Smith/Napoleon/Caesar etc?

[lars573]

The AI recruit ment routine has nothing to do with what the AI does in battles, just what they are going to bring to said battles. I've played the game enough to have a decent idea of what the army the AI is going to throw at me most of the time.

[Kraxis]

lars is right, there is a vast difference between Henry and Caesar, Stalin and Ghengiz and so forth. What you face is ultimately determined by these preferences. How you face them or in what numbers or how they fare has nothing to do with these preferences. So they work.

[tai4ji2x]

i never said anything about AI performance in actual battles. i'm just saying that these settings, although they have perfectly predictable outcomes, are not always optimal for any particular faction. hence i'd say effective, but certainly not "perfect"

[Kraxis]

To that I can agree. I think there is a lack of a personality that actually tried to build a balanced army (not smith). A bit of light infantry, a good center of heavy infantry and some heavy cavalry. You know a true Carthie setup. Napoleon is possibly the best to simulate it, but it lacks the heavy cavlary. The same with Ceasar. Then you only see the round shields. Henry means a severe lack of infantry of any quality.

So yes, the list is far too limited.

[Colovion]

i never said anything about AI performance in actual battles. i'm just saying that these settings, although they have perfectly predictable outcomes, are not always optimal for any particular faction. hence i'd say effective, but certainly not "perfect"

for me it seems that it doesn't matter what units they produce, because they're always wandering around in small groups - almost always leaderless, while the leaders wander around on their own

sometimes they get lucky and put their forces together, but even when a full stack comes at me - it has no leader. So until the campaign AI is a little more thoroughly fleshed out, I can't really see any nuances in their behaviours because they all act the same ways when broken down the the basics; like idiots.

[lars573]

for me it seems that it doesn't matter what units they produce, because they're always wandering around in small groups - almost always leaderless, while the leaders wander around on their own

sometimes they get lucky and put their forces together, but even when a full stack comes at me - it has no leader. So until the campaign AI is a little more thoroughly fleshed out, I can't really see any nuances in their behaviours because they all act the same ways when broken down the the basics; like idiots.

My personal theory on that is they were intended to collect into an army at some point and march on a target. Also the AI seems to use 1 or 2 fast moving units as scouts in your territory.