Fixing Battle AI: The AI and Skirmishers/ranged units

[Woreczko]

Well, I have an impression that AI in general don`t know, how to skirmish (at least with foot skirmishers). In MTW AI skirmishers were quite annoying at times, they even provoced me to leave nice hilltop position a few times. However in RTW they are almost non existant. On offence AI tries to engage with his main battle line (ahem, a battle line ) as fast as possible and leaves no time for his skirmishers to act. On defence it`s too passive, it seldom throws them ahead to annoy pikemen or distract attention on the flanks.

On the other hand AI is very naive when fighting your own skirmishers. I managed a few times to provoce war elephants to pursue my peltasts, rather then clash into my flank. Yes, they finally ride down poor peltasts, but it takes them much time and energy, which could be spent much better elsewhere.

[Oaty]

Heres the problem, the A.I. is poorly made for an advanced player. First lets take out all skirmishers. Now lets give both sides 20 melee units. Now I will assemble my army 2 units deep. The comp will always go for 1 big flimsy line regardless of how I set up my army. Now as soon as I advance within an acceptable range quite often the A.I. will randomly charge in 1 to 3 units, so I halt the line and have them in guard mode. The A.I. is programmed to do this and works well against a new person and not an experienced 1. What the newby to the game will do is send units in on the fight exposing a flank. The comp counters by hitting you on the flank. With this method its a bloodmatch but usually if the human is the first to play this flank fest will lose due to the comps microsecond management. Now as for me and experienced players they try to keep exposed flanks to a minumum. The other thing with the comp having a long stretched line so they start coming in at the flanks but because they are coming from a distance you either have time to win the center or take out the flanking units 1 by 1. Heres a funny one, I outflanked the A.I. who had a line 3 times as long as mine. I hate A.I. cheating but heres one where I would be glad to let the A.I. cheat. Let the A.I. see your army before you deploy except when they are assaulting a city/town. Now they can deploy to match the length of your line or slightly outmatch it by having it longer by a bit, not 3 times.

Now for the skirmisher problem. There seems to be something funny here but I have a thought that may be true. Have you ever charged cavalry at skirmishers and watch them get massacred even though they were hitting a running unit in the back. Heres the problem cavalry can charge early legionary cohorts and do some nice damage. All stats are just random #'s. those cavalry that charged those cohorts have a charge speed of 15, the cohorts who were'nt moving take on the speed of 15. Now those cavalry that were chasing down those archer warbands were running at 11 while the cavalry was running at 13 and finally charged at a speed of 15. Deduct the speeds and that cavalry was charging at a speed of 5. with such a low charge speed wich might somehow factor in with the momentum text files makes it a measly charge. And this is why skirmishers can massacre cavalry. Maybe I will test this out in custom and have cohorts running from cavalry until they are forced to engage to see if the charge of cavalry is negated. Of course the easy solution is to have skirmish mode give a penalty of -5 to 10 defense to make this work right.

As far as the comp being poor with skirmishers and charging them lets first take how the human takes account of this. I'm guessing most playes like me use cavalry secondary, this is excluding horse skirmishers. Why waste cavalry on such loser units. If it's javelin class it's no big deal. Lets say I go into battle against 8 archers 8 eastern infantry(spearmen) and 3 cataphracts and 1 general. I have 10 cohorts, 5 Roman cavalry and 1 general. The only real threat of that army is 4 decent cavalry. I could let them have another threat against me and that is the archers but to counter that I march up and as soon as I see archers loading or come under fire all troops run to close the gap and this is what the comp needs to do wich renders there archers worthless.

Really it is quite simple. All the A.I. needs to do is an analyisis of what there strengths and weaknesses are and have a battle plan. Do we shoot them up charge them.

Now just a bit off topic on how such a poor A.I. made a WOW(they were the attackers). Well as normal the A.I. stretched a line 3 times as long as mine. The battle for the center went as normal they come in in unsupported waves and get routed. I keep my line organized and noone chases the routers down. After the waves have been routed and rallied I suddenly notice no matter wich direction I looked there was a Briton. I was in awe, completely surrounded and had 20 micromanaged units coming in. Wheres the replay save when you need it. Well I figured it was best to clear the rear and hold the center. So what do the schmucks do they pelt me from the front with 2 head hurler units while I secure the rear of my army. Funny thing is those big fat heads can penetrate the testudo. And no attacks came from the front other than missile fire. If only the Brits had exploited having me surrounded, instead I was allowed to make piecemeal of the rear the left flank and finally pushed forward on an army that had surrounded me.

MTW was a bit harder for me as I always ended up in a flankfest battle. But now that I have learned about holding a line the comp is a joke.

[Red Harvest]

I think it is more basic than that. The default set up in RTW at the start of battle is with my melee/spear infantry in front of my archers and slingers. Hello? That is bass ackwards again. Missile units at the start of an engagement should either be in front or on a flank. Putting them behind the line can result in greater friendly casualties than enemy, and the opponent can pepper your battle line at will without being in range. Fire from behind the line should take a serious accuracy penalty anyway because it is not line of sight and therefore should be considered indirect fire. If they can't see their target they are going to have to follow some officer/observers estimate of range. With stationary targets accuracy should improve as volleys occur. But with moving targets accuracy would be very low for indirect fire.

This poor initial unit placement suggests that someone really didn't give a lot of thought to the tactical AI. The computer side seems to start with this set up as well. At times it will advance ranged units through its main line so that they can fire. This can be quite effective, the question is, "What the heck were they doing in the rear in the first place?" And RTW is worse than MTW about allowing you to rotate the whole line to take higher ground away from the AI when it has inferior forces. It just sits there and watches you climb past it. Then it turns uphill to face you. This takes it from "tough fight" to "hopelessly lost."