Fewer but larger battles?

[Lord Ovaat]

Someone stop me if I'm not remembering this correctly, but it seems to me that waaaaay back in development, CA hinted/promised that RTW would have far fewer battles than MTW, but the battles would be much larger and far more significant and meaningful. I confess to not having played this game for the last week or more, simply because I am very tired of fighting battle after battle. There just is no end to the rebels, small stack harrassment, etc. This is NOT the way I remember MTW, where things could be quiet for turn after turn until the axe fell (literally) with 3 or 4 stacks hitting one province. And I ain't talking Mongals or Papacy here. What went wrong?

PS: Yeah, I play campaigns on VH, but it doesn't seem much different than my first campaign which was Julii Medium. Still, every turn the rebels are sitting there, going

[Mazoch]

Yeah, with the current AI in RTW, and the rebels there defenatly is a tendancy to many small battles over a few big ones. It's a shame really. I hope that some AI tweaks might appear from CA to change that (no idea if its realistic to hope for, but it would be nice).

[Spino]

Someone stop me if I'm not remembering this correctly, but it seems to me that waaaaay back in development, CA hinted/promised that RTW would have far fewer battles than MTW, but the battles would be much larger and far more significant and meaningful. I confess to not having played this game for the last week or more, simply because I am very tired of fighting battle after battle. There just is no end to the rebels, small stack harrassment, etc. This is NOT the way I remember MTW, where things could be quiet for turn after turn until the axe fell (literally) with 3 or 4 stacks hitting one province. And I ain't talking Mongals or Papacy here. What went wrong?

PS: Yeah, I play campaigns on VH, but it doesn't seem much different than my first campaign which was Julii Medium. Still, every turn the rebels are sitting there, going

Your memory serves you well. I distinctly remember CA stating in either an article or a post in one of the official/unofficial forums that we should expect fewer, more significant battles than we fought in Medieval.

Personally I don't mind the rebels but the incessant stream of understrength AI armies is driving me insane.

[Postino]

the replay value of this game compared to STW and MTW is shameful. i still bust STW out about once a year. the realism mod is nice but it is still the same bad AI, and still the same drudgery in the mid game(what used to only get bad ion the end game in ole MTW).

the Battle AI has not imrpoved one (significant) whit in all these games, i rember camping hills in Japan very well. destrtoying the fools whoi just reformed beneath me, i also seem to rember the STW AI having a better "charge this point" algorythm. the STW strat AI was better, a fair bit better, as it would horde up if it could but otherwise stay in the castles.

[ToranagaSama]

There was one significant advancement in the Battle AI between STW and MTW. In STW, the AI would only flank to either the left or right. In MTW, the AI would flank simultaneously to both flanks. This was a significant change.

I was truly looking forward to see what similar new tactic RTW's AI would bring.

The Disappointment, Oh, the disappointment. RTW's AI is worst than both the previous. Get's better, though, with things slowed to MTW speed.

---

I don't have a real memory regarding what CA said, but then I didn't really follow RTW's development too closely. I have not doubt that your memory is correct, but what if they did? They promised Campaign Multiplay TWICE!

---

TS wishes for a Veteran Only forum....

[Maltz]

AI extends their line very thin and long, so if they don't have enough units, they can't really turn to flank in time. If AI has 20 units then probably they have more chance to do that given the human player has slower and fewer units.

[Empedocles]

I believe I have another point of view in this subject.

In my case although I hate rebels, they don't appear that much in my games. I red the other day it was like a plague and everywhere rebel armies were appearing. definitely not in my case.

About the AI, it's true it has many things to be fixed but it's not that bad compared to MTW or STW!
In MTW I played Egyptians and were fightings french in northern spain when the Byz decided to attack my other frontier (really poor guarded) and after taking Antioch they stopped there! They could have easily make their way into Egypt before I could launch an attack.
In RTW I see same things but it's not like in MTW I was playing against Alexander!
In fact AI (with RTR 4.1.) gave me lots of headaches!!!
Also I agree that AI should merge their armies more often because it's sometimes easy to destroy them in separate.

Diego, from Argentina

[Slyspy]

I have already posted my opinions (poor) of the AI and the lack of development in RTW.

[dismal]

I was just recalling that in MTW a lot of times you'd beat a huge Army and the defeated faction would simply collapse, leaving a bunch of provinces up for grabs.

[phred]

I re-installed MTW-VI last week and played a Turk campaign, and yes there are far fewer battles. I definitely had as many as 20 or so turns in a row with no battles, but I still was enthralled enough to play one more turn. I quit when I conquered two-thirds of Europe.

[Mikeus Caesar]

far more significant and meaningful

Wrong. Most of the battles i play where the AI actually brings a nice sized army aren't significant. On medieval, the AI has tactics, and you can go for a while without battles, so then you can prepare your armies and have better battles. And whenever there is a battle on medieval, it is significant, because it means keeping or losing a province, or conquering a province.

[phred]

Wrong. Most of the battles i play where the AI actually brings a nice sized army aren't significant. On medieval, the AI has tactics, and you can go for a while without battles, so then you can prepare your armies and have better battles. And whenever there is a battle on medieval, it is significant, because it means keeping or losing a province, or conquering a province.

In RTW I've only seen one significant battle. I was besieged by two full stacks of Gauls in southern France, I sent a relief force and had a decent battle with four armies (my relief general's army defeated one of stacks on his own and didn't suicide) and utterly annihilated the Gaul armies. I then quickly took two or three cities with practically no opposition. The Gauls never recovered (this was at normal level).
but only one time have I seen it happen.

[Butcher]

Wrong. Most of the battles i play where the AI actually brings a nice sized army aren't significant. On medieval, the AI has tactics, and you can go for a while without battles, so then you can prepare your armies and have better battles. And whenever there is a battle on medieval, it is significant, because it means keeping or losing a province, or conquering a province.

That is due to the different type of stratergy map though. If RTW had the same type as MTW, then you would have the same aspect of each battle being significant.
However, in MTW these large battles often came about due to a 'cold war' style buildup across borders, especially in places where provinces touched on more than one other province (e.g syria). As you now no longer 'province hop' the potential for large armies consistently facing each other is lost, especially as the ai wonders around in small stacks.

[master of the puppets]

it is all true for me the rebels and poor enemy tactitions, but one thing tbhat i think is weird is the AI's hesitation to destroy you. in all my games i have plummeted to the deepest depths of dispair, sieges, lost cities, armies destroyed, but i always come out of it with a vengence because the AI won't fully destroy you.

i wanted to test this so one day i started a german campaign just to see what happens when all your cities are lost. i took all my soldiers out of all my cities and made a mass army marched it down into italy destroying cities and armies but never staying in the cities. meanwhile all my german cities are getting restless rovolting and the british are taking a few of my cities also but for some stupid reason i get down to one single city. it remains ever loyal always happy not a seed of revolt. and i have seen full british armies walk right by, so i decided to give my last city away to the julii...

just then my mother found my report card and i don't get to play any computer games till the end of january. IS THERE NO DECENCY? I HAVE GOT ULTIMATE A.D.D (also an above average IQ, go figure) WHY CAN'T SHE RESPECT THAT oh well this forum isall i've got left of thwe game otherwise im in my room blasting my mettalica really loud to tick my mom off

ok i got side tracked back to the thing we were talking about...

[KiOwA]

Put it this way: with the new strategic map, there are suddenly alot more ways to move out of your territory, and for enemies to move in. Perhaps the AI is trying to compensate by splitting its forces thin. Not a good idea though. It shouldn't be hard to program the AI to leave some forces in the homeland as guards, and group everything else into this kickass army or two, and head around on a conquering spree.

[Mikeus Caesar]

However, in MTW these large battles often came about due to a 'cold war' style buildup across borders,

I liked the cold war build-up. it gives you time to prepare for absolutely huge battles. Like on my MTW egyptian campaign, i have a huge build up of troops on my border with spain, which should be a good battle. And i've gone for 40 years without conflict.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Put it this way: with the new strategic map, there are suddenly alot more ways to move out of your territory, and for enemies to move in. Perhaps the AI is trying to compensate by splitting its forces thin. Not a good idea though. It shouldn't be hard to program the AI to leave some forces in the homeland as guards, and group everything else into this kickass army or two, and head around on a conquering spree.

Even with the new strategy map, the objective of the AI should be the same - to move armies in as straight a fashion as possible to siege and take your cities - therefore even with the huge possibilities of the new strat' map, even if they ignored features like advantageous terrain and sneaky back routes, the AI could still make a good stab and taking you out, without having to do anything complicated.

In my present Selucid campaign on VH, factions like Parthia and Pontus insist on sending innumerable armies of 3 or 4 eastern infantry into my lands, they even sometimes take the piss enough to try and siege a city. Although i really enjoyed the challenge of getting my ass whupped by four factions at the same time at the start of the game, with only militia hoplites and some bitch-ass cavalry to ward them off, the AI's inability to hold back and field meaningful armies instead of this incontinent drip of raiding armies is really quite dull. If Parthia just wanted to piss me off, she's doing well, but if she wanted to crush me, she ain't....

Maybe their strategy is that i'll get so bored of killing their cannon-fodder that i'll resign my kingship, and become a hermit in the desert, eating locusts etc....

[Mikeus Caesar]

That is true. When i first got the game, i was finding it difficult to beat gaul, because they were sending huge armies. But after i defeated about 6 of these armies, the only armies left were horrible piddly things, which were just a nuisance.

[Maltz]

I find the current AI are OK in getting full stacks given enough financial support - just not all of them are led by capable family members. Some are. We see all of the smaller stacks because we visit them a little "too early".

[Kraxis]

Quite simply the AI needs to hold back. Build up its army, then send it to attack or respond to incursions. The problem seems the AI considers every little area fully as much worth as everything else, and at the same time it ignores everything...