Is AI bad because of battle speed?

**Rodion Romanovich** · 05-06-2005, 21:08

Many people are disappointed with R:TW AI. I've thought a little and realized that one of the biggest AI mistakes is to keep reserves too often, a tactic that's very good if battles are slower. Anyone else think the AI would perform better with slower battle speed (i.e. more hitpoints and higher morale)?

**Azi Tohak** · 05-06-2005, 21:13

Slower battles happen for RTR, but I don't think the AI is any better. Much more fun game, but still, the AI loves to impale their horseys on large pointy things. Man...even my sister knows better than that!

Azi

**Jacque Schtrapp** · 05-06-2005, 21:44

That may have some affect. I am playing the SPQR 3.0 mod and the creator has jacked the armor levels up into the 40s and 50s to slow down the kill rate. Since I'm not slaughtering the enemy within mere seconds of the our line closing and the AI doesn't immediately rout, I have had some more realistic battles. It makes a difference to me.

**Oaty** · 05-06-2005, 21:57

I've thought a little and realized that one of the biggest AI mistakes is to keep reserves too often

Actually I think it's quite the opposite. Of course it's all a matter of the fact you may use different tactics.

Patience is quite the key here. Too often for me the A.I. will send in all it's troops. As soon as the A.I. is engaged and I have reserves, I am free to make piecemeal of the A.I. because they have no reserves anymore.

Now you may say this is impossible with the kill rates. But the trick to lowering the kill rates without a mod is not to allow(or minimize) units that get engaged on thier flank and use guard mode. This reduces thier killing power but also minimizes the rate at wich they are killed.

Now with the core of your army holding it's position and pinning the enemy, you can bring your reserves out and roll up the flank.

Now I understand it can be hard to program an A.I. to have good timing when to use it's reserves. But the A.I. can be programmed to hold reserves at some ratio to the human player. The few times the A.I. does have reserves I am quite often forced to hold back just for the fact I have no more options left to counter there move and also don't want my cavalry in a meatgrinder sandwich. On top of this the A.I. should make an attempt to shadow the movement of my reserves with theres.

Even with my 19 units engaged against there 20 and I only having 1 reserve unit can make a huge impact on the fact I was the last 1 with a reserve unit. That last lone unit is quite often the the starting domino of the chain route.

**drone** · 05-06-2005, 22:02

I asked this question a long time ago in one of the many "AI sucks" threads. I was wondering if slowing down the absurdly fast run rates for infantry and cav might help the AI generate a better attack formation. Someone (probably Red Harvest) tested it and came to the conclusion that the slower movement did not help at all. I think it's just that there isn't an overall battle plan for the AI army, just a bunch of units acting independently.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 05-07-2005, 14:47

@ oaty: yes, keeping reserves is a clever tactic, one of the most important tactical decision there are on the battlefield but it's ridiculous when the AI sends their footmen forward and keep their cavalry WAAAAAAY out on the flanks to hit my flanks when I've already routed their footmen, pretty much. That's what I meant with AI keeping reserves out of battle too long. If kill rate is slowed down and you play very hard, the AI morale should more or less force you to try and flank the enemy in order to keep your own footmen from routing and then the enemy reserves would have an effect by charging your flanking troops. The other AI problem I can think of is when AI tried to charge phalanxes from the front too often. In non-phalanx warfare the AI isn't nearly as bad, even though it's lacking in many aspects - among other things because it has bad timing. I'm trying to make a mod for the Dark ages and I believe I'll get quite good AI results compared to the vanilla AI slightly slower battle speed, slightly slower unit movement (especially for heavy infantry) and powered down cavalry plus less powerful spear units. Hopefully that combo will result in getting the most out of the current AI code.

@drone & oaty: ok, I guess I was wrong in that battle speed slowing down would fix all things... just a thought... Hopefully the other changes I've come up with will in total result in something useful.

**Oaty** · 05-09-2005, 03:30

@ LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

AI sends their footmen forward and keep their cavalry WAAAAAAY out on the flanks to hit my flanks when I've already routed their footmen, pretty much.

I think there may be a solution to help you there. I'm guessing you are on large/huge units. You can mod a units depth so the A.I. does'nt have that long rediculous line with reserves on there flanks. Also when the A.I. has more depth to there units they are WAY harder to route. And when they do route more of the unit is preserved.

Infantry get the biggest benefit from this but you should also increase the depth of cavalry to reduce the chances of it getting hung up on multiple units.

Reccomended depths (my oppinnion), this is for huge unit sizes. 160 man infantry unit 8 ranks deep. 240 man unit 10 ranks deep. Any other specialty infantry(smaller than 160) I left at default. As for cavalry if it is melee cavalry I put them at 6 and skirmishing cvalry at 5. I made all javelins have a depth of 6 and archers and slingers 4. I got tired of the A.I. maneuvering there missile troops with ease. Also take out all horde formations minus wardogs. Paesants are still worthless out of horde formation but gives them a little more bite.

**screwtype** · 05-09-2005, 05:55

Originally Posted by drone

I think it's just that there isn't an overall battle plan for the AI army, just a bunch of units acting independently.

Yup, that is the problem in a nutshell. Each unit just does its own thing without regard for what the rest of the army is up to.

The other problem is that even while each unit is only up to doing its own thing, it can't even do the right thing. So you have ranged units making melee attacks. Phalanxes plodding after cavalry. Cav charging spears. And so on.

**pezhetairoi** · 05-09-2005, 07:18

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Much more fun game, but still, the AI loves to impale their horseys on large pointy things. Man...even my sister knows better than that!

Azi

LOL! *collapses laughing*

But, anyway. *ahem* back to the issue at hand, AI is crappy because it sees everything in the single-unit light, i.e it has no macro-vision of the entire battle. At the very least the AI should know how to exploit gaps, how to manoeuvre to strike the rear if possible, and how not to allow itself to get chased to the edge of the battlefield on skirmish mode. Right now the only units of mine that get hit in the rear are those that get hit because their rear happens to be facing the charge, not because the enemy got there himself. Which sucks. I would certainly like a little more challenge since they charge at the first thing they see, be they civilised or barbaric.

**sapi** · 05-09-2005, 08:36

The main problem as i see it is that the ai won't ever hold a line in battle,even with phalanxes.

As soon as one of my units breaks, the unit facing it will chase after it, opening a hole in the enemy's line that my other units, as well as reserves, can immediately exploit. If the ai could just stay in place while working on its strategy (like cavalry flanking), it would fight a lot better, and be far more cohesive (imo).

Even guard mode doesn't seem to help (as far as i can tell with phalanxes, they use it by auto).....

...Just some thoughts, feel free to rip them apart with your limitless time for testing and previous results

(it always happens)

....

**pezhetairoi** · 05-09-2005, 10:49

Seems true in my battle experiences.

**screwtype** · 05-09-2005, 13:53

Originally Posted by sapi

The main problem as i see it is that the ai won't ever hold a line in battle,even with phalanxes.

You're essentially stating the same problem a different way. The reason the AI doesn't maintain a battle line is because all its units act independently.

I agree though that it's totally silly that the AI will start a battle with a formidable-looking phalanx line and as soon as the battle gets under way all the units just branch out in their own separate piecemeal attacks making them so easy to pick off. If the AI would only do something as simple as keep its units close together, it would be so much harder to beat because you wouldn't be able to pick off units one by one.