CA: This has got to STOP! (AI Control is simpley a source of Frustration)

[ToranagaSama]

Another thing,

The Campaign Map needs some sort of * proximity indicator[ion]* where a Player will be aware which nearby Stacks will be including in a battle and AI controlled.

During my last bout of play, more than once I was confused as to PRECISELY which Stack would be included and which wouldn't.

Proximity is the key, but there is no indicator as when a Stack is close enough to be included and when a stack is distant enough to not be included.

This can be important when manuevering Stack on the Campaign Map, attempting to setup two-way, three-way, or better ambush. That is attacking from multiple directions upon a target(s).

This can also be quite important when attempting to rush additional troops to the soon to occur battle, particularly in the case of defending against/attacking a beseiger.

For example, a Full Stack is besieging one of your cities, but there's only a half stack garrison. Obviously, you need to get some additional units in the vacinity QUICK.

If you manage to get some units in the vacinity in good time, when the city's garrison sallies forth or the besieging force breaks thru, whatever additional units within the correct *radius* will be included/incorporated in the battle as Reinforcements.

In terms of Planning, a Player NEEDS to be aware of the precise *radius*. At present there is NO indicator.

---

I had this happen in my last battle. My city of Males??? (captured Gaul city on the Italian side of the Mountains) was being besieged by a full stack. There was a nominal garrison. I had a third stack pre-stationed just to the east in the woods at the opening of the Pass.

I was moving my *battle* Army(, one unit shy of a full stack) to bear upon the besieger, and was expecting my army in the woods to be a part of the battle as Reinforcements, hitting the besieger from two directions, as well as out-numbering the enemy.

Buttttt, NO!

Apparently, that little army wasn't actually within the necessary *radius* (or whatever).

Now how the heck would I have known? Looked close enough to me.

[Nerouin]

I agree about this.. in a battle today I had to rush my cav into position and attack so that my supporting army wouldn't get themselves massacred.
Of course, I forgot I was on the defense- the supporting army moved into defense position- and my cav ran over the enemy army anyway, but still- I dread fighting a battle with comp controlled allies, because there is a lot of potential for the computer controlled family member to die. I often even move them away so that I will have control of the other army myself!

I suspect CA will be fixing this. Have no fear, people, and enjoy the good parts of the game!

[barocca]

i think the "radius" is the zone of control,
when you are moving an army and it stops because path is blocked and it is standing on a little red square and has lost all remaining movement then it is in a zone of control,
bring another army in and launch at attack on the "blocking" armys and both your armies will be (unless "delayed") in the battkle, you will command the army that actually "launched" the attack.

I use single units of cavalry as scouts so that my main armies dont get "caught" in an ambush or blocked by an unforeseen enemy units "zone of control"

I also use single ships as scouts for the same purpose when i am moving a large fleet - or an important one carrying an invasion/relief force.

[Octavius Julius]

I like getting help from the AI.

What needs to be solved is the AI General.

AI General's should be setup like this:

- They remain out of combat when controlled by the AI.

- If the battle isn't going well for the AI, only then will the General's unit engage

- If the battle is really bad, the AI General should flee or should submit to the attackers

If the AI General loses a battle, he should still remain alive 90% of the time even if they lose. There should be an imprisonment or capture element possibly.

[Nestor]

There's obviously some kind of misunderstanding in the development process of the game: I actually want to win. If the AI is up to the standards of a human player, I would love to have it handle some of my troops.

It's not. So, get it out of my way. I don't want/need any help! I can win/lose by myself!

Give me a proper enemy AI and I will reconsider my opinion...

(I would accept it if my second stack would actually revolt and attack me in the battle ... Trying desperately to find enough interest in the game... modders rock, by the way...)

[metatron]

*Stands alone*

I like it. In MTW, you were supposed to be the King (or general, depending on the situation). When the AI comes into play, it represents another politically ambitious man who wants glory for himself. He has his own army, he isn't subordinate to you (well, he's not in your army, so you can't get orders to him easily, if at all), and there's a rebel army. What would you do?

[SwordsMaster]

I tend to Have a balanced army for myself (or some trickier units such as HA or hoplites, and give the AI general (carefully chosen to be the most useless of my heirs ) ONLY cavalry or heavy infantry that can be charged into the enemy head on. And thats what I always get.

Easy. There are always some useless drunkard-pervert-minion-ill-or-otherwise- disabled-for-normal-glorious-existance- family members that will save you the effort of sending an assasin on them and will do well as cannon fodder leading a glorious last charge against those pesky Pharao's guards or phalanxes or other pointy unadvisable targets.

[*Ringo*]

The Campaign Map needs some sort of * proximity indicator[ion]* where a Player will be aware which nearby Stacks will be including in a battle and AI controlled.

There is an indicator, an area around enemy units will appear red when showing your unit's possible moves. The campaign map works on the principle of tiles (or squares on a chess board if you like) therefore around any unit there are 8 possible places for supporting armies to be placed.

In terms of AI controlled stacks, it's perfectly possible (although not in every case) to control both stacks. Just ensure that your main force doesn't have the full compliment of 20 units & it doesn't have a general commanding it. Then when reinforcements arrive in battle you will be able to control them on a unit by unit basis just as in MTW! I often separate 20 unit stacks sending my cavalry round the back of enemy forces to attack the rear, as long as a captain is commanding the supporting force i can take control (of course sometimes reinforcements can be delayed and having no cavalry can be a bit of a pain ) But generally works really well.


Hope that sheds some light on how to avoid suicide generals!!!

*Ringo*

[HopAlongBunny]

Just had this happen twice.

First one: Brutii army attacks a lone Eastern Infantry standing outside the walls of one of my cities; the garrison of 1000+ sallies to save their buddy!; I have control of the lone EI and the AI general massacres my army against a clearly inferior opponent.

Second case: beseiging a city; one stack with general over 1000 troops and a lone Thracian merc beside the stack; AI sallies and attacks; I have control of the Thracian merc and the AI general zerg rushes/destroys my army...battle a "draw" so seige maintained but over half the army was destroyed. It actually should not have even been close; if I had controled the army I think I could've even taken the city with fewer losses.

hehehe it just hurt to watch the AI screw up soooo badly, and not be able to do a thing about it.

[Mr Frost]

...He has his own army, he isn't subordinate to you (well, he's not in your army, so you can't get orders to him easily, if at all), and there's a rebel army. What would you do?

Well , I would avoid getting killed to begin with .

Not a very good way to further political ambition is getting killed . Most politicians advise against early demise for the stopping-your-political-career-completely effect it has on most people .

You don't have to merely take my word for it though , you could try it yourself : Get yourself killed , then try becoming President of the United States , you will discover it is impossible after you are deceased !

[*Ringo*]

You don't have to merely take my word for it though , you could try it yourself : Get yourself killed , then try becoming President of the United States , you will discover it is impossible after you are deceased !

...i dunno, Bush's brain died years ago!

*Ringo*

[Lord Ovaat]

.i dunno, Bush's brain died years ago!

He seems to have enough brain cells left to have thrashed his "opponent".

Do I sense a sore loser?

[*Ringo*]

I couldn't care less, nothing to do with me. Just going on the evidence of most of his public addresses!!!

*Ringo* (thinking of new ways to harm Bush's reputation)

[yonderboy]

Way to stay on topic...

Anywayz, a lot of ppl seem to forget that one of the biggest frustrations that Roman generals had was... OTHER Roman generals. There are enough famous battles where one Roman general was winning until his idiot cohort blundered his way into defeat. Just be glad CA doesn't have the "i'll be general today and you be general tomorrow" system that the early Romans were fond of.

Personally, I find the pathfinding more frustrating than stupid generals. In general (no pun...) I find friendly generals somewhat relieving in ONE specific situation... when I need more fodder. I will never be upset when another faction, one of my "allies" wants to help. They're more than welcome to die for me.

That being said, there are too many suicidial generals. But as for the non-ability to control ALL of the troops on the battlefield... the ability to instantaneously control 16 units is a bit beyond realistic. Just be glad you don't have to have battlefield messengers or flag systems or semiphor or tin cans with a wire between them.

That ALSO being said... the AI really does suck at times, but that aside, god I LOVE this game!!

-yonder

[ToranagaSama]

Well, *some* of the opinion has got to related to, one's experience and skill level, and whether one is playing Vanilla RTW, or a Mod; particularly one modded to adjust combat to be more inline with that of MTW and/or the MedMod.

I wouldn't necessarily argue, that, if, playing Vanilla, what does it really matter....

Vanilla, and, specifically, the assisting AI feature is clearly aimed at the Novice and/or Casual TWer.

---

The notion that the AI general is attempting to mimick some alleged *real* behviour is, to me, a bit far-fechted. If this were the intention, then why not give full control to every one of the Generals and have them behave in a similar manner as the Roman Allies.

Any stack with a General s/b allowed to roam the Map doing however the AI pleased. Crap, why not get rid of Player Involvement altogether. Oppps! I forgot, we've got that, its called "Autoresolve"....

More to the point, while TW is based upon history, it is NOT a historical simulation---IT'S A GAME!

Of course, there's a necessary level of *Abstraction* within the game, but EVERY General, save the one you personally control, acting as some suicidal idiot is beyond the Abstract---its ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that you're Roman competitors are *supposed* to be the other two Roman *Factions*, NOT some General in your army, that you are paying, and, probably, could order him to be killed on a whim.

To that, my man Nestor II has said it so wonderfully:

There's obviously some kind of misunderstanding in the development process of the game: I actually want to win....

ROFLOLPIP!

You speak my mind. One of the things I find interesting are the guys so focused upon creating the correct Roman army compositions, formations, etcetera, etcetera....

For me, it's all about the gameplay. Just give me enough info about the game mechanics and interface functions, and I'll show you how to beat the AI; without Cheats and without Cheesy Tactics.

It's all about the Gameplay, all about developing a skill level.

---

In terms of AI controlled stacks, it's perfectly possible (although not in every case) to control both stacks. Just ensure that your main force doesn't have the full compliment of 20 units & it doesn't have a general commanding it. Then when reinforcements arrive in battle you will be able to control them on a unit by unit basis just as in MTW! I often separate 20 unit stacks sending my cavalry round the back of enemy forces to attack the rear, as long as a captain is commanding the supporting force i can take control (of course sometimes reinforcements can be delayed and having no cavalry can be a bit of a pain ) But generally works really well.

Some of you are missing the point of my second whine.

First one: Brutii army attacks a lone Eastern Infantry standing outside the walls of one of my cities; the garrison of 1000+ sallies to save their buddy!; I have control of the lone EI and the AI general massacres my army against a clearly inferior opponent

THIS! is the problem.

As I said before, "I don't need NO help, beating the AI".

The *feature* either needs to be eliminated and/or a Player s/b able to turn it OFF.

---

Even MORE to the point, the *feature* is pure CHEESE!!! Yeah, isn't it quite Challenging to watch the AI beat up upon itself, and then sweep in for the cleanup. NOT!

BTW, anyone know if this can be modded out?

[Tim]

Lets face it. The game, AS IS, once you get past the fantastic graphics and the *newness* of it all simply BLOWS. I haven't played in about 10 days because I'm already sick of it. I've tried the Realism MOD and that doesn't help one bit. I can only pray that the patch addresses the vast majority of the problems with the game. Let’s e be honest, the AI is horrendous, both on the strategic and tactical level (which is worse?) and diplomacy is a JOKE! If the basic mechanics of the game are not fixed, then the game –for me at least- will not be played. Before the game came out, and for about the two weeks that I played it heavily, I wondered who in the hell could go back to Medieval? Now I know. Me.

The most egregious *$&%-up, without a doubt, is the suicidal Generals. How -how I ask you- did that get past the testers? And someone above posted that the poor battle AI, i.e., your AI, general-led forces, are realistic because they often sought to backstab each other, is out of their mind. NO, it’s like that because the AI is abysmal. My god, I just realized, my 11-year-old nephew has played it and is WINNING his campaign, and he’s as dumb as a box of rocks! Pathetic.

[Cid]

Afraid you're right Tim,

They went glitz. They just overhauled the graphics. Collective jaws were supposed to drop "Wow! Look at that guy go flying!" and that's that. Wish they had just moderately improved the MTW graphics and concentrated on advancing the AI, Diplomacy, historical detail and immersion aspects. Modders have made a valiant effort but I have a feeling that the TW series has taken a permanent fork in the road. Too bad because it was one of the few worthwhile games out there. Can't help feeling that Activision had a large part in this.

Back to MTW for me too. Hope modders haven't given up on it!

BTW RINGO, Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's...kind of in keeping with the glitz over substance gripe many here seem to have.

[Praylak]

Just yesterday I was having very similair thoughts to what you guys are saying here. It's upsetting to say the least. I've been modding and trying other mods, but in the end, (and I say this with a gulp in my throat), I think I'm going to start a new MTW campaign tonight. Whats so distubing is that I've had RTW for only month and I'm thinking this.

A reality I'm having troubles coming to terms with and I think its best I just face up to the fact that the games todays developers are aiming at just don't include me anymore. Graphics get the budget, gameplay goes to the can. I should have caught the hints CA was dropping left and right through pre-release advertising, but I was blinded by the glory of "uuuehh, loooks awezome". Thats the game of today and apparently thats all the majority of todays gamers want cause thats all we've been getting all across the front for the past several years.

(Say I'm wrong, please.)

[Mikeus Caesar]

I wondered who in the hell could go back to Medieval? Now I know. Me.

Me too. Due to all the problems with RTW, i'm thinking of returning to my absolutely brilliant english campaign, in which ireland is under siege from the almohads and the rest of europe is falling beneath the english boot.