What unit size is most advantageous to the AI?

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

My thoughts: the AI does not regularly (If at all?) merge or replenish depleted units. Fielding sub-max strength units, especially at the start of a battle - that initial charge, is a huge disadvantage.

It therefore follows that the the AI is best assisted by playing using the smallest unit size possible. Because that way - by reducing (in absolute terms) the potential difference between actual/typical numbers of troops fielded by the AI and what it could deploy if it consistently sought to maintain units at full strength - you diminish the AI's opportunity to, in effect, disadvantage itself .

For what it's worth, I always play on normal unit size because, it seems to me, that's the best compromise in terms of battle scale/epic-ness, player vs AI 'balance', and stability+performance.

I seem to recall reading, once, someone arguing that huge unit size is best for the AI owing to build times. I think it boiled down to longer build times took away some of the player's advantage. But I could be way off the mark here.

This introduces the idea that a chosen unit size may be advantageous to the CAI but disadvantageous to the BAI.

What do others think?

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude

[gollum]

hello victorgb,
i am pressed for time right now and can't expand on it, but from all points of view, huge is the unit size that 99.9% CA balances the campaigns for, and it works much better for the AI in all levels, imho. If your machine has "objections" to this (sometimes it makes battles a bit choppy in the frame rate especially as units are about to engage in melee), try setting the sound quality to the lowest; it does work for me.

[gollum]

A brief foray, as i am less busy than i thought:

Huge is the size that the agricultural incomes of the vanilla campaign are balanced for. This is because if the campaign was balanced for a smaller size, factions would not have enough cash to make offensive armies. On the other hand anyone that has played in normal can observe that the agricultural income is abundand in normal and allows factions to have multiple stacks while they occupy already their natural areas. This means that the player has more troops (that can be produced very fast in 1 turn) to overpower the AI factions essentially. In huge on the other hand its the exact opposite: meintenance costs are high and so stacks are fewer (and so one has less garrisoning troops to take over an area) and units take 2 turns to build: far more planning is needed to execute invasions, and defenders have a natural advantage. Also if things get hairy simply scrambling troops from here and there may not save the day, units arrive a bit later since they take two or more turns to build.

In terms of the battlefield, huge units have no problem in the oversized maps of MTW. Unit size reduces also maneuverability and makes consequences of match ups more decisive as they cannot be undone that easily - that is tactics are more razor sharp and unforgiving to bad generalship and favor the AI that is usually good at matching up his units. Also Royal units which are non-scalable are weaker and so the player is denied the huge advantage of using them to conquer potential enemies quickly early in the game. A notable exception in this is the Byzantine Cataphract Jedis that become even more powerful than usual - yet this can be easily solved with modding (set them to non-scalable in the unit-prod).

In my opinion for SP, huge is by far the best for the AI in the battles, and even more so in the campaign.

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi Gollum

Thanks for taking the time.

I recognise all your observations and arguments, and they are persuasive. But I'd like to know your thoughts regarding these two points:

1) "...if things get hairy simply scrambling troops from here and there may not save the day, units arrive a bit later since they take two or more turns to build."

This would seem to increase the value/potential contribution of mercenaries. Which, in my experience at least, the AI virtually never recruits. Isn't this a huge advantage to the human player? (I guess you're going to reply, 'well don't hire them then'. I must admit, I like the 'colour/variety' this feature offers. Plus it can plug gaps in a faction's unit roster.)

2) What do you say to my point about the AI accumulating lots of fragments of units, so to speak, which will result in bigger absolute disparities in numbers (between the player, who replenishes his units, and the AI which does not) on the battlefield. Do you not consider this significant? Does the AI do more rebuilding on huge?

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude

[gollum]

About mercs: you are absolutely right - but i forgot to mention it because i seldom play with mercs for the last few years. Mercs in MTW are an exploit for the player beyond any measure - you can win the game well before the AI has any chance to stop you by using them. So i'd say either use them very sparingly or not at all - no matter what size you play on.

About your other point: The AI will never do more rebuilding even if you play in normal, because it usually fills all the econimic space he has with early full stacks in the beginning of the game, and unless he is given the chance to expand (which is not the norm for most AI factions) he doesnt ge the chance to lose them in battle and so to rebuild them, hopefully by better troops. In these terms all the rubble units, Slav warriors, the many javelins from VI onwards, the woodsmen etc that are available at fort level, hurt irreparably the AI factions because the AI recruits cheap units first and foremost. This means that early stacks will be full of such rubble units - and in many occasions these early stacks will be the only stacks the faction will get.

But this is not a matter of size of units - it is a matter of roster and stats optimisation in regards to the SP game.

Upgrades also hurt trmendously the AI factions and benefit the player for similar reasons - they make whatever disparities that exist between early and late era units even wider statistically and again it is the player that ripes the fruit of those and not the AI.

All in all - the problem you refer to, is solved imo with:
1. Making all units valuable (no matter how low)
2. Get rid of rubble units
3. Closing base statistical gaps of units between cultures, factions and eras
4. Abolishing weapon and armor upgrades
5. Taking (or almost taking) out mercenaries

[Belisario]

But this is not a matter of size of units - it is a matterAll in all - the problem you refer to, is solved imo with:
1. Making all units valuable (no matter how low)
2. Get rid of rubble units
3. Closing base statistical gaps of units between cultures, factions and eras
4. Abolishing weapon and armor upgrades
5. Taking (or almost taking) out mercenaries

Hello Gollum, what do you think about abolishing morale and valour upgrades? And get rid of overpowered units?

[gollum]

Hello Belisario,

valor upgrades are always good to get rid off, but since there is only a +1 for the final tier buildings (and iirc only units that can be made from that building alone take the upgrade), they do not make too much difference, i'd say. More importantly i'd get rid off the provincial titles star bonuses that contribute to the creation of multistar generals and so jedi armies for the player. Also the court titles can should be nerfed considerably in terms of bonuses for the same reason. The player can exlpoit that perfectly (by giving them to already promising generals and combining them too for maximum effect), while optimising their use (by taking away and re-giving titles with emmissaries), while the AI seldom makes good use.

Morale upgrades are best banned altogether - they are the main reason that match ups become obsolete as late armies melee litterally to the last man. Past morale level 14 there is little difference if the unit is knights or peasants, they will stay in a fight regardless of losses and opponents. Then battles are determined by flanking and missile use alone - a tactical dimension of the game is lost, and it happens to be the one the AI excels at. I always take out completely almost all upgrades in my home modding efforts.

[Brandy Blue]

I’m not saying Gollum is wrong. He gives good reasons that the AI benefits from bigger units. However, it also suffers a disadvantage that can be important. Royal units are not scaleable and so are (relatively) weaker if you play with large scale units. The AI is more likely than the player to expose a royal general to danger rashly, and if your bigger units can rout the enemy general you can win the battle much easier. His unit is more likely to suffer a big outnumbered locally penalty, and is easier to shoot to pieces with your 120 man missle units than with 60 man missle units. On the bright side, it might be easier to kill off those ridiculous jedi generals. You know, the kind that holds off your entire army and kills a hundred guys or so before he drowns in his own blood bath.

[gollum]

A worthy point of consideration. Its even more worthy when we think that in vanilla the AI makes Royal Knights more often that he makes other knights units (due to them being more easily available tech tree wise).

However there are excuses: when family member generals units are too small (and they often are because the Ai does not re-train) the AI withdraws them from battle. And also not all generals are family members, and those who are have a large amount of hit points on top of their usual high valor.

In any case, Royal BGs are a very key issue; their upkeep, numbers, strength, recruitability and accessibility are all key aspects that need careful balancing in order to make the AI in a more equal footing with the player.

Please, feel free to disagree with me - no topic is about anyone (least of all me) being right or wrong - its about sharing and learning through sharing.

[Brandy Blue]

However there are excuses: when family member generals units are too small (and they often are because the Ai does not re-train) the AI withdraws them from battle. And also not all generals are family members, and those who are have a large amount of hit points on top of their usual high valor.

Well, yes. Its the sort of thing that is likely to throw off the balance in some battles, but not have a huge effect on the entire campaign. I'd like to know your thoughts on balancing royal units, but thats a subject for another thread, which I will go and start now.