RTW AI same as MTW AI

[JJU57]

I know this topic has been discussed before but I haven't seen some of my thoughts mentioned. While being new, I have played both games for many hours. I started with RTW and played it for three weeks. I then got MTW and played that for five weeks and am now back to RTW for the last three weeks. I play about 35 hours a week. I know I have no life.

This is what I have noticed. I was able to win in RTW by using good military tactics like high ground, flanking attacks, missles to soften up enemy, etc. I think I lost only one battle when a green army went up against a slightly larger vetern army.

When I got MTW I lost my first four battles. It seemed like the AI was better but in fact it wasn't. The real difference is in unit handling, morale and other non-AI issues. RTW doesn't care if the archers are more then two ranks while MTW does. I can't see why it matters and IMHO RTW is more accurate in this. Also in MTW you needed long lines to wrap the enemies flank. It seems MTW units didn't turn to fight on the side. RTW is more accurate as units do this. Once I learned that a thin 2 man line is better then a 6 man deep line battles became easy. The other big difference is that units seemed to have their own mind in MTW. I tell a calvary unit to position itself on the flank but wait before charging. But even before getting to their position they chage all alone. After executing one or two generals that would have stopped in my armies. RTW doesn't nearly have as many units doing what they want when they want. MTW had calvary charging before the enemy was locked in front and their charge would not be on the back as they never went to my required position. All of this has nothing to do with AI but made the battle much harder. The only way to prevent this was to move the unit so far back that it took way to long to commit when they were needed.

Finally, I started with the Polish in MTW. They had poor generals and low morale, not to mention just average units. RTW starts with the Romans who have better generals, units and morale. Therefore the battles are easier. But once again this isn't the AI.

In both games I've seen the AI rush to get the high ground, try to attack my flanks, reposition their units to protect flanks, and also try to get beneficial unit to unit matchups. Neither was great but there is not much difference. The only place where there is a difference is in how the general is handled. In MTW the general is almost the last to partake in a battle. In RTW the AI general might be the first as it depends on the unit. And in RTW the loss of a general is a bigger morale loss and penality then in MTW. This is the only real difference and complaint about RTW over MTW that is justified.

The other big difference is in how the reinforcements are handled. MTW had a hard limit on units and the rest were reinforcements. This had the effect that you couldn't chase down a routed unit to destory it and make sure it never rallied. You might run into a fresh reinforcement and get caught off guard. This then led to units rallying and attacking again. In RTW you can keep chasing the unit preventing a rally and this then increases the chance of the whole army breaking. Also all units are on the map at the start and hence you can plan accordingly. I remember in MTW I was pressing a large army and winning. Since I was the attacker I had to move forward. However, their reinforcement point was slightly behind and on the flank. Poof, units appeared and had my flank. Not only doesn't this have anything to do with the AI it isn't even realistic.

Another big non-AI issue that makes it seem like MTW is harder then RTW is that in MTW the enemy can retreat and thats it. In RTW they can retreat but you can then pursue. If you have movement left the next attack is forced and the AI must fight you. This means many more of the battles are lopsided with my larger force getting to fight the smaller army since they had no choice to retreat a second time.

I'm playing RTW because the battles are really about the same once you learn the MTW secrets. And the strategic game is so much better in RTW. The interface makes managing 50 provinces so much easier then 20 cities in MTW. Not to mention the handling of agents and ships. I also like the strategic movement so much more in RTW. In MTW it was one province no matter the size.

I know this was long but I just wanted to throw my two cents out there.

[Shaun]

welll i think that the RTW AI is very poor, infact it ruins the game, because all the new features(ones that werent in MTW) dont matter! Who needs ambushes,iv never seen 1! whats the point of all the new diplomacy options? the AI just says no to anything that isnt trade rights!
the MTW AI was better, as it was easier to makebecause of having less possibilities!

[JJU57]

There are really two AI's. One for the strategic level and one for the battles. Most of my comments were on the battle AI.

As for strategic AI RTW is better. If you want to see an ambush take a small army to Crete or up in the forests in Germainia. Of course you have to be at war. In diplomacy I've seen everything from alliances, bribes, trade rights, and I love selling my map early for $. MTW always said no to most diplomacy options. It was next to impossible to get someone married. The agents in RTW can now be managed and retinues moved between agents.

In MTW you had to check every city every turn. In RTW the interface allows you to go to a city that built a structure and then back to the list of all structures built that day. And how can you say that the movement system in MTW is better?

The strategic AI in MTW was just as dumb if not dumber. How many times did a faction decline a ceasefire even if they were down to one city and outnumbered? The naval portion in MTW was much worse and the positioning of troops was just as bad in MTW. I honestly don't see much difference in strategic AI and in fact with the new movement in RTW it is much better.

The difficulty in MTW over RTW was not due to AI but in interface restrictions and limitations.

[Shaun]

well the TW series will never be truly great untill they get the AI sorted out!

[Puzz3D]

When I got MTW I lost my first four battles. It seemed like the AI was better but in fact it wasn't.

The battle AI is very similar in both RTW and MTW. Mostly the AI tries to make the best unit matchups it can, but there are some problems in RTW that are not present in MTW.

The suicide general is a big problem in RTW. Basically, it ruins every single battle. MTW v1.0 had this same problem, and the programmer fixed it. Why isn't it fixed in RTW v1.2?

Phalanx units are very vulnerable on the flanks, but the AI doesn't seem to realize this about its own phalanx units, and doesn't seem to perceive when an enemy unit's flank is covered. It will break up its phalanx battleline exposing the flanks of it's own units in an attempt to make flank attacks on enemy battleline units which have their flanks covered. Other than that, the AI in RTW does seem to do the same thing with infantry that it does in MTW which is to overwhelm your weaker wing, and it will also try to flank the line with one or two infantry units.

Cavalry does flank to the outside in both games, but you'll notice that the timing of those flank attacks is better in MTW. I attribute this to a movement speedup in RTW which I think was applied after the game was initially balanced. If you notice there is a large difference between the running speed and the setup speed as the cavalry rotates into potition for the charge. It's as though the cavalry goes into slow motion to set up for the charge. You can observe this difference with flanking infantry as well.

In MTW, archers in close formation who are 3 or more rows back or 4 or more rows back in loose formation suffer a loss in accuracy because their view is obstructed by the men standing in front of them. This is also true of the entire unit if another unit is standing in front of them. If the archer unit is on a downslope, the accuracy is restored to the unobstructed condition for deep ranks because the men can see over one another and also over any friendly units standing in front of them.

In MTW, men do turn to fight when flanked, but not for a couple of combat cycles. This is probably to increase the effect of flanking. In RTW, I often observe men turning their back to a man they have been fighting and promptly being cut down because, apparently, all defense is removed from a man who's back is turned. I've observed units that would have won loose because of this behavior. Why would a man turn his back to someone he is in the process of fighting? It makes no sense as though it's just a random effect or the man is ignoring the primary threat and responding to someone who isn't near him.

Some units in MTW are impetuous and undiciplined. Many knights were like that historically. An impetuous unit can charge enemy units who are in close proximity without orders. You can minimize this action by keeping those kinds of units back away from the enemy. I wouldn't say they are so far back that they aren't available when needed, but they will be delayed. When I do need those types of units for close support I pay more attention to them so I can stop them if they charge too soon.

I recently had a battle against the AI in MTW on a map which had a valley running up the middle, and high ground on each side of it. Both armies started in the valley. The AI army moved to the high ground to its left, so I followed and moved to the high ground to my right. Once my army got up there, the AI army moved back across the valley to the high ground on the other side. I marched forward, turned and began to move toward teh AI army at which point it moved again to it's right to even higher ground. Eventually, it did engage me from that position which was to the left of my original starting position and was the highest ground on the map. I've never seen an AI army in RTW do something like that.

I was able to win in RTW by using good military tactics like high ground, flanking attacks, missles to soften up enemy, etc.

That's how I win in MTW as well.

[Shaun]

well i remember the AI in MTW used to just keep re-positioning every time i came close ti it, i chased it about the map, but eventually the time run out! i lost a few battles because of the AI doing that.

[TB666]

I agree with JJU57 that the AI is pretty much the same.
The AI was ok in MTW but the battles were too easy for me in MTW.
The problem was that the AI was very predictable.
I mean if you had a few battles then you would know the AI's moves, it was like reading a book. Just like the AI in Imperial glory.
The AI in RTW is a bit more random but unfortunately skips from complete idiot to genius from battle to battle.
Luckily the Darthmod really saved the AI IMO and made it a little more stabile.

[Shaun]

well ive never seen the AI be genius!

[TB666]

well ive never seen the AI be genius!

Well it was with Darthmod.
I never seen anything like it.
It was like they came out of nowhere(I was playing Jullii and the enemy was Gaul).
I had a huge advantages in numbers but somehow they slaughtered me.
Not even my 3 star general could save the day.
In the end, 1500 romans dead and only 300 gauls dead.
Grim day it was

[sunsmountain]

My opinion is that though the battle AI for both games (MTW and RTW) is similar, Rome: Total War has far more opportunities on the battlefield to **** up because of more features.

Features like:
- Phalanx
- Siege equipment that can move
- Cantabrian Circle
- Dynamic cavalry
- More complicated paths to execute Path Finding on.
- More levels of AI (army AI & unit AI)
- Warcry, Chant, etc.
- Pila thrown by legionares
- Fire missiles, pigs, etc.

You can imagine these new ideas & the graphics engine took a lot of implenting & debugging time already, before one can start on the AI (really the last thing one can do in a game production process).

But to respond to Puzz3D:

The suicide general is a big problem in RTW. Basically, it ruins every single battle. MTW v1.0 had this same problem, and the programmer fixed it. Why isn't it fixed in RTW v1.2?

Actually, the army will fight, and it wont have the overpowering bonus to attack and defend that valour/experience in MTW gave. It's something like -8 morale right after the general dies, but -2 soon after that. Unless you are fighting peasants, that doesn't mean instant rout.

Considering the AI treats its generals like crap anyway (just look at their traits), i'm sometimes glad they're disposed off. But it does get tiresome fighting captains most of the time.

Phalanx units are very vulnerable on the flanks, but the AI doesn't seem to realize this about its own phalanx units, and doesn't seem to perceive when an enemy unit's flank is covered.

I agree units decide for themselves now. In pinched & prolonged battles, this is good, but at the start of the battle, this is wrong.

Now MTW has army formations which have to move as one (even when its not smart). Typically the entire formation will move as one and camp on the highest ground... if and when MTW units behave on a unit AI level, they behave according to:
- standard AI, regardless of unit
- piecemeal, sending them in one by one. (just like RTW actually, its just that it happens more often in Rome because Rome uses unit AI more often. But at least its specialized)

Cavalry does flank to the outside in both games, but you'll notice that the timing of those flank attacks is better in MTW. I attribute this to a movement speedup in RTW which I think was applied after the game was initially balanced.

I agree. (CA are not going to change it because its motion captured)

To counter, Cavalry fighting Infantry actually feels like Cavalry fighting Infantry instead of MTW: Infantry versus Infantry.
This is most noticable when the enemy unit routs, and you want to quickly kill them so your cavalry can do something else after getting the kills for xp. You try to click behind the enemy unit, but in STW/MTW the cavalry unit reforms a lot of times while killing the routers, meaning they will take a lot of time getting in front of the routers and finishing them off. This is one big plus for Rome.

In MTW, archers in close formation who are 3 or more rows back or 4 or more rows back in loose formation suffer a loss in accuracy because their view is obstructed by the men standing in front of them.

I like either solution, i doubt archers on the ground could actually aim at any particular target. Horse archers is entirely different (Cantabrian circle, also absent in MTW/STW).

In MTW, men do turn to fight when flanked, but not for a couple of combat cycles. This is probably to increase the effect of flanking.

Besides the fact that you hardly notice an individual man's facing in a MTW unit, the RTW solution tries to be more realistic. If only they would fight while moving backwards, it would be okay...
... so i rarely turn the unit by hand and havent noticed the same extreme loss when they turn by themselves. Only the enemy units that attack that round get a chance and they still have to penetrate defense (granted, thats easy, but not if they're fighting your legionares, for example.. try it out).

Some units in MTW are impetuous and undiciplined. Many knights were like that historically.

I've actually rarely encountered this behaviour in Rome, even less than in MTW, because i pause a lot to observe what my men are doing at each point in time. It's irritating but realistic & okay when it happens.

Regardless, my flanking plans get executed quicker in Rome because of better mobility. If in MTW, one single man in the unit gets caught while marching behind enemy lines, the entire unit gets caught. In Rome, this doesnt happen, you can march on if you prefer, though it will cost you as more are 'caught' like this.

I recently had a battle against the AI in MTW on a map which had a valley running up the middle, and high ground on each side of it...<cut> Eventually, it did engage me from that position which was to the left of my original starting position and was the highest ground on the map. I've never seen an AI army in RTW do something like that.

Thank God, no! I hated that camper attitude the AI showed brightly and colourfully in each and every battle where there was as much as a hump that would qualify as a 'hill', it would be the AI's first standard order. Chasing the AI around maps with mostly hills around on the edge was a nightmare, especially if your army was stronger than the AI's.

You also couldn't really march your troop in MTW, since they would get tired over time, simply marching up to the enemy. In fact, when you were defending it would be wise to set up and wait, giving you a severe advantage, something that was frustrating if you were defending. (like, WHAT? you're Quite Tired because you Marched to your Enemy? How did you GET here in the first place??)

Let this interesting discussion continue.

[Del Arroyo]

One things is sure about the slippery MTW defending AI-- it is DAMNED annoying. It does make them hard to outflank, but I've seen them occasionally put themselves into a worse position this way. One thing I like about it is that I can usually influence them to move AWAY from forests, where they have an undue advantage because I cannot see a goddamned thing in those MTW forests.

And what is the deal with the bulls-eye rear guard it always leaves behind?? It seems that when the AI is retreating from one position to another, they will almost always leave one unit in front of my army with its back turned, and once my missle units bring it down to about half strength, it will move 3-4 more units in and hold them ON THE SAME SPACE so that in short order they are all decimated without me losing a single man.

As far as RTW, I've never played it, but people have said the pace of combat was super-charged, which alone was enough to steer me away.

DA

[PseRamesses]

I know this topic has been discussed before but I haven't seen some of my thoughts mentioned. While being new, I have played both games for many hours. I started with RTW and played it for three weeks. I then got MTW and played that for five weeks and am now back to RTW for the last three weeks. I play about 35 hours a week. I know I have no life.

This is what I have noticed. I was able to win in RTW by using good military tactics like high ground, flanking attacks, missles to soften up enemy, etc. I think I lost only one battle when a green army went up against a slightly larger vetern army.

When I got MTW I lost my first four battles. It seemed like the AI was better but in fact it wasn't. The real difference is in unit handling, morale and other non-AI issues. RTW doesn't care if the archers are more then two ranks while MTW does. I can't see why it matters and IMHO RTW is more accurate in this. Also in MTW you needed long lines to wrap the enemies flank. It seems MTW units didn't turn to fight on the side. RTW is more accurate as units do this. Once I learned that a thin 2 man line is better then a 6 man deep line battles became easy. The other big difference is that units seemed to have their own mind in MTW. I tell a calvary unit to position itself on the flank but wait before charging. But even before getting to their position they chage all alone. After executing one or two generals that would have stopped in my armies. RTW doesn't nearly have as many units doing what they want when they want. MTW had calvary charging before the enemy was locked in front and their charge would not be on the back as they never went to my required position. All of this has nothing to do with AI but made the battle much harder. The only way to prevent this was to move the unit so far back that it took way to long to commit when they were needed.

Finally, I started with the Polish in MTW. They had poor generals and low morale, not to mention just average units. RTW starts with the Romans who have better generals, units and morale. Therefore the battles are easier. But once again this isn't the AI.

In both games I've seen the AI rush to get the high ground, try to attack my flanks, reposition their units to protect flanks, and also try to get beneficial unit to unit matchups. Neither was great but there is not much difference. The only place where there is a difference is in how the general is handled. In MTW the general is almost the last to partake in a battle. In RTW the AI general might be the first as it depends on the unit. And in RTW the loss of a general is a bigger morale loss and penality then in MTW. This is the only real difference and complaint about RTW over MTW that is justified.

The other big difference is in how the reinforcements are handled. MTW had a hard limit on units and the rest were reinforcements. This had the effect that you couldn't chase down a routed unit to destory it and make sure it never rallied. You might run into a fresh reinforcement and get caught off guard. This then led to units rallying and attacking again. In RTW you can keep chasing the unit preventing a rally and this then increases the chance of the whole army breaking. Also all units are on the map at the start and hence you can plan accordingly. I remember in MTW I was pressing a large army and winning. Since I was the attacker I had to move forward. However, their reinforcement point was slightly behind and on the flank. Poof, units appeared and had my flank. Not only doesn't this have anything to do with the AI it isn't even realistic.

Another big non-AI issue that makes it seem like MTW is harder then RTW is that in MTW the enemy can retreat and thats it. In RTW they can retreat but you can then pursue. If you have movement left the next attack is forced and the AI must fight you. This means many more of the battles are lopsided with my larger force getting to fight the smaller army since they had no choice to retreat a second time.

I'm playing RTW because the battles are really about the same once you learn the MTW secrets. And the strategic game is so much better in RTW. The interface makes managing 50 provinces so much easier then 20 cities in MTW. Not to mention the handling of agents and ships. I also like the strategic movement so much more in RTW. In MTW it was one province no matter the size.

I know this was long but I just wanted to throw my two cents out there.

Agree. What I do miss from MTW in RTW is the generals ability to make a difference. Going up against a 10 or 1 star commander in RTW doesn´t matter but really did in MTW - remember? I also miss the AI´s ability to hold formations back in MTW and STW. This makes a HUGE difference IMHO. If the AI attacks or defends in formation the battles would be far better and longer thus giving the player more value and a better gameplay feeling. I also remeber that in STW it was impossible to lure an army from a superior defensive position, in MTW it took some work but was doable but in RTW it happens 10 times out of 10. Try it, just flank your opponent sitting on a hill he will regroup fronting you but will move off the creast of the hill. If you move staright ahead on him he won´move most of the times but if you flank him in formation he´ll regroup "off" the hill - moron!
How hard-coded could this have been for CA to implement a better/ smarter and more realistic solution to? Another supid example is when the AI is defending a bridge and you are the attacker. On many occasions he is attacking me going over the bridge being completely slaughtered meanwhile. On other occasions I just have to move one unit onto or over the bridge to "lur" the entire army to com across to my side. In STW this NEVER happened. If you where lucky you could send one unit over, with heavy casualities, and lure one or more units to start charging it thus coming into rasnge from your archers on the opposite riverbanks. But as soon as you retreat with your lure-unit the opponet would return to his army. Oh, boy I do miss STW-formation holdings and MTW-10 star generals..... but I do looove the special features and abilities in RTW.

[Shaun]

in RTW, i thought that for each star the gen had, evey unit gets +1 attack.

[player1]

True Shaun,
Every star gives +1 attack and increases the radius of moral boosting effect of generals.

No wonder when you have 10 start generals battleing captains that enemy armies rout on contact.

[ToranagaSama]

To Original Poster,

I respect the fact that what you posted were your personal observations, thoughts and conclusions, but I have to ask do you really think that you are qualified and experienced enough to discern the differences. Some of which are subtle, though quite significant. I really respect the time and effort you made, but experience is just that, experience---it doesn't come overnight.

No offense intended whatsover, but a more experienced and knowledeable player can read in your post that the results you are basing your opinion upon, are greatly effected by a lack of Tactical experience and knowledge, frankly your tactics are quite poor, though to be expected by a relatively new player.

Additionally, more significantly, your limited knowledgeable of unit behaviour, and overall *game* knowledge is VERY evident.

Your conclusion(s) is a *broad* stroke. What necessary to a true evaluation is a more experienced eye that highlight the subtle and significant differences in AI behaviour.

A quick example is the way you view the AIs efforts to get to *high ground*. Yes, both AIs will attempt to position themselves to the high ground. That is not the discrepancy, no one is claiming that RTW's AI doesn't go to high ground. See, your inexperience is hindering your vision in seeing the true discrepancy.

The difference is in the *manner* and EXTENT in which the AIs **use** high ground. MTW's AI does a more competent (some might say a more *human*) effort at USING hight ground. There's a difference in simply *moving* to high ground (a broad stroke), and *using* high ground (subtlety).

Also, I must ask WHAT verstion of MTW are you playing? I would venture to say that most *veterans* make their comparisons to a patched version of Viking Invaisons, which is a good improvement over an unpatched pre-VI version.

The game opens onto the battle screen. I am on the offense.

The first thing to note is that there is a MUCH greater opening distance between the opposing armies. I MUST march my army quite a distance, and even more imposing, over a VARIED terrain, with Hills and Forest to travel over, through, or to bypass.

*Generally*, a VERY different opening than RTW. While you may have to march a little in RTW, the variety of terrain including great valleys simply is not equal to MTW

The opening distance is a factor to be seriously considered, as a player wouldn't want to march his army across the field/terrain and arrive to engage the AI with *Tired* or *Exhausted* units.

You did mention "morale", but, I believe, you haven't taken into account ALL the factors that might be conscrewed under the term "moral". Such as *fatigue*.

So, while considering the above, and beginning to rearrange my army formation, what does the AI do? Well, it IMMEDIATELY moves its' army not simply to high ground, but to the left (my left), putting a hill and part of a forest in between us. Note, that the MTW maps are much more Terrain challenging than RTW! and, that the MTW AI has **multiple** options available in choosing *high ground*, etc.

I note the direction and general position that the AI is seeking to achieve. Now, this is where the MTW AI truly begins to show its superiority to RTW's. After having not played MTW for so long, and with my last playing experience being with RTW, I immediately realize that I'm not in Kansas anymore.

Memory begins to serve and recall, that, often with MTW, the *Opening* is a game of Positioning. This is the situation I was in. Traveling the most direct route, over the hill and through the forest, would not only tire my units, but disrupt my formation as well. So, I decide to counter the AI by moving my army to the right (my right) and up the same hill/mountain that the AI is sitting upon, only I'd be to the *far* right with a still very large gap between the two armies.

My purpose is two-fold, first to negate the AI's terrain advantage (even things out), and, two, to mange to get on even footing with the AI W/O having to engage with *tired* units. My units might be tired by the time they climbed the hill/mountain, but the distance gap would give them time to recover (gotta keep an eye on the clock!).

So, what happens?

As soon as, my intentions are clear, the AI adjusts!! BEFORE, I've completed my manuever, though I'm well on my way. That is my units have marched 3/4 of the distance to the hill/mountain and the AI then moves its position. It doesnt' simply move its position, BUT moves it to an equally advantageous position.

NOTE: the hill/mountain sorta begins on the right and sweeps left all the way around the map in an L shape.

The AI was pretty much situationed to the right and near the point of the "L". I had started to postion to the right near the *end* of the "L".

Again, so what does the AI do?

It repositions slightly to the Left of *point* of the hill. Causing me to re-position as well, and just about when I'm done, the AI repositions a THIRD time!! This time further to the Left. It position itself, remaining at the top of the hill/mountain, so that a a little patch of circular forest is directly in front.

So, get it, I have now moved my army from the far Right of the "L" to the far Left facing an upward battle, with a small forest directly between the opposing armies. I try to manuever by putting my Cav to the left most possible position which has the most level path to the AI's right flank, but the AI, re-positions *again*, so that the *forest* is a more direct barrier, which meant that my Cav would have to do an L shaped run to get to the AI, rather than just a *straight* run.

Note: I had to move my Army 180 degrees, and this one the THIRD re-positioning by the AI. MTW's AI (imperfect as it is) is the best AI of its kind in gaming, at the time it was released, and it'll have to be proved that there's a better one.

Additionally, the AI begins to manuever *individual* units to counter my own. Sorry, despite what you claim, RTW's AI DOES NOT do this! It does not make as good a unit-to-unit judgment. Spear to Cav; Sword to Spear; Stronger to Weaker, etc. (I have not played RTW since the patch, and I have noted comments that RTW is much better than previously. So perhaps this is a moot point.)

Yes, the RTW AI has had a forest to use, but simply becase CA/the game positioned the AI, from the outset, with a forest there!! In front of, or with the AI army in and among a forested area. I do believe that this is rather *common* in RTW openings.

Back to the battle, I gradually begin to move forward unit by unit into what I hope is striking distance. The frank fact is the MTW AI has me **outpositioned**, and its going to be a tough battle. Sorry, RTW has NEVER had me outpositioned----NEVER!

Understand what it means to be outpositioned.

Yes, in RTW I've fought *uphill*; but, not because the **AI** outpositioned me. Rather, because the map terrains were so poor. In those situations, generally, the *entire* RTW map is on a 'plane'. Sometimes, there'll be a forest positioned just so. I HATE forest both in RTW and MTW! So, rather than try to manuver in the forest, I'll just say F it, and go straight at the AI (against the plane/uphill). Frankly, the downhill advantage is so slight it really doesn't matter, anyway.

That's the ONLY basic circumstance where the RTW AI has ever had me outpositioned; and, as you can see IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE AI, but rather the **simple** map. By simple, I mean that the differences between the 'avenues-of-approach' are so little as to make no difference at all. There's, generally, just one basic approach on the battlefield in RTW. Where as in MTW, generally, there are multiple approaches, each with its on advantages/dis-advantages.

This may very well be a matter of JUST terrain mapping----MTW maps are far superior. I'm open to the possibility that RTW's AI just isn't *challenged* by the maps. Perhaps, it doesn't *use* terrain as well as MTW, simply because there's so little terrain to start with?!

There is *one* map where I've noticed the RTW AI to act challengingly. I don't remember the location, but on this map the AI starts out positioned near the top and on the slope of a huge very steep moutain. The avenues of approach are about 3 or 4, all of them are very steep. It's almost next to impossible to chase the AI off its perch, but, it can be done thru careful manuvering.

So far in my RTW experience *this* is the only challenging map, and its more annoying than challenging really. For one, the RTW AI doesn't note my position and then respond by taking the *perch* position above. NO, the AI *starts* in this position.

(A similar Shogun map would be Shiano, where the AI opens at the rear of the map perched atop a mountain.)

Yes, the AI will respond, if I manage to manever well, and re-position, but it doesn't reposition all that well; or, the map doesn't provide good alternative positions (take your pick!?).

Now, herein, again, MTW shines superior. In similar, perch type, positions, the RTW AI WILL allow the player to push it off. It will allow the player to gain a superior or equal position and/or it will re-act when it should not.

In the RTW circumstance described, the AI is basically in an impregnable position. One next to impossible to take w/o Cav; and w/o sending the Cav on a rather circuitous route at that. Yet, the AI can be pushed off!! thru manuevering alone.

In MTW, simply put, when the AI has such an impregnable position, it WILL not be pushed off, at least not without a skirmish or two, or more.

Additionally, the MTW will often began a battle in an advantageous position, with multiple unit engagement, begin to lose position, and, then, consequently, retreat to (more) advantageous ground to begin the battle anew. I have NOT witnessed RTW's AI do this.

In the MTW situation described above, the AI kept adjusting (adroitly) until it found such an impregnable position----and---it did not budge! In fact, it improved its position further by moving a couple of (tough!) units into the little forest! So that, if I chose to attack its partly exposed Left (my right), with the forest being to my left, my attacking units would be caught in an L shaped ambush. Taking the AI on uphill frontally and then being hit from my left flank by the units in the forest.

RTW's AI ain't that smart; or, at least the *effect* of the AI is not as great as MTW. Like I said maybe the maps are holding it back or something else (??).

I have not witness the RTW AI to *use* a forest or hill in such a deliberat manner (very human like). In RTW similar circumstances are created by **pre-positioning** and this is NOT done by the AI!

Yeah, I did win the battle, by the skin of my teeth, and at a price I did not intend, nor want to pay, which as result of the nature of the Campaign game--greatly effected my Campaign. I was rather taken aback at the difficulty I faced right off the bat. (Not to mention that I'm *rusty* as H!)

Granted, and, perhaps this is significant---I was playing the MedMod (beta), and playing on Expert.

Also, all my comments are in regard to the MedMod. I have not played Vanilla in a very very long time. So, it's possible that the MedMod, as intended, allows the AI to fulfil its potential to a degree significantly greater than Vanilla MTW, as well as greater than RTW.

Even if that may be so, I don't buy it, as IMVUHO, it is CA's responsibility and obligation, not simply to create an AI (and game) better and greater than the Vanilla version(s), but to create an AI (and game) that is effectively better than the preceding Modded versions. RTW s/b better than the MedMod, it ain't!

If you really want to compare the best that MTW has to offer, than get the patched version of VI and install the MedMod (3.14 version). I think it only right that this be the judgement basis.

I would say that all the majority of vets base their opinions not on Vanilla MTW, but on a patched VI and/or MedMod or other Mod. So, again, what version did you play?

In any event, while your thoughts, observations and comments are appreciated, the reality is that your view is based upon a scant few number of hours and experience vs. the countless hours and vast personal and cumulative experience of the veterans of the game, of which I include myself.

This post is long enough otherwise I would go futher into your comments.

Thank you for muddling through my overlong post!

~ToranagaSama

[Slyspy]

I would agree that RTW and MTW have virtually the same AI. That is what lets RTW down so badly. The AI simply doesn't work with the new strategic aspects of RTW, while it was sufficient for the MTW Risk-style map. At least MTW saw massed armies not sad little stacks. At least the Risk-board meant that generals fought with their armies not by themselves. Certain flaws in the tactical AI keep reappearing in each release (suicidal generals, marching aimlessly around under a rain of arrows etc) even when some of them have previously been addressed in patches.

[Volstag]

Having recently played a few rounds of MTW, I sorta have to agree with the OP. The TacAI might be marginally better than RTW but, in the end, it's not by a whole lot -- and I really think that with a few minor changes, the TacAI in RTW would be superior.

But as far as everything else goes: RTW wins hands down. The interface, the sound, the graphics, the empire management "tools", etc. The map change is way, way better than MTW. While the "risk style" movement of MTW isn't all that bad, the operational movement afforded by the RTW map is, IMO, totally superior.

If the StratAI in RTW would do a few simple things: attach good generals to big stacks, keep weak stacks out of harms way, etc, this would all translate into tougher encounters on the tactical map.

The one thing I wish they would add (since STW) is a simple city/general overview screen. For example: all the citites listed on one screen that you can sort by income, population, unrest, corruption, etc. Manage your recruitment/construction queues, etc. It's rather tedious to individually move through each city. An overview screen for generals/family members would be awesome as well -- sort it by command rating, influence, management, age, location, etc. As with cities, it's somewhat annoying to have click all over the map, hand examining every person, etc.

-V

[screwtype]

But as far as everything else goes: RTW wins hands down.

I totally disagree. I will probably never play RTW again, there's so little challenge it's boring and pointless. On the other hand, I can definitely see myself playing Shogun again. I almost fired up a new campaign just a day or two ago.

The interface, the sound, the graphics, the empire management "tools", etc. The map change is way, way better than MTW. While the "risk style" movement of MTW isn't all that bad, the operational movement afforded by the RTW map is, IMO, totally superior.

The interface in RTW is worse. It's big, bulky, ugly and dysfunctional. The group commands don't even work.

The sound is definitely not better. Shogun had by far the best sound of all three games. Great music, great atmospherics. All RTW has got is a bunch of boring speeches at the start of every battle that soon do nothing but irritate. (Is there a way to turn the speeches off? I'd like to know). Oh, and the silly voices in the battle itself stating the obvious.

And the operational movement on the strategic map serves no purpose, indeed the new map creates game problems that didn't exist in the earlier games. It's a pretty good example of bad design.

The one thing I wish they would add (since STW) is a simple city/general overview screen. For example: all the citites listed on one screen that you can sort by income, population, unrest, corruption, etc. Manage your recruitment/construction queues, etc. It's rather tedious to individually move through each city. An overview screen for generals/family members would be awesome as well -- sort it by command rating, influence, management, age, location, etc. As with cities, it's somewhat annoying to have click all over the map, hand examining every person, etc.
-V

That feature is already extant in RTW. From memory, just right click on the cities tab and you will get a scroll listing all your cities on the LH side of the screen. You can sort them in any order you like just by clicking on the column headings.

You can also bring up an individual city scroll at the same time by right clicking on a given city row in the LH scroll.

A lot of people miss these features of the game, I missed them myself for weeks, they are a bit obscure. The one thing that is missing IIRC is a field in the city list telling you what level each city is being taxed at.