Has anything really changed from CA?

**Skott** · 05-18-2009, 18:56

No need for insults and name calling, guys. Everyone has an opinion and we should respect that. If you cant debate a topic without throwing personal insults around then perhaps its time to step back for a bit?

**GFX707** · 05-18-2009, 19:17

On a more positive note I was just reading some of my old posts from previous TW titles about terrible army stack composition, which, at least, it seems has improved a hell of a lot since M2TW.

I also complained a lot about how ridiculously easy the game was in RTW and M2TW. This seems to have changed (since 1.2 anyway) and I don't recall any of my games in ETW being complete pushovers after turn 10 like the last games.

So just the suicidal strategic AI to sort out now, I suppose.

**loony** · 05-19-2009, 08:07

I must admit I am just as willing to rant as anyone about stupid AI and idiotic diplomacy. However, this weekend I did some testing regarding the AI and, well.. the results actually are in favor of CA.

I had my cousin visiting me so I showed him my new shiny PC and my nice-to-look-at Empire TW. The guy has never played a TW game before, but he's had his share of red-eyed nights playing other games.
I let him try out a few (actually - 4) battles from my VH/H french campaign.... and he got trashed every time.
Once he misjudged the threat of flanking cavalry; wanted to counter 3units of cavalry with 3 units of line infantry. The cavalry went right past the squares and hit the cannon. Then hit the general. He forgot the squares while trying to save the general and his squares were decimated by enmy line... then the enemy cavalry charged to the back of those wavering squares. Toast.

Second time, he attacked Iroquis and, despite my warnings, got into a nasty ambush (some indian units are invisible), meleed and charged by the lancers. He was completeley swarmed in the centre, managed to kill the enemy general but lost the battle completely.

Third time, after some practice he got throunced by the pope. Italian states had numerical superiority (1,75 stack vs 1) with a lot of arty. He had the quality troops though and was defending. He suffered very heavy losses and lost all his cav (guard units!!!). The italians were left with 3 units of cav, 4 units of sakers and a bodyguard unit. My cousin could not get to the arty without getting some canister and cav charges. His infantry routed, his general was killed. Valiant defeat.

The fourth battle was somewht unfair - a fleet battle. Equal forces with the british. His ships got intermingled with the british and in 15 minutes of utter chaos they routed or were sunk.

Now I tried all those battles yesterday and won WITH EASE!!!
1. you can't easily flank me; I put my line into a line and let the running cav eat a lot of musketballs.i form square in the last possible moment
2. I keep a decent reserve near my arty and my general
3. I don't let infantry stand in squares and get shot at
4. I know there are ambushes with those indians, i scout with cavalry or my indians.
5. I know how to flank arty, and how not to lose my guard cavalry figting an infantry square.
6. I know to keep enemy fleets downwind and to avoid getting too close to them. I also know how ) ships move upwind and how often they can fire a broadside.

Essentially, I would say the AI is doing a decent job. It can defeat a human novice on Hard in an open field battle; however, it hardly poses any threat to an experienced player. Bear that in mind.

The really stupid and annoying part is when the AI is defending against a siege. One-unit charges make me sick...

**AussieGiant** · 05-19-2009, 10:38

Originally Posted by loony

I must admit I am just as willing to rant as anyone about stupid AI and idiotic diplomacy. However, this weekend I did some testing regarding the AI and, well.. the results actually are in favor of CA.

I had my cousin visiting me so I showed him my new shiny PC and my nice-to-look-at Empire TW. The guy has never played a TW game before, but he's had his share of red-eyed nights playing other games.
I let him try out a few (actually - 4) battles from my VH/H french campaign.... and he got trashed every time.
Once he misjudged the threat of flanking cavalry; wanted to counter 3units of cavalry with 3 units of line infantry. The cavalry went right past the squares and hit the cannon. Then hit the general. He forgot the squares while trying to save the general and his squares were decimated by enmy line... then the enemy cavalry charged to the back of those wavering squares. Toast.

Second time, he attacked Iroquis and, despite my warnings, got into a nasty ambush (some indian units are invisible), meleed and charged by the lancers. He was completeley swarmed in the centre, managed to kill the enemy general but lost the battle completely.

Third time, after some practice he got throunced by the pope. Italian states had numerical superiority (1,75 stack vs 1) with a lot of arty. He had the quality troops though and was defending. He suffered very heavy losses and lost all his cav (guard units!!!). The italians were left with 3 units of cav, 4 units of sakers and a bodyguard unit. My cousin could not get to the arty without getting some canister and cav charges. His infantry routed, his general was killed. Valiant defeat.

The fourth battle was somewht unfair - a fleet battle. Equal forces with the british. His ships got intermingled with the british and in 15 minutes of utter chaos they routed or were sunk.

Now I tried all those battles yesterday and won WITH EASE!!!
1. you can't easily flank me; I put my line into a line and let the running cav eat a lot of musketballs.i form square in the last possible moment
2. I keep a decent reserve near my arty and my general
3. I don't let infantry stand in squares and get shot at
4. I know there are ambushes with those indians, i scout with cavalry or my indians.
5. I know how to flank arty, and how not to lose my guard cavalry figting an infantry square.
6. I know to keep enemy fleets downwind and to avoid getting too close to them. I also know how ) ships move upwind and how often they can fire a broadside.

Essentially, I would say the AI is doing a decent job. It can defeat a human novice on Hard in an open field battle; however, it hardly poses any threat to an experienced player. Bear that in mind.

The really stupid and annoying part is when the AI is defending against a siege. One-unit charges make me sick...

Good post loony, and I guess something for everyone to consider.

I wrote in another post to Slaists that he was probably a top 5% player on the economic side of things. Most here are veteran players who know the tactics and would like to see an extremely intelligent AI.

At the moment it seems to be very hard to code this. And as I mentioned before...if they could...they wouldn't be making PC games for the general public. They'd be making far more impressive things for MNC who would pay them a bucket of cash.

**GFX707** · 05-19-2009, 19:47

I don't remember having any real problems with the tactical AI in the game, apart from how it always sneaks around and attacks your general or blows them up with artillery (hey, I'm the only one that gets to do that), it's never really seemed broken to me.

What I mention in my first post is the strategic AI. That is, the AI on the campaign map.

**loony** · 05-20-2009, 08:36

Originally Posted by GFX707

I don't remember having any real problems with the tactical AI in the game, apart from how it always sneaks around and attacks your general or blows them up with artillery (hey, I'm the only one that gets to do that), it's never really seemed broken to me.

What I mention in my first post is the strategic AI. That is, the AI on the campaign map.

I agree that the strategic AI is sometimes plain stupid, mostly due to poor economy/recruitment management. I think the AI does not understand what a "useless" unit is and where to find the "disband" button.

Im my late French campaign I keep giving conquered regions to Luisiana and giving them cash in addition to that. My "protectorate" owned Netherlands, Flanders, Genoa and Savoy in europe as well as 4 or 5 regions in NA. They get cash infusions and I have MY ARMIES keeping the stupid indians, austrians and other bad guys at bay; my protectorate cleans up the raiding parties.

They should have become a powerhouse in sth like 15 turns. However, they werefeeble and destitute; recently, I figured out why. I completed the mission (it was 1750 and I need to annex them to win) and saw they never bothered to upgrade their industry. Even the developed regions like Netherlands had apparently seen no iprovements.... OK, maybe they built armies? - NO!
They built navies, brigs and sixth rates, I found several stacks of those sitting in awkward spaces on the map (like a little west of Iceland?!)

Had the AI ignored the navies, it would have had a decent econ and at least 2 stacks of troops in NA (where we were constatnly at war with the indians). It could have also joined my conquests in Europe; it did have all the prerequisities to become a powerhouse and maybe even challenge me, but it did not.

**GFX707** · 05-23-2009, 20:44

Originally Posted by loony

Had the AI ignored the navies, it would have had a decent econ and at least 2 stacks of troops in NA (where we were constatnly at war with the indians). It could have also joined my conquests in Europe; it did have all the prerequisities to become a powerhouse and maybe even challenge me, but it did not.

The AI wasting all its money on building immense navies for no reason has been a problem on and off since RTW.