Battlefield AI still incomprehensible

[Red Harvest]

I've been trying some multi-unit play/balance tests, and the AI is driving me NUTS! It is just awful sometimes...ok, a lot of the time.

Typical example: Trying to test legions vs. phalangites, 3 units each. No matter which side I play, the AI tries to reconfigure its line about 50 yards from my line. WTF? It had a quarter of a mile to do this, but noooooo, it waits until the men are in shouting distance, then does a keystone cops routine right in front of my line. Does it want me to slam into the flanks of its men, or what? Why in the world doesn't it do a "formation check" before it marches up to spitting distance? It always seems stuck in reactive mode.

When it has the phalangites/hoplites it likes to start with the 3 unit deep formation. WTF? Spears are meant to be used as a wall not a column. Even if I line up my legionaires three abreast (using the formation buttons before start of battle) it advances its units in column. And does it correct this horrendous default deployment before advancing? Of course not, it waits until each unit reaches the range where it switches to phalanx, then decides, "Hey, you need to go over there, and you go over there."

The only positive thing I can say about the test is that it does try to flank with the legionaires at the last moment. It advances with 2 in front 1 behind, then switches to 3 abreast in the "reaction zone" then starts to flank with the two outer units. It would be a lot more intelligent to advance 3 abreast and spread out earlier before reaching the reaction zone...

I'm still trying to figure out what CA fixed about suicidal generals...because in the campaign I've seen no evidence that the AI is less likely to charge with its general.

And why advance archers to the reaction zone in the inner half/third of their range before using them?

And why amble up slowly with cavalry vs. a lone unit of archers?

My head hurts...

[Colovion]

For these and other reasons that weren't addressed in the patch (kill speed etc...), I don't think I'll be playing much anymore.

[drone]

For these and other reasons that weren't addressed in the patch (kill speed etc...), I don't think I'll be playing much anymore.

I've been wondering about the AI and kill speeds. The AI does a lot of "stupid" things, if the kill rates were lower and the battles lasted longer, would some of the AI tactics have improved results? The outcome of a lot of battles is determined in about 10 seconds, then the chain routing begins.

Maybe the AI has a good tactics (let's give it the benefit of the doubt for a moment), but the fast kill rates and run speeds allow the human player to exploit maneuvers before they complete. I haven't modded much (I barely have enough time to play vanilla these days), but maybe reducing the run/kill speed might show better overall battle results for the AI.

Take this assumption (again with enough salt to seed Carthage), and then assume that the CA design team was told to increase the speed of combat at a late date in the development. Easiest way to do this: increase attack values, increase run speeds. Maybe the AI tactical adjustments were left behind.

I guess my question is: with a slow-modded R:TW (maybe RTR, haven't tried it), does the AI seem to work better because the battles take longer and there is more time to adjust the lines?

I have seen requests for kill rate slider bars, maybe this should include movement speeds as well. Or maybe I'm just talking out of my %$#@*.

[Come Together]

Also keep in mind (according to the previous threads) that the A.I. is worse in custom battles, for god-knows what reason. But i agree, the Battlefied AI is ok at best.

[_Aetius_]

Ive seen some evidence that AI generals are more intelligent, for example more often than not now there general unit goes for my one, and infact in a battle i just finished a few minutes ago it nearly suceeded in killing my general had i not seen it just in time.

However they do seem to get into the thick of the battle still, its very hit and miss, Im no modder and i know nothing about designing games or the AI but it surely cant be THAT hard to tell the AI charging your generals unit into phalanxs is a bad idea, and it surely cant be THAT hard to improve the time it takes for battles to take place, I just feel that everytime one problem with the game that ruined it is eradicated another even worse one comes up.

Id of gladly waited a couple of months longer for RTW if it meant the game would be rid of such irritations that make the £35 price tag abit steep since ive had to wait months for an at best hit and miss patch. This game even months after its release is still able to disappoint me in new and ever more idiotic ways.

[Red Harvest]

From the initial release of RTW (including the demo) there has been a stupifying tendency of the AI to rearrange its battle line just before it reaches the "charge zone" at 30 yards/meters (probably at range of 50 to 70 yards/meters.) It is a major fundamental flaw in the AI's structure. I can understand having some localized reaction in this zone, but major crossing of ones own lines directly under the nose of the enemy is a recipe for disaster. By this point the battle line is essentially "committed."

With cavalry and some fast units the blunder can be survivable for the AI, but with phalangites and most other infantry it is catastrophic. The only time it turns out well for the AI is when they player issues individual attack orders too soon. The lead computing will then cause the player's units to do a similar criss crossing. This is why I learned to "march through" with a grouped battle line. I issue my attack orders in the last few seconds as rapidly as I can, hitting the AI's most vulneralbe units first, and allowing my other units (that I don't have time to command) to walk into the fight.

I am very skeptical of the AI being fixed in an expansion pack this year.

[_Aetius_]

CA will do what they always seem to do, get rid of the annoying petty bugs and paper over the cracks of the real problems.

I have seen this reforming there lines just before a charge, infact I think it might be a tactic that has a use, i attacked a roman army with my greeks, I had as you can expect mostly armoured phalanxs etc.

The roman army had the usual threes line of infantry, just as i was getting to attack range i chose the target units for my phalanxs and they started turning slightly towards their targets. The roman did this reforming manoevre which looked like suicide but it sent my phalanxs going in a million different directions trying to follow there assigned targets, this confused me so much as i couldnt tell which unit id told to attack which roman unit and when they reformed my centre was wide open praetorian cohorts piled through and well my army wasmostly destroyed.

It was incredibly dissorientating, as i was tyring to reform my line the roman had already reformed and attacked, I think it has a geniune use in specific circumstances but perhaps the AI just doesnt realise that 1 tactics isnt useful in every situation.

[screwtype]

From the initial release of RTW (including the demo) there has been a stupifying tendency of the AI to rearrange its battle line just before it reaches the "charge zone" at 30 yards/meters (probably at range of 50 to 70 yards/meters.) It is a major fundamental flaw in the AI's structure. I can understand having some localized reaction in this zone, but major crossing of ones own lines directly under the nose of the enemy is a recipe for disaster. By this point the battle line is essentially "committed."

Hmm you may be onto something there Red. I have also noticed that phalanxes which are attacking me often seem to start overlapping and bunching up as they approach my line. Which is kind of weird.

I was thinking the other day that one of the problems with the AI seems to be that individual AI controlled units each select a unit to attack, and then carry out that attack regardless of the rest of the army. Essentially, instead of one big, coordinated attack, you get lots of little individual attacks, which are often quite easy to beat.

I think they need to add some sort of routine that enables AI armies to mount more coordinated attacks, at least when the AI is commanded by a reasonable general.

It would be a bit of a challenge to accomplish this, I'm sure, but surely not impossible. I've noticed for example that when as the human player you group units, they stay in exactly the same formation as when you first grouped them.

All that would be required to have the AI mount well coordinated attacks, then, would be for the AI to group its units and then, say aim its line of grouped units at the most centrally located enemy unit, or aim it at the area where the majority of enemy units are located.

Then you could have, for example, a majestic and perfectly coordinated line of AI phalanxes marching up to trash your army!

Of course there would be problems writing such routines. For example, at some point the AI would have to decide to decoordinate its line so that unengaged units would not just stand there doing nothing. Working out exactly when to decoordinate would be tricky, but not I think impossible.

I am very skeptical of the AI being fixed in an expansion pack this year.

I am sceptical of the AI EVER being fixed, since after all this is the fifth game in the series and it's still not noticeably better than in the first game. But we can always live in hope I guess...

[Crazed Rabbit]

I've heard that (In Duke John's AI thread in his Japan mod) the AI may be extra stupid in custom battle mode because they need a certain amount of stars to not be total morons in their tactics. And since no generals get stars in custom battle mode...

Of course, even the most moronic general wouldn't run his archers into hvy inf or other such things.

And why, for the love of goodness, couldn't they make KILL SPEEDS ADJUSTABLE!?!?!?

I'M SICK OF IT!!! I'm not going to buy the expansion when the best they can do with RTW is totally ruin the feel and gameplay by having super sped up battles!! I mean, the SPEED ADJUSTER is there for people who WANT it to go faster!!!

Ok, rant over. I'll admit I had fun with RTW for a week or two, but now I've seen the depths of its gameplay, and it is shallow.

Crazed Rabbit

[HogDog]

I thought some guy made a kill speed mod and a movement speed mod?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I play quite often MP games, and I got to say human tactics are also quite baffling

Everyday, online, you can see players doing all kind of crazy stuff! Including me!

Sometimes one wonder if playing online does not make the AI look better.

By the way; in MP games, AI got no star general too (you can play with bots in MP), however, gives the AI 30% more money and a decent rush army, and it's quite apt. However, AI really got issues with missile troops, and is subpar when compared to human players on that regard.

Louis,

[HicRic]

The AI wouldn't be nearly annoying as it is if it wasn't for the fact that it was much better in both Shogun and Medieval. Why go backwards?

It isn't because the battles have suddenly become more in-depth and complex or anything. They're just the same old battles we fought over good old Japan but with 3D people instead of 2D people. (Although of course STW gave the 'suicidal diamyo" bug it's name, so it wasn't perfect.)

I don't recall playing MTW and seeing archers charge men-at-arms, generals impale themselves on spearmen, or the entire AI battle line collapsing before I've made contact.

[drone]

I thought some guy made a kill speed mod and a movement speed mod?

I'm sure somebody out there has one. I'd be curious to see if the AI tactics work a little better with it. If the AI adjusts it's line at 50-70 meters, and the run speeds are reduced to a realistic rate, will the AI have time to finish before a player can charge the confused mass? Does the AI take into account distances between opposing units (bad), or the time to cover the distance (good). The AI should only use absolute distance for missile fire, all other distance decisions should be normalized by unit speed. This should give the AI a huge advantage (to compensate for programmed inflexibility), since the computer knows the exact distances and time needed to complete a maneuver.

Hopefully, there is an overall tactic chosen for the battle (based on terrain, stack strength, stack composition, leadership, etc.), then the individual units have some leeway within the chosen tactic. If AI captains don't get enough stars to qualify for a sensible battle plan, this would explain some of the insanity (every unit for themselves). This would make the AI's family members even more important. Assassinate/bribe/kill a few family members, and the faction is essentially neutered (exacerbated by the suicidal leader effect).

I assume the AI uses a weighting scale for it's decision making. It would be nice if we could adjust these weights, but that would probably be giving away too many AI secrets.

[Oaty]

Well on the campaign the senate army seems to be the best. 1 it has elite troops, all have 3 exp points for the most part almost always led by a general. Why do I always beat the senate army? Because it's a slugfest with bothsides having good troops but the A.I. is the first 1 to use up all it's reserves. It is then I can start making maneivers behind there line, plug a thin part of the line. Basically because they have no reserves I have complete control of the battlefield.

Magical moment. I had the Britons completely suround my army, yea surprised me a bit, unfortanately the comp did not get a trigger in all of it's glory of micro management to close the gaps and come crashing down on my army. It let me make piecemeal of the circle they had around me.

On huge units the comp does not understand depth, a few things usually happens. 1 it's long clanky line get's battered by 3 units routing it quickly and even though they outstretched your lines by a mile they don't get to the main conflict in time. Or it's long line causes it to rap a unit quickly and at this moment the unit is extremely vulnerable and gets sandwiched on a flank and with the kill rates the part that got sandwiched is dead instantly.

The pile driver method. For some reason the A.I. will gangbag a flank with 10 units all at once. Unfortanately it's 10 guys on 1 but that also means I have 1 unit tying up 10 units sure almost everytime either that unit gets decimaed or routed but it gave me enough time to manuever on a mass of troops to flank or double flank that maneuver because they get crowded in.

Your hole line on guard mode is pretty nasty to the comp. The whole scheme of the A.I. is to go in 1 at a time and turn the flanks of your battle line. and then the comp rushes in on those flanks. With no flanks being turned it results in the comp sending in 1 unit at a time. Right there I think that is the number 1 reason the A.I. is so poor.

Battlelines A.I. has no concept there. And I usually do'nt do funky setups, 10 units or so all in a row and nothing funny about it. The A.I. makes very poor decisions on determining my line.

Rock paper scissors is'nt too much of a factor anymore. Cavalry starts dropping as soon as the charge dies. and phalanxes facing cavalry will massacre the cavalry. I very rarely see the opportunity in the beginning stage of the battle to get a free shot on skirmshers with cavalry because the cavalry will just get mobbed, so why does the A.I. always do a suicidal charge wasting there cavalry right away. If the comp actually saved there cavalry for last or tried to win the flank they'd be deadly......... and and and maybe with this concept they would have a real reason to reduce the killing rates to give the humans a chance

Phalanx VS phalanx. Did a custom battle with both armies matching exactly with militia hoplites. Everytime the comp loses. The comp will march in a straight line and I did the same exact thing so fatigue would be equal. As soon as the lines clash the comp ends up with exposed flanks. What the A.I. tries to do is not hit the unit in front of them but the unit next to the one in front of it.

[Red Harvest]

Phalanx VS phalanx. Did a custom battle with both armies matching exactly with militia hoplites. Everytime the comp loses. The comp will march in a straight line and I did the same exact thing so fatigue would be equal. As soon as the lines clash the comp ends up with exposed flanks. What the A.I. tries to do is not hit the unit in front of them but the unit next to the one in front of it.

It seems to be trying to flank at the last moment...forgetting that it also has flanks... It also tries to do a leader on leader match up from what I've seen, but it waits until the lines have nearly closed to attempt this. Probably some of both aspects in play here.

[Duke John]

Lately I have also been researching the battlefield AI and for the sake of keeping my sanity I decided to just leave it alone and start scripting my own battles.

My foundings were:

AI archers storm your battlelines without regard of having a large body of AI combat troops left behind. Sometimes this doesn't happen, but I still don't know why; higher ground, numerical advantage...?

Cavalry is used by the AI to attack your skirmishers and not to guard the AI flank (as it should be). If it has cavalry units besides the general it will first attack with the normal cavalry before using the general. This all happens before the combat troops have reached your battleline.

Infantry moves up ordered as a single line towards your line. When they come within a certain distance some kind of algorithm starts to work. To me it seems that each unit works out individually if it can beat a certain unit. The first run it almost always refuses to charge, and retreats, then tries again and again and again, until at one point the odds are good and the AI unit charges... all alone.

As a result I can win defense battles without using my mouse even once. I just set up my battle line, make my flanks angled and let the AI do its dancing and charging.

[screwtype]

Rock paper scissors is'nt too much of a factor anymore.

No, it's not. In the previous games, infantry played a much bigger role because they trashed any spear unit they came into contact with. In RTW it's the other way around, infantry units are a bit lame against spears. Unfortunately, if you're playing as the Romans you don't have a decent spear unit - or a decent missile unit either - which kind of cuts down on your options. So you have to rely on cav as your decisive arm instead. At least, that's how it's been for me.

[Red Harvest]

My foundings were:

AI archers storm your battlelines without regard of having a large body of AI combat troops left behind. Sometimes this doesn't happen, but I still don't know why; higher ground, numerical advantage...?

Cavalry is used by the AI to attack your skirmishers and not to guard the AI flank (as it should be). If it has cavalry units besides the general it will first attack with the normal cavalry before using the general. This all happens before the combat troops have reached your battleline.

Infantry moves up ordered as a single line towards your line. When they come within a certain distance some kind of algorithm starts to work. To me it seems that each unit works out individually if it can beat a certain unit. The first run it almost always refuses to charge, and retreats, then tries again and again and again, until at one point the odds are good and the AI unit charges... all alone.

I'm quoting most of this because it is exactly what I have seen both in custom and in campaign. It is rare when the AI actually comes out and skirmishes. This has been true throughout the release and patches.

A real hint of depth of the problem, and problem in the AI programmer's approach, is that the default setup is with skirmishers behind the main battle line. Why did they choose this? It doesn't make sense. Skirmishers and archers should be in front or beside the line to screen the main force and soften up approaching forces. The point of missile units is to fight from maximum distance, without sustaining losses. Even if the AI possessed a missile unit with phenomenal melee, it should "want" to expend its ammo first, *then* charge into melee. Every dead enemy is one less that has a chance to kill it in hand-to-hand.

[drone]

AI archers storm your battlelines without regard of having a large body of AI combat troops left behind. Sometimes this doesn't happen, but I still don't know why; higher ground, numerical advantage...?

This happens a lot. When the pri/sec attack bug was discovered, I assumed the AI was making the right call here. If the unit's attack value is very high, why not charge? They have fixed the actual combat calculation, but did they miss other AI computations that use attack values? When determining whether or not to charge, are they still using the primary stat for missile troops? Missile troops should only charge if they are out of ammo or as a last resort.

[Fridge]

Just a note, R:TR does have a kill speed mod (I think it just changes the swing rate), and just the extra time before a unit routs does give you more tactical options - committing reserves, flanking, maneuvering, etc. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't appear to change much, and so all that happens is the player gets an even bigger advantage over the AI.

[drone]

A real hint of depth of the problem, and problem in the AI programmer's approach, is that the default setup is with skirmishers behind the main battle line. Why did they choose this? It doesn't make sense. Skirmishers and archers should be in front or beside the line to screen the main force and soften up approaching forces.

True, what is up with that? I spent a little time back in November looking through the data files, trying to find a way to set the defaut unit settings (fire-at-will, guard, etc.) at the start. Then I got sidetracked looking for a beginning formation scheme, so my deployments might be a little easier at the start. No luck on either. At least in M:TW they gave a set of formations to choose. Now both sides get the basic (reversed) formation, the human just gets a chance to fix it.

Originally Posted by Fridge
Just a note, R:TR does have a kill speed mod (I think it just changes the swing rate), and just the extra time before a unit routs does give you more tactical options - committing reserves, flanking, maneuvering, etc. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't appear to change much, and so all that happens is the player gets an even bigger advantage over the AI.

Thanks. Like I said, maybe I'm just talking out of my &*%@. Edit: How about movement speeds though?

[Duke John]

I'm doing some more controlled tests on relative flat ground [Prippet Marches] in all cases the AI is attacking to see what tactics it uses. With Inf1, Arch2 I mean the AI Infantry unit number 1 and the AI Archer unit number 2.

Tests with infantry

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #1|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=2|=0|=0
6^AI|=1|=0|=0
[/table]
Run 1: AI moves up to the middle of my line and walks against my unit.

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #2|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=2|=0|=0
6^AI|=2|=0|=0
[/table]
Run 1: AI general attacks my general. Other AI unit makes flanking move to the right and flank attacks my general. My other unit is left unengaged.
Run 2: Switched my general to the left flank. AI general still attacks my general. Other unit attacks my right.

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #3|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=3|=0|=0
6^AI|=2|=0|=0
[/table]
Run 1: Same result as test #2, run #1.

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #4|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=6|=0|=0
6^AI|=6|=0|=0
[/table]
Run 1: AI army starts in the following formation and keeps it: 3 in frontline, 2 in 2nd line, general in 3rd line. 1 unit of 2nd line breaks off to my left. Entire remaining AI army charges into my army as soon as they in charging range. AI flanking unit breaks off flanking manuevre and piles on the already crowded battleline.
Run 2: My army in a single line. AI goes for 2 left most units. 1 AI unit makes flanking manuevre only to abort and charges my frontline.

Tests with infantry and archers

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #5|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=4|=1|=0
6^AI|=4|=0|=0
[/table]
Run 1: My archer unit is placed closely in front of my line. Inf1 and Inf2 charge 1 unit of mine. AI general pursues (didn't really notice a charge) my archers into my frontline. The Inf3 starts flanking manuevre but aborts it.

Run 2: Archers placed in different group and more to the front. Inf1 and Inf2 start flanking manuevres, 1 breaks it off, the other actually flanks. Inf3 AI unit charges my line. AI General pursues archers into my infantry.

Run 3: Archers placed in different group and on my right flank. AI General charges at archers(!) then breaks off to attack my Inf which is very close by. Other 3 AI infantry neatly charge my battleline.

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #6|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=4|=0|=0
6^AI|=4|=1|=0
[/table]
Run 1: AI stops his formation when his archers are able to shoot my troops. After a couple of rounds the AI infantry moves forward and then attacks my whole frontline. Archers move forward 5 metres and then start shooting again (possibly to reach my general who is slightly back).

Run 2: Same as Run 1. Except that halfway the march of the AI 2 enemy infantry started to swirl of a few seconds (to flank or not to flank?) before pressing on.





[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #3|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=2|=0|=0
6^AI|=1|=0|=0
[/table]
Run 1:

Run 2:

[Fridge]

Thanks. Like I said, maybe I'm just talking out of my &*%@. Edit: How about movement speeds though?

Movement speeds are greatly reduced as well - I got a massive shock when I went back to R:TW 1.2 and infantry seemed to be charging me at the speed of cavalry... Some people complain that the animations now look like the units are moonwalking, but then, some people will complain about anything. Like how much other people complain about stuff.

[Fridge]

Duke - impressive stuff (where do you find the time!?). Do you think perhaps you could give us your brief conclusions on the AIs performance each time? While its useful reading your descriptions, it would be even more helpful to get your overall impressions having watched the runs in action.

[drone]

Movement speeds are greatly reduced as well - I got a massive shock when I went back to R:TW 1.2 and infantry seemed to be charging me at the speed of cavalry... Some people complain that the animations now look like the units are moonwalking, but then, some people will complain about anything. Like how much other people complain about stuff.

How true.

Oh well, one theory down. It would be nice if we could turn on a battle log, that not only kept the combat calc results but the AI decision points as well. Surely CA already has something like this for test purposes.

[Duke John]

More tests (I will keep conclusions for later):

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #7|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=4|=1|=0
6^AI|=4|=1|=0
[/table]
Run 1: Archers up front. While my archers are shooting, the entire AI army keeps moving forward. Then halfway AI army starts running. Then halts. Inf1 and General charge 1 unit. Inf2 and Inf3 flank, Inf 2 aborts.
Archers loosen and start shooting. Inf 2 moves 10 metres infront of my unit, waits and then charges.

Run 2: My archers are deployed on my right flank. Same as Run 1 except that AI inf only starts running when AI archers starts shooting. Inf 1 and General aims for archers only to redirect 20 metres before by battleline. Other 2 units attack my left unit. Middle unit is virtually left unengaged.

[table 0 3 1]
2^ Test #8|Triarii|Archers|Cavalry
6^Player|=4|=1|=0
6^AI|=4|=3|=0
[/table]
Run 1: Archer deployed right forward. Arch1 and Arch2 start shooting at 2/3 range untill my archers are down to 43/80. Arch3 shoots at 1/2 range. Infantry remains standing. Archers start shooting at my infantry until 2/3 of my ammo is spent and my infantry is down to 50-60/80. Infantry runs forward and charges perfectly, distributing units along my whole frontline... just a perfect charge!

Run 2: Archer up front (40 metres). AI army stops at 2/3 missile range. AI archers shoot at my archers until they are down to 37/80 then start shooting at my infantry. Infantry charges when my archers used up 2/3 ammo and my infantry are down to 61-71/80. Infantry charges again my whole line.

More tests coming later.