Explanation of Suicidal Generals from CA

**Dutch_guy** · 03-24-2005, 20:08

it's good that CA actually commented on this matter
also nice to know that they are trying to make a better AI in the next products

**Oaty** · 03-24-2005, 21:11

So if the generals are modded to a weaker unit, and then taking into account they have a unit of cavalry that is stronger than the general............ would I be less likely to see the general on the opening phase of combat.

Movement speeds in a way kills the A.I. even when support was alongside the cavalry it is quickly lost in the quick charge.

The other problem is I found a weak center is a killer for the A.I.

I've found it is usually best to put your worst units in the center. Well the A.I. hits your weakest units pushing them back and in no time the A.I.'s best units are surrounded on 3 sides

**Red Harvest** · 03-24-2005, 21:27

The weak center effect makes sense. I've long used the approach of keeping weaker units in the center. Great generals sometimes did this with weak or unreliable units (Hannibal for instance.) It boosts their morale because they are near the best officers, they are supported on the wings, and they can't very easily run away. No wonder the AI is always charging my center with all its captains and generals.

I'm glad to see CA's explanation, but I still can't understand why they didn't opt for pushing other strong units against the weak point, rather than the general's cav. He really should have been used primarily as a heavy reserve.

**SpencerH** · 03-24-2005, 22:32

Its not that generals shouldnt be thrown into the fray, its that timing when to use generals is tricky. Too soon and they get chopped, too late and they're ineffective. There must be some way to mimic human calculations as to when to employ them.

**Red Harvest** · 03-24-2005, 23:05

I err on the side of not throwing them in until I'm sure they will be decisive or can't easily be killed. I'm not quite sure how to get the AI to make the same determination other than holding them as a heavy reserve. Most of the time when I commit my general it is to *counter* the AI's general or cavalry. The rank and file are already committed.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 03-25-2005, 04:15

If the enemy has a large advantage in number, style and ability of troops they do not usually do the suicide general charge. I was playing my Sparta campaign today and had to take on a Roman army that heavily outnumbered my troops. The general was only comitted after the computer's flanking attempts had failed and my phalanxes were reforming. Seems to keep with what CA said...

**Attalus** · 03-25-2005, 05:03

Nice to see a post from a CA staffer!

Heck..even Sega is posting at the .com these days...(did anyone ever hear from Activision?)

It's also reassuring that CA still appears to consider the TW franchise a viable product and is more than likely considering either an expansion or parallel product.

Gee...this post sounds like a bit 'o trolling...but I'm just happy to see CA actually communicating with us 'target audience' again.

Not just giving us the 'party line'.

**Kull** · 03-25-2005, 06:36

Originally Posted by SpencerH

Its not that generals shouldnt be thrown into the fray, its that timing when to use generals is tricky. Too soon and they get chopped, too late and they're ineffective. There must be some way to mimic human calculations as to when to employ them.

There probably is. Most good generals - and all great ones - could sense when the enemy's morale was at it's weakest, and knew that was the time to "throw in the reserve". Since this is a game, unit morale level is a mathematical number, and hence potentially "knowable" by the AI. The recommendation which follows is probably not moddable, but should be "codable" if CA really wants an elegant fix to the problem:

Given that unit morale is a mathematical value, it should be possible to hold back the AI General until such time as he "knows" an opposing unit is about to snap, and then - and only then - would the AI release the General into the fray. Better yet, you could adjust this "knowledge" using a factor based on the General's Ranking (number of stars). For example: During a battle, as soon as the first enemy unit sees it's morale fall to a critical value (such that one more shock would surely break it), this value is immediately passed on to the AI, which factors it. If the AI General has 1 star or less, there's only a 40% chance he'll get the order to attack. If it's 2-3 stars, maybe it's a 50-60% chance, and so on until you get a 5-star or greater general who will be given the unfactored number and will always know "the time is right". The corollary to this is that AI generals who never get that message will withdraw rather than fight at all - which I suspect is the more realistic historical outcome anyway.

(Note: The number of stars and corresponding percentages are just examples, the real values would have to be playtested to find the optimal combinations)

**Red Harvest** · 03-25-2005, 06:40

Kull, I can't disagree with the basic premise...except for trying to adjust if for general's stars. That is a slippery slope. I'll stick with the ideology of focusing on building one decent AI. (The old KISS principle.) Now, if the AI gets so good that the average human player cannot beat it on equal terms, then it is time to start artificially handicapping it. We are a long way from that at the moment.