RTW AI same as MTW AI

[Puzz3D]

And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In MTW/STW you will lose some battles, and even when you win, you usually take significant losses. In RTW you almost never lose, and your losses are usually negligible. Of course, this is also due in part to the slower combat and routing of the earlier games but it also has to do with the AI.

The faster combat in RTW depresses morale more, and I don't think the AI considers that when deciding to send it's units in to fight. It appears to use morale in deciding whether to stay and fight or withdraw, and that's what I've observed in all the Total War games. After that, in STW and MTW, it will attempt to make direct attacks with units that are stronger than the target unit and indirect attacks with units that are weaker. LongJohn added some scripting to MTW to make cavalry flank more often, and stop the general from attacking.

RTW seems similar, but a little more prone to make direct attacks against the weakest part of the enemy line while doing some flanking with cavalry. The timing of these attacks seems wrong, and is better in battles where movement speed and combat resolution are slower. In modded battles, where the fighting last longer you will even see the AI flank with infantry units, and it's effective. The number one cause of the AI failing in vanilla RTW battles is that its army routs. Obviously, the AI is underestimating the ability of its units to stand and fight.

CA could move away from an AI that tries to make individual unit matchups, and plays in a more grand tactical style which is actually more realistic. Have the army maintain the battleline, flank in force with a group of units that are suitable for that task and use a tactical reserve to block breakthroughs or exploit gaps that develop in the enemy line. Get rid of the low morale so the fighting can last longer. This means you won't be able to win with 10:1 or 20:1 casualties inflicted unless you have a much, much better general than the enemy.

The low morale is there for one reason, and LongJohn stated the reason during discussions about MTW. He said it's there so that you win when you rout the first enemy unit. I suggest that CA move away from that idea eventhough I know that some multiplayers want to keep it. The easy routing hurts the Strategic Campaign by allowing the human player to inflict massive attrition with practically no loss to himself, and in multiplayer it causes players to increase the money available so they can boost morale with upgrades, but that has the disadvantage of damaging what little RPS the units have in them.

[screwtype]

CA could move away from an AI that tries to make individual unit matchups, and plays in a more grand tactical style which is actually more realistic. Have the army maintain the battleline, flank in force with a group of units that are suitable for that task and use a tactical reserve to block breakthroughs or exploit gaps that develop in the enemy line. Get rid of the low morale so the fighting can last longer. This means you won't be able to win with 10:1 or 20:1 casualties inflicted unless you have a much, much better general than the enemy.

Yes, I'd like to see that too. The individual matchups paradigm doesn't work very well at all. IMO, the AI should keep its army in some sort of formation until just before it engages the enemy, and then do its individual matchups.

The easy routing hurts the Strategic Campaign by allowing the human player to inflict massive attrition with practically no loss to himself, and in multiplayer it causes players to increase the money available so they can boost morale with upgrades, but that has the disadvantage of damaging what little RPS the units have in them.

Yeah, but it's not just the easy routing it's also the fast kill rates. I played RTR for a while which has substantial increases in morale, so much so that with a good general even my humble militia pikes would almost never rout, even if they were beaten down to one or two men. But they take casualties so quickly, it only takes a moment or two and an entire unit gets wiped out. Both things need to be fixed to make this a playable game again.

[Geoffrey S]

Just to bring back an earlier point, if CA decide to make the game more accesible to new players that's fine; but it would be most welcome to craft the difficulty levels so they actually make the AI more challenging and intelligent rather than using an absurd system of morale penalties or bonuses for enemy armies.

[player1]

But the thing is that good player is always better then any AI made, especialy after while when all tricks beacomes known.

Only way to increase difficulty after that is to make AI troops feel tougher, by adding bonuses.

And that is good enough way to make a challenge trust me.

Only problem is that it's bugged with 1.2, so VH battles are not really more difficult then M.


P.S.
Reminds me of Civ3.
That game can be tough for begginers, but I won my middle difficulty game (no bonuses), from fist time and never looked back.

At one point, highest difficulty level become too easy for some players (Deity), so developers made ultra-hard difficulty in expansion called "Sid", so those that beat deityy could play something.

[sunsmountain]

Well, you can be sure they're saving siege status in the 1.3 savegames, and you can be sure the positive attack modifiers will be gone for the player on Hard/Very Hard.

Other than that, expect nothing in the AI department, so you cannot get disappointed. You have been warned. :(

On a positive note though, RomeTW still has awesome potential.

[Red Harvest]

But the thing is that good player is always better then any AI made, especialy after while when all tricks beacomes known.

This isn't really true. In certain situations a decent AI has a big advantage. Heavy Fog/Snow/Forest battles in STW/MTW for example. You had to work hard to compensate for this--because the AI was effectively seeing more and reacting faster. Same has been done in RTW to a degree by making the game so fast ALL the time. The pause button gives you time to actually issue commands. RTW is masking the AI's relative incompetence.

Another aspect where the statement isn't true is in some similar unit matchups in other games. The AI in Civil War Bull Run does a very good job of placing and using its artillery. A good player has a hard time matching the AI because the AI can *see* the best positions more easily, and will halt when it finds them, rather than going too far and hunting for the right position (like the human.)

The AI should be better at skirmishing if properly programmed. It should know to automatically withdraw when attacked. This is an area that shows weak AI, since the skirmishers often don't behave like skirmishers. Anything that requires constant re-evaluation should be in the AI's advantage.

The AI can respond more quickly to flanking moves...if properly programmed. In fact, 1 vs. 1, you will see phalangites reverse facing rapidly vs. cav, etc. Where it is having trouble is in ANY higher level situation.

A proper AI should execute the simplest situations nearly flawlessly, whereas a human should be prone to basic error. Watching RTW, it is clear this isn't the case...watching the AI charge elite archers into infantry for example.

[conon394]

Red Harvest

CA hamstrung their own AI with the smaller relative battle fields in RTW when it comes to skirmishers. May just be my perception, but it seemed like you needed at least one horse archer and one good light cav to hunt down a single AI horse archer in MTW (and most of the battle time). In RTW, by contrast it takes a not half so long to trap skirmish units in ‘corners’.

[edyzmedieval]

Red Harvest

CA hamstrung their own AI with the smaller relative battle fields in RTW when it comes to skirmishers. May just be my perception, but it seemed like you needed at least one horse archer and one good light cave to hunt down a single AI horse archer in MTW (and most of the battle time). In RTW, by contrast it takes a not half so long to trap skirmish units in ‘corners’.

Because the units went in the corner. Stupid AI.

The AI in Rome sucks.

[Zenicetus]

Just to bring back an earlier point, if CA decide to make the game more accesible to new players that's fine; but it would be most welcome to craft the difficulty levels so they actually make the AI more challenging and intelligent rather than using an absurd system of morale penalties or bonuses for enemy armies.

Agreed. In a good combat flight sim, changing difficulty levels will alter the way the enemy pilots fly. Higher difficulty gets you more advanced pilot AI's who will challenge you with vertical maneuvers, instead of just horizontal tail-chasing. This is a much better approach than just using the same AI for all difficulty levels and then juggling the stats for gun accuracy, damage per hit, etc.

Of course for that to work, you need a reasonably challenging AI program to begin with, so you can dumb it down for the easier levels. That's what seems to be missing from RTW.

[edyzmedieval]

It's better than in RTW, the pace of battle is faster.

But some ideas from MTW could have been taken, like the units hidden in forests, and you couldn't see them only when you came near them.