lovest. Thou hast dared to mock me, and to question the power of Melkor, master of the fates of Arda. Therefore with my eyes thou shalt see, and with my ears thou shalt hear; and never shall thou move from this place until all is fulfilled unto its bitter end". -Tolkien
Re: Battle AI Challenge
^
lol
OK, all the more reasons to make a change from that trend and hire TW vets on as their beta testers.
Last edited by BeeSting; 03-11-2009 at 05:30.
'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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.
Last edited by Ordani; 03-11-2009 at 09:43.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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."
Last edited by AussieGiant; 03-11-2009 at 10:13.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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...).
Re: Battle AI Challenge
Why...because the level of complexity is not even comparable, in any sense.
You simply can't compare the level of diplomatic programming in ETW to STW. It's not even close.
Likewise, the Strategic AI or Battle AI are worlds apart now from what they were in STW or MTW.
Therefore to say that STW Strategic AI is the same as ETW Strategic AI and therefore now we can begin to compare is absolutely not possible.
Please note I'm never going to reference eye candy i.e. graphics in this discussion, even though battle mechanics are again technically poles apart when you compare STW as 2D sprites with 3D animation.
In relation to your comment I think it would be more accurate to say that the development and progression we have seen from STW to ETW in complexity has not been mirrored by an AI that has followed the same level of development.
What difficulty are you playing on?
Last edited by AussieGiant; 03-11-2009 at 11:04.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
Well now… I lost naval battles… many… but haven’t lost any land battles… till yesterday…
I was fighting as Russia a Georgian army. The AI had 6 or 7 infantry units, 5 cavalry units and the general. I had 7 infantry units, 3 cavalry units and the general. I was very confident in winning, even though the auto-resolve resulted in me being defeated.
This is what happened:
At the beginning of the battle the AI split his army in two.
The infantry occupied defensive position next to some stone walls and wooden fences, but did not form a line. Actually, they were relatively scattered, hiding behind walls and fences.
The cavalry units formed a line to the far right of the map.
I’ve decided to pick one by one their infantry units using 4 infantry units and 1 cavalry unit. The rest of my army would protect my right side from a cavalry attack.
Said and done… one by one the AI infantry were routed, until only 2 remained… They were in a good defensive position behind a stone wall. When I engaged them with 4 infantry and one cavalry, all hell broke loose. Their cavalry charged head-on my 3 flanking infantry units (which were in a single line), with 2 of their cavalry units going around for a flank attack. I’ve sent the 2 backup cavalry units to meet them. I’ve managed to stop the flanking action, but when my infantry started to waver, I was forced to send in my general. Meanwhile, the 2 AI infantry units would not budge, even if they were in a melee, attacked from every side (even by 1 cavalry unit). I was hoping they would route soon so I could send help to my wavering units in melee with the AI cavalry. The AI general went by the melee (my infantry vs AI cavalry) and charged in the flank of the units trying to eliminate the AI 2 remaining infantry units. Just about then my general died. Fighting continued for another 20-30 seconds and then, one by one my units started to broke and flee.
So I lost a battle I was certain to win (especially after routing 4 or 5 of the AI infantry without suffering serious losses).
I was playing on H/H and did not have square formation.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
The thread title is Battle AI Challenge - I think everyone else is talking about that, so I'm not sure where Diplomacy or Campaign map AI is relevant (though I'm happy to say that I agree that the change from 2D to 3D campaign maps really made the campaign AI much much harder to do).
But for the Battle AI, I cannot see how the move from Shogun -> ... -> ETW has introduced huge extra layers of complexity. We have units, we have a battlefield, we have an enemy. We can move, attempt to engage, fire projectiles, defend, support, flank. We have cavalry, artillery, infantry (some melee, some missile). Ok, the battlefields have got bigger and we have sieges now, but aside from that I'm struggling to identify what strange new things have made Battle AI such a different beast.
You'll need to do better than say it can't be compared. Why can't it be compared?
Last edited by Lord of the Isles; 03-11-2009 at 12:38. Reason: added note about sieges
Re: Battle AI Challenge
I have to admit, AI on the offensive is impressive compared to previous releases. It's the defensive AI that's really quirky and needs fixing. friendly fire issue still exists for the AI and if CA could just fix this then we would have that much harder time beating it.
'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'
Re: Battle AI Challenge
Did I buy a different game than the people complaining? I'm finding the battle AI to be absolutely FANTASTIC as far as intelligence goes. When the AI is attacking, they actually put forth a very good effort in attacking my lines and going after weak points. They FREQUENTLY try to flank my lines with cavalry forces (and have actually made me paranoid to the point that I've got one eye permanently glued to the mini-map to watch for flanking forces). I don't seem to run into that shuffle issue that other people are complaining about when they're on the offense, and I'd personally love it if they did that, as it would let my cannons rain havok on the battlefield a bit better.
Even on the defensive I find the ETW AI to be VASTLY superior to previous releases. I remember one of my old favorite tactics when on the assault would be to pummel the enemy forces with artillery as much as possible before the charge. If I try to do that now? They form up a battle line and come after me, and more or less go into attack mode. This is on freaking EASY difficulty no less, which I like to play on cause well...I'm a sore loser and I get more enjoyment out of being unstoppable.
As far as comparing campaign AI to the old MTW/STW days goes, that was a whole different beast. Moving armies around in that game was done with Risk style pieces on a fairly simplistic map, and programming AI for that is a LOT easier than programming AI for a campaign map as complex as the E:TW one. There is a LOT more logic involved in attacking E:TW provinces than there used to be for MTW/STW, as back then it was just "make armies, conquer weakly defended province" and there's your game. E:TW has all sorts of other variables to consider like economic warfare, siege battles, unit compositions, and advanced tactics that might be subtle to the point that they're hard to notice, like slowly whittling down your forces, and drawing them out for a sneak attack. I do admit the campaign aggressiveness could be turned up a little bit, and the lack of naval invasions is a bit wonky, but other than that I think they did a very good job.
Also someone mentioned the AI for Sins of a Solar Empire earlier? I played that game extensively when it was first released, and I found the AI in that game to be cowardly at best. At release, it was damn near impossible to get a decent fleet battle from them as if they lost 2 or 3 ships they would run like a whipped dog, and avoid conflict as much as possible unless they had your fleet WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY outgunned. I was able to conquer the map in that game more or less just from going planet to planet nuking them, getting more fight from their defensive emplacements than from their actual FLEETS. Now with the Entrenchment mini-expansion released, their AI has been beefed up a LOT and can actually put up a decent fight. That took quite a while to patch in and get up to par.
Maybe I should get back to work now...
Give a man fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
I really think that it wouldn't be hard for CA to give the AI, specific army designs and specific tactics to use when certain conditions of its armies were met.
As an example, when the AI makes an offensive army after going to war it should be able to make a plan on any terrain on how best to use that army. If it has an army of 5 infantry units, 3 cavalry units, and 2 artillery units it should place them on the best terrain it can find (the highest hill, hide behind a hill if the player's army has cannons and they don't, etc.) Then put their army into a set design, such as a line of infantry with cavalry on the flanks protecting the cannons' flanks and cannons behind the infantry lines.
What I've seen time and time again with this AI is just stupid desicion making when preparing their position on the battlefield. They ignore stone walls and defend open fields with less units. They also seem to abandon any defensive plans once my troops get near them. They will break up their lines, and move their army forward usually one unit at a time.
With the problems the Battle AI has I am at least happy that the AI no longer spends 10 minutes running from my larger army. So many times in MTW they would abandon the highest position on the battlefield when I approached and moved to a lower point in the map so I could attack them from above.
The AI has to be able to find a good (not necessarily best) position on the battlefield and dictate a coordinated defense/assualt based upon the composition of your army and their army. The AI just keep changing its minds when I move my troops.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
Hi Lord of the Isles,
Ok if we isolate the discussion to Battle AI then again it is not comparable IMO.
The graphics engine must now be discussed as the move from 2D Sprites to 3D figures is important. Facing, physics and tactics have all changed from STW to ETW.
While in principle I see your point, the level of sophistication and development are miles apart. I certainly don't pretend to know all the details but I've seen a few detailed discussions from CA reps on the battle AI here on this site, and it's a real eye opener when you see the detail they have to take into account. This includes the fairly straight forward and well balanced STW battle AI and unit management.
Likewise, and from a macro perspective I always like to keep in mind, the following...if CA could actually develop an AI that is close to human levels of skill on a battle map, do you think they would be making a game?
It would be patented and be use in far more lucrative areas of the world economy...and that would happen in about the same time it would take to write this.
So, while it is nearly the most important part of the game, as far as I'm concerned, this is an area of coding that even multi national and military industries are trying to perfect and that should be considered when talking about this subject.
Last edited by AussieGiant; 03-13-2009 at 11:19.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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.
"Whose motorcycle is this?", "It's a chopper, baby.", "Whose chopper is this?", "Zed's.", "Who's Zed?", "Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead." - Butch and Fabienne ride off into the sunset in Pulp Fiction.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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!
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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
"Forgiveness is between them and god, my job is to arrange the meeting"
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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.
Last edited by Bob the Insane; 03-13-2009 at 18:30.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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.
Last edited by BeeSting; 03-13-2009 at 21:25.
'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'
Re: Battle AI Challenge
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.
Last edited by BeeSting; 03-13-2009 at 21:31.
'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'
Re: Battle AI Challenge
I’ve been beaten by the Ai, several times in fact. Even when I win I often take heavier casualties than my RTW/m2TW average. What disappoints me most is the AI's inability to even come at me in a straight line. Is it really that hard to program? Here is a visual illustration of what happens virtually every time I fight a field battle (this was on expert, although the Ai is this retarded on every difficulty level) It also really sucks when instead of trying to exchange volleys the AI merely charges in melee at the first opportunity, or charges its cavalry into my lines piecemeal (which they do every time)
The AI marched its line infantry toward my own line in fairly good order, but instead of closing to range and opening fire, it wheeled to its right and presented its flanks to my men at point blank range as it shuffled in confusion. Ive seen the RTW AI do better with NTW2 on custom battles without scripting. It is pathetic.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
^
Speaking of...AI was being pretty creative today, look at the following Tic-Tac-Toe formation:
*Helped me out a bit since it caused a lot of friendly fire casualties. I was up against 2.5 stacks.
Last edited by BeeSting; 03-14-2009 at 00:20.
'Hannibal had been the victor at Cannae, and as if the Romans had good cause to boast that you have only strength enough for one blow, and that like a bee that has left its sting you are now inert and powerless.'
Re: Battle AI Challenge
You have to laugh when you see this happen, its better than crying.
Re: Battle AI Challenge
Anyone ever done any experimentation with time limits, to see if they slightly improve tactical AI quality? I know in the old Close Combat series, it was recommended that players play with time limited battles (15 min, I think, in that case), as the time limits tended to "focus" the AI on the task at hand.
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." Senator John Kerry, May 4, 2003
"It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time." Senator John Kerry, 7 September, 2004
Re: Battle AI Challenge
I'd be interested to see if the time limits actually have an affect on the AI of the computer. On another note, I've had 2 battles involving towns where 1 unit of the computer routes in the town and gets stuck so every single unit of the AI freezes in place (units from reinforcing stacks as well as original stack units). Until the 1 stuck unit gets itself free to route away the AI just doesn't move. Field battles seem fine and I really enjoy them, but toss a town in there and it turns into a mess.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks