Battle AI Challenge

[BeeSting]

Have you ever lost a battle? I suck and I find the AI really really easy... It's confused as hell, especially when I am the one attacking; it can't seem to make up its mind on what to do with its line and runs its units to exhaustion, while I'm shooting them to pieces, and it decides to go to hell with its units and just charges my men without firing a single shot, and this is with European armies... how realistic is that? I'm starting to regret buying this game. I don't know about you but I've lost a lot of interest in this game already. What a disappointment.

[pevergreen]

I've been trounced multiple times by this AI.

I'm no green player either, I held off over 2000 Egyptians with 40 chariots, 120 militia and 120 crossbows.

[A Very Super Market]

I've lost battles. To Courland, no less...

And I've also had many close calls, due to my complete disregard for friendly fire avoidance.

[Dayve]

I do love the game, but so far i see no improvement in the AI from Rome or Medieval whatsoever.

In battles i see the AI sending single units charging at my line to be smashed to pieces one by one, just like in previous titles, i see the enemy form a perfect line and look as if they are going to put up a decent resistance only to see them turn and present their entire flank to me as i get within firing range, i see enemy cannons obsessively targeting single unimportant units and continuing to fire at them no matter what happens throughout the battle. An example of this would be enemy cannons firing at a regiment of horse though an entire battle even though i never actually moved them once, just left them on a hill whilst my infantry advanced, fired and overpowered the enemy units in melee.

I've seen units of muskets stand and let me fire volley after volley at them without reacting, stay garrisoned in buildings even though they are the only unit left and are being pounded to death by several units of cannon, deploy their soldiers in the town center of a fort and not defend the walls, letting my soldiers climb up and occupy the walls completely unchallenged.

But worst of all, i frequently see enemies laying siege to my cities on the campaign map with a single unit of line infantry, a single unit of cavalry or a single unit of artillery, despite the fact that the city they just besieged is home to a 15-stack, highly experienced army.

I remember reading some months back that CA have done 10 times more work on the AI in Empire than in any previous Total War game, that they had 10 people working on every aspect of the AI as opposed to previous total war games where they would have 2 people to do every little bit of AI in the game, but i really don't see how they could say that the AI in this title is any better than in Rome or Medieval when it just isn't.

I've lost 1 battle so far, and that was when my 8-unit army of British colonial troops marched into native American tribe forest and got ambushed, charged from both sides and slaughtered in about 30 seconds by the native Americans' superior melee skills. I'm still winning heroic victories with only 1/3 the number of soldiers as my enemy has.

[pevergreen]

To quote M. Bison from street fighter the later years.

"nice work, but why don't you try a harder difficulty next time?"

[knoddy]

To quote M. Bison from street fighter the later years.

"nice work, but why don't you try a harder difficulty next time?"

my thoughts exactly, ive been trounced in several battles by the AI and it is def much improved...

THAT SAID there is bugs, and the ai often seems to get confused about what to do. but that said its still alot better and quite challenging try on H or VH

[BeeSting]

I'm seeing no linear tactics with European armies, the AI just bunches them together and puts them in a firing order and I'm watching them shoot themselves to death.

Never have I seen the AI cleanly line up its men when firing down range... where's the immaculate 18th century European infantry lines?

And, what da hell is an infantry doing chasing down a cav?

[BeeSting]

my thoughts exactly, ive been trounced in several battles by the AI and it is def much improved...

THAT SAID there is bugs, and the ai often seems to get confused about what to do. but that said its still alot better and quite challenging try on H or VH

Only when it sends Cherokee Indians on steroids charging straight down the center of your line with everything it has. And I have to say these savages seem to have been drilled to line up perfectly.

[Quickening]

The AI has kicked my ass several times and I'm playing on Normal/Normal difficulty and I'm not exactly a Total War virgin either. I can't understand people saying the AI is the same as in Rome and Med 2 or worse, it's immaculate by comparison. I love how the battles don't always end in cluster***** to. I'm impressed enourmously by the AI in this game.

[knoddy]

1. the drilled armies of the period come with technology and experience.

2. what difficulty are u playing on, are u playing a campaign or the RTI?

90% of my battles have seen the AI form up good lines and march towards me and opening fire, also flanking with horse/cammel.

the 10% which havnt have usually been cos they were outnumbered and i was the one advancing their lines OR the few battles which i can clearly see the AI having issues with what it should do (usually involving cover and temporary defences)

[DEY123]

Playing on H/H I find the AI to sometimes play well and sometimes not well. In all I find it much more difficult then RTW or M2TW where it was always awful and outragously easy to out flank them and get their entire army to rout.

There are times where they bunch but other times they have managed to overwhelm one side of my spread out line and then rout me...I have yet to see them beat me even on odds, but if I have less units then my enemy it is about a toss up.

On the startegy side they seem to send annoying small groups of guys, but this actually caused me some big problems. apperently your units can't refill tehir ranks if they take part in battle that turn so I was getting slowly weakened by the stream of a few units at a time...


An example of smart startegy AI was when fighting bavaria and Austria I was constantly fighting small numbers of Bavarians who were coming over the border. I got tired of this so I sent my army into Bavaria to raid their towns. The Bavarian army came out and crushed my half stack army with a full stack and the following turn the Austrians overwhelemd my now deplted defenses.

[NimitsTexan]

Maybe its because I tend to play slightly more passivle with musket troops, but I have noticed that the AI fairly consistently looks to outflank or bypass strong defensive positions. It's attacks also seem acceptably coordianted. Some times one or two units will go in by themselves, but it appears in many cases to be a probing or "fixing" attack, while the AI's main force attacks a waker portion of your line. I have won all but one of the major battles I've fought against European armies, but then I have generally been facing armies with a significant portion of militia-type troops, and for the most part I seem to have equal or better tech. I have been trounced a couple of times by the "native" armies in North America, even by the Pirates on Antigua.

[Dayve]

For all those that asked, i'm on VH/H difficulty, and there's another thing, i see no differnce of the campaign AI from normal to VH, i think that setting may be broken.

I've tried VH battles but the AI is still unbelievably stupid, but i'm convinced they get stat bonuses on VH, because i've had 1 pirate ship with 2 hull strength take out 4 of my own ships which had 4, 3 and 2 hull strength, 2 of which had more guns than the pirate ship did and one of which had more firepower than the pirate ship.

[BeeSting]

Maybe its because I tend to play slightly more passivle with musket troops, but I have noticed that the AI fairly consistently looks to outflank or bypass strong defensive positions. It's attacks also seem acceptably coordianted. Some times one or two units will go in by themselves, but it appears in many cases to be a probing or "fixing" attack, while the AI's main force attacks a waker portion of your line. I have won all but one of the major battles I've fought against European armies, but then I have generally been facing armies with a significant portion of militia-type troops, and for the most part I seem to have equal or better tech. I have been trounced a couple of times by the "native" armies in North America, even by the Pirates on Antigua.

You should experiment with being more aggressive and see how stupid the AI reacts.

[BeeSting]

Here's a visual.... I can't tell you how many times below AI units (Savoy) shuffled back and forth wearing themselves out while my guys are having a hay day target shooting.




This happens 90% of time when I'm on the attack. Am I asking too much as a consumer to want a polished product?

[Namarie22]

I find the AI to be quirky.

Most of the time it's unable to do anything much, then in other battles, it really does do well, flanks, has troops hidden in forests, managed to defend well...

Last battle last night was one of those "Oh, shit!" battles. I had a weak right because I placed all my cannons there, were tired and wanted to go to bed. The AI ran around a forest with 4 cavs and took the cannons out, retreated because I weren't fast enough, then it came on with line men on the right and charged back with the cav.. And through the forest on my right side came 3 units of pikemen marching in tight formation...

SMUSH! I lost 1200 men.. :P

It will probarly pay for that today though, but, for some reason, I guess the AI mainly gets stuck in loops somehow, but when it does work, it's actually pretty damn fun.

[ZIM!!]

yeah that bunching happens to me as well. for $60.00 I think they shouldve seen that in the test phase

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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. =(

[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.