How is the AI overall?

[Kagemusha]

I think that both the Campaign and battle AI is best so far in the series and yes i have lost both battles and campaigns. I dont think i have lost an battle after MTW and a campaign since STW before this game.

[Monk]

Campaign Ai is a son of a . It builds good armies based on the infastructure it has atr the ready. At around turn 25 don't be surprised if you see stacks with 6-7 samurai units each.

Battle AI is hit or miss but still vastly improved over ETW/NTW. Easily the best battle AI of the 3D total war era. It makes dumb decisions from time to time and is open to exploits but, as i've said in another thread, it's passable and provides a good challenge.

If you crank the difficulty up to the highest level, will you lose?

Play on Hard your first game without any practice or strategy and you'll lose. I promise you.

[therother]

Yeah, both AIs are much better, especially CAI which doesn't appear to have any major holes and handles itself well. It's a real test for the player on the harder levels.

BAI I have less experience with, but I noticed last night it's very passive when you are fighting with an AI ally against an AI enemy: I had two such battles, one a siege, the other an open battle. The siege was a disaster, with the allied AI just sitting in range of the towers for the most part, only making one paltry assault, which was easily repulsed. The open battle was more ridiculous: combined we had 30 good units versus one unit of peasant archers. In this case, the two AIs literally danced around each other, without firing or attacking each other. They are almost touching by the point I decided to intervene, but the enemy archers routed and only then did the ally AI attack.

I realise that these are specific occasions, where the AI has probably been told to let the human do the heavy lifting, but on both occasions I was assisting the attacker: I wanted my vassals to win, but didn't want to risk my troops unnecessarily without any gain.

Otherwise, the other battles I've played, the BAI seems competent enough to give you a decent fight, if a little heavy on the archers for my tastes.

[Rothe]

My complaint vs. the CAI is that it tends to assault fortifications (towns) with equal numbers compared to me, which means the AI will certainly lose.
And usually it does not have a back-up army to re-assault me in the near future. That usually means I get an easy win and then I march on his castle and take it easily.

On open field battles it seems to work fine, and I have lost a few battles although none with equal stacks of equal quality troops. (I am a TW veteran though)

Reinforcements are seriously bugged, but I think it will be fixed pretty soon.

Overall, the AI seems to do pretty well with matching its units vs. yours (e.g. RPS effect works) and using its archers to hit your most expensive and vulnerable troops if it can. It perhaps lacks some tricks like proper flanking moves, and I am not sure if it uses its general's inspire properly, which makes for quite a difference - I use mine often and it really helps.

[Daevyll]

In all, much impoved AI both campaign and battle.

My main thing with the AI at the moment is that it is not careful enough with its general. It isnt nearly as bad as it used to be, with lone generals doing a suicidal charge into your spears, but still the AI would fight more effectively if it kep the general out of combat and behind the main force to use his inspirational abilities. Now I often kill the opposing general and start a chain rout, in what would otherwise have been a close fight.

Another thing is sieges; I can accept assaulting the walls with a major superiority in force (like 3-1 or so), but otherwise it should just keep my army under siege forcing me to attack/relieve. I've not seen it do so even once so far. With the result that sieges become a 'cheap' way to kill of opposing stacks.

[Lord Benihana]

Agreed - best AI since MTW 1. Only issue is the CAI sending stacks against forts

I took out 3 full stacks (one at a time) in a single turn because the computer kept marching one stack at a time up to my walls and attacking. But that was a rare occurance. I also prefer an AI that constructs armies prior to assaulting - where in previous games I would always have the superior force, I find myself outgunned and I need to actually think

and I'm only playing on normal!

[al Roumi]

I think, after a couple of weeks, that the AI is much better at the "basics" both on the campaign map (i.e. army composition, stacking) and battle map (keeping its forces together, not *usually* zerging with cavalry, broadly using units in a way that befits their attributes) but that it does have flaws. Siege behaviour is a big one, also that it only ever sends one stack in a given direction.

The best I've seen the AI play on the battle map is when it doesn't attack me, but sits back and puts me at a disadvantage -i.e. by having a large archer contingent and camping in woods (my usual cheap cynical tactic). It unfortunately doesn't do more elaborate things like splitting its forces, laying small ambushes or any real flanking movements -bar the odd cavalry escapade.

I think the AI offers much more of a challenge than it did in Empire and it is certainly a lot more coherent on diplomacy, campaign and battle map strategies. If I've got at all complacent its because I've figured out some of the tricks that work against it and how to deal with its main threats. For example, after being nobbled on the flanks by Yari cavalry units a few times, I now always have a unit of yari samurai on the flanks of my main Ashigaru line. The AI knows better than to get cavalry too close to yari samurai so it doesnt even try to flank. That is always going to happen in a game and frankly, without it no-one would play it.

[phonicsmonkey]

Play on Hard your first game without any practice or strategy and you'll lose. I promise you.

Darn. I played on VH and lost and was thinking of dialling it down to H. Now I might need to go to n00b N....