Number of Battles and Strategic AI

[Duke John]

Point 5 (not 4) doesn't mean that the AI should never get bonuses. I mean that before it gets bonuses there should be a setting in which it has the maximum tactical/strategic capabilities. One setting higher and it gets bonuses.

In M:TW, you had medium in which the AI was not optimal. At hard it was at its best but there were no bonuses. At very hard it would get bonuses for the ultimate challenge.

I have my doubts that in R:TW that the AI is already at its best in medium (taking the method M:TW into consideration). So I guess that is at hard. However at that difficulty the AI already starts to get bonuses; phalanxes are no longer capable of properly holding a cavalry charge. I believe that Red Harvest did some tests and the AI was clearly having bonuses at hard.

[Longasc]

Well, the AI has some problems with Naval Invasions.

The Scipii and Brutii always land on exactly the same spot on Sicily and get slaughtered by the Cav heavy Garrison of Messina.

They do not land in FORCE, the land always at the same place in 2-3 units stacks. (HARD/HARD)

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

In my Scipii campaign (Normal/Normal, I think--whatever the default was, I didn't change it), I frequently have the AI army retreat on the campaign map when I attack with a larger army. Sometimes I pursue it, forcing it to engage, but often not because that takes my army too far from the city it is protecting to return on the same turn. This allowed the Macedonians to build up a few sizable armies to besiege Athens, merging the smaller ones.

[Ktonos]

Well I disagree. The AI use strategic use of its armies depend on the faction. I thing that most of the Barbarian cultures will spread their forces all around, smthing like small annoying raiding armies. Now Romans, Macedonians, Greeks and Egyptians, even Carthage (if she can afford it) have 5-6 medium or large stacks.

I much prefer this. Also MTW could be FULL of many full stacks in the same province (annoying and unrealistic) and apart from that the AI did not took advantage of its advanced units. The only Knights I had to deal with were the bodyguards of princes or Kings. In RTW the AI use its tech tree wise and usually has good quality units to field.

The only AI problem is the tactic use of units in battle map. And that is in certain "buged" occasions (like hopless hastati stand out of walls taking fire while all siege equipment is destroyed and there is no hope to take the city).

[Ulstan]

I have noticed this playing on very hard campaign difficulty.

The gauls have all these small armies running around led by captains - sometimes 3 or 4 in the same province - why don't they merge them together and create an army that can fight mine?

Also, why only captains? I Have seen some gaulish family members, but they are invariably running all by themselves from one town to another.

I think the AI uses all its family members as governors, and uses none for genearls - thus, they never have any good generals to oppose yours with.

I would like to see an AI tweak that would put lotsof weak rebels popping up in ai lands that the ai generals can clear out for experience and whatnot.

Also, it would be great if an AI army could lose a battle w/out wholesale extermination. In MTW, lots of times I'd win, and a large part of the enemy army would flee away to safety. (Including their good general).

Here, an AI general loses one battle and he is dead.

[Ktonos]

Well, most of Ancient battles with huge armies was decisive. The losser would just fall apart. Either its army would just fell to the last man or the remaining forces would scarce around after the troops lost confidence to their leader. Darius had 3 major battles against Alexander. In Granicus he fielded about 30.000 men, in Issus 55.000 and in Gaugamela about 500.000.After every succesive defeat he had to gather new troops for the next battle. When he lost in Gaugamela about 30 to 40 thousand Persians (and asian allies) were killed in the field. But the bulk of his army scattered around after seeing him fleeing. Only his bodyguards remained by his side.

[Tim]

Darius had 3 major battles against Alexander. In Granicus he fielded about 30.000 men, in Issus 55.000 and in Gaugamela about 500.000.

The first two figures are probably close to the actual number of men he had. But 500,000! No way. Those are Dragon Ball Z numbers.

[ChaosLord]

Ah, well if its just for sallying forth that would make sense. Sallying forth itself is a little odd, it handicaps the defender from the start, if you try to rush out your men get cramped and the enemy rushes you. Sallying forth shoudl let you deply your army outside the gates before the battle. Right now its easy just to sally forth, man the walls with archers and lure the enemy in to be slaughtered with no chance to get at you.

I've fought three "the Mighty"(Legendary Commander) AI chars, two were Gaul/Carthaginian Kings, and the other was the Egyptian heir. The two kings both put up a fight, but the Egyptian heir seperated from his army and I caught him out in the open. Which makes me wonder if the AI tries to move as far as it can sometimes, without taking into account all the troops in its armies. So with family members being cav they outrun their infantry on the campaign map and the like.

Mostly thing 2 stars is the best AI commanders I see, the Egyptians have been tossing alot of 2-3k stacks led by Captains at me. Which aren't as easy to kill as it sounds because they're chariot/bowmen/pharoh bowmen/desert axemen armies that are upgraded. Usually at least 2 experience, i've seen as high as 6 though.

That said, the AI really needs some way to get more govenors/generals, they just don't use them as often as the player. I really think bringing titles back would help, have the AI programmed to use them for only that region and it'll free up family members to lead armies.

[Didz]

Its certainly beginning to look like a cultural thing as most of the complaints seem to apply to Gauls.

Now that I cme to think of it I was at war with the Gauls during the early game and never saw anything from them other than small wandering fleets. They sued for peace when I seized and enslaved their settlement at Salona and I haven't had any dealings with them since.

Perhaps its a problem with settlement size, Salona only had a tiny population and was quite incapable of being used to replenish losses amongst my troops.

Maybe they just have problems raising large armies.

[ToranagaSama]

Ulstan, Didz,

It just might be Faction related, don't know yet.

Not only do you have all these little Armies handed by Captains as Ulstan pointed out, but you have "Family Members" wondering around with the smallest of all the Gual armies. I seen 3 or 4 such "Family Members". The AI made no effort to consolidate under with the Family Member.

In fact, I don't believe a single army in battle was headed by a Gual "Family Member". Anyone else experience this? This *might* be the result of Difficulty level. A higher Difficulty level might result in Family Member lead armies. Confirmation?

[Lichgod]

I also find the numerous tiny battles tiresome.

Playing Carthaginian, Hard/Hard.

Auto Calc is a big NO NO if you have elephants. Everytime (about 20 experiments in various situations both battle and siege) where I have overwhelming advantage (5-1 or better) using Auto Calc, the elephants take heavy losses. One case, 600 Carth vs 80 Guals, auto calc, I suffer nine (9) losses – all elephants. I only had 12 in the army. I never autocalc if elephants are in my army. BTW, I like to put one elephant in each of my big armies. Sigh

General gaining stars is way too easy. Chasing bandits (but not killing them) is guaranteed to train your general to three stars quickly. Almost one star a turn.

I did find out that bribing the bandit army might be better. Had a bandit army of a peasent, Iberian Lt Inf, and two Spanish mercs (the pila guys). For 1510 gold, they surrendered with the peasant disbanding and the other three joining me. The Spanish mercs normally cost 750 each and hard to replenish once you buy em, so good deal was had.

Maybe the general gaining stars could use a point system like this:
2 pt for winning on battle/siege map (not where the enemy just runs away on the campaign map)
-2 pt for losing a battle/siege (but your general should be dead anyways, right?)
1 pt per 250 enemy dead after subtracting half of friendly losses, (enemy dead – friendly dead/2) = body count. This would be a running number kept between battles.
-1 pt for 250 friendly dead after subtracting enemy losses, (friendly dead – enemy dead) = body count2. Again, running number kept between battles.
2 pt for killing a enemy faction member (note several may be on the battle field at once)
-3 pt for losing a faction member (AI reinforcements = ouch!)
1 pt for defeating an enemy general per three stars defeated. Running total kept so two battles, one vs 1-star and one vs 2-star = 1 pt.
+3 pt if enemy faction member killed is Heir
+8 pt if enemy faction member killed is Leader

Promotion/Demotion occurs as points accumulate:
3 pt = 1 star
9 pt = 2 star
18 pt = 3 star
30 pt = 4 star
45 pt = 5 star
63 pt = 6 star
84 pt = 7 star
108 pt = 8 star
135 pt = 9 star
165 pt = 10 star

(((Previous Points + (Previous Star x 3) + 3) = new point total


So, over time, you have a leader:
Win 30 battles = 60
Avg 250 kill difference = 30
Kill 6 faction members = 12
Kill an Heir = 5
Kill a Faction Ldr = 10
Avg 1 star enemy ldr per battle = 10
Total 127 = 8 star leader (almost 9 star)

[Tim]

Ulstan, Didz,

It just might be Faction related, don't know yet.

Not only do you have all these little Armies handed by Captains as Ulstan pointed out, but you have "Family Members" wondering around with the smallest of all the Gual armies. I seen 3 or 4 such "Family Members". The AI made no effort to consolidate under with the Family Member.

In fact, I don't believe a single army in battle was headed by a Gual "Family Member". Anyone else experience this? This *might* be the result of Difficulty level. A higher Difficulty level might result in Family Member lead armies. Confirmation?

I didn't think about the AI using them as governors. But, could it be that the reason you dont' see family members is because they don't survive the first couple of battles against any other AI factions they've come across? I don't think I've come across an army with a commander with more than a star or two. The reason is simple. They die easily.