Simple changes by CA that would improve the AI

**Jambo** · 08-26-2005, 15:00

A lot of what the AI does is relatively speaking OK. Factions which don't entertain phalanxes and horse archers are generally among the more challenging AI opponents. Playing as a faction that also doesn't have phalanxes is also more challenging FOR the human. That's why I quite enjoy playing as the Barbarians or as the Julii.

Particular areas of frustration are mainly limited to :

1. Siege AI. Trouble is there's a lot of siege battles so this inadequacy is only reinforced.

2. Diplomacy. The basic answers (e.g. "No") that are received from the AI are simply not informative enough to make diplomacy worthwhile, especially at the harder difficulty levels. It's often futile to even attempt any of the more interesting diplomatic options that are available. If for instance, the AI were to say "no, but we may reconsider if you were to offer 2,000 denari..." then it's at least putting something constructive back to the player from which they can make an informed decision.

3. Phalanx AI. We all know about this. In the hands of the AI, phalanxes split off from the main battle line and chase units round the map. In the hands of the player and particularly in the city environment the AI launches everything including cavalry, skirmishers, archers and even the general headlong into the front of them leading to mass slaughter. Speaking of which there's also the crazy random charging of AI skirmisher and archer units into melee combat without first using their missile weapons...

4. Suicidal generals. Enough said.

So, if these things can be improved upon in BI, then we might find ourselves with a fairly decent product.

**Nelson** · 08-26-2005, 15:36

If the AI had plenty of good generals it would perform better. Too many AI armies are leaderless. Our own armies seldom are and this leads to a huge advantage on any difficulty. So giving the AI plenty of commanders would make the AI look a bit better.

It’s already been established that given time, the AI can develop decent armies. The AI would get more time if our own offensives were slowed down. This could easily be accomplished by compelling the player to demolish captured buildings and rebuilding his own faction’s structures before new troops could be raised to replenish losses. As it is, you can win a battle, occupy a city and be reconstituted on the very next turn. If you had to replace the infrastructure this would take much longer.

Neither of these modifications would require any change to the AI but would increase the challenge in a realistic manner.

**The Mad Scandinavian** · 08-26-2005, 16:29

Some players seem to believe that it was realistic for nations to sign a peace treaty and then go to war at the start of the next campaign season or in only a few years. Well, they are right. RTW accurately portrays this, but not the alliance system and thus creates a messy and silly situation.

Nations that were naturally antagonistic often did this. Rome and Carthage fought two wars and would have fought more if they had continually stalemated each other. They had every intention to fight both for economic reasons and because of the antagonism. France and England did the same up until the turn of the last century. I could go on naming cases just off the top of my head. The fact is that we live in a very peaceful age. A hundred years ago not everyone would be shocked and angry when one country that hated the other went to war with another. It was not until after WWI that the cost of war was deemed to high to pay.

Alliances were a different matter. Nations that were allied seldom went to war with each other and often backed up each other. That's the whole point of alliances. Forming an alliance was considered a serious act with heavy consequences if the alliance was not honored. As such alliances provided security, particularly for small countries with strong neighbors. There has not been a great deal of cases in history that I can remember where a nation did not honor an alliance. In fact, Rome built its empire, in part, on alliances. She also often used a broken alliance or the attack on an ally as an excuse for war.

RTW completely fails to show this. While being realistic with antagonistic nations this is not counterbalanced by working alliances. The AI does not seem to take into account who one is allied with when it declares war and it does not matter since I have never once seen an ally come to my aid. Often the AI does not aid its computer allies. Worse then allies not honoring an alliance is that allies attack their allies with no consequences. The only alliance that works is between the Roman factions and that does not always bring any worthwhile aid.

I can see no reason why CA made the game this way. It does not seem like it would be difficult to make it work. Granted it can affect balance, but that's a good thing. It would produce a different situation in each game, as long as some randomness was inserted and CA seems to be good at that. In this area I would be happy if CA simple fixed the tendency for allies to attack their allies. At least break an alliance first and have a good reason for it, like in MTW. MTW was not perfect, but it made some sense. I will not buy BI unless this is fixed.
Mad Scandinavian

**Red Harvest** · 08-26-2005, 16:57

Not quite right: historically, once Carthage and Rome were at war, they stayed at war until one was beaten...and forced to sign a treaty. There was then a long peace before another war. And finally, on the 3rd war the Romans decided to destroy Carthage.

Alliances did shift according to how things were going. Look at Sicily...or Numidia...and of course cities in Southern Italy.

**The Mad Scandinavian** · 08-26-2005, 17:46

You're right. Alliances did shift since nations tend to look out for their best interest. But I was thinking more about the beginnings of conflicts. Alliances were often kept at that time, unless it was likely that one's ally would fall. They are made, most often, because one or both countries believe that they will have a better chance of winning a war allied with the other.

Even in cases where defeat seems likely there are cases of allies staying true. Much of Rome's Italian allies did not defect while Hannibal was destroying the countryside nearly unhindered. I don't know if they expected Rome to win in the end, but the situation was pretty bleak for some time. Perhaps a form of Italian nationalism was starting to take place. Still, we are both making generalizations. I concede that alliances could shift and be broken, but believe that they often were not at the beginning of the conflict.

Perhaps you read part of what I wrote on Carthage and Rome wrong. I did not say they stalemated each other nor did I mean to imply it. I understood that Rome won all the Punic Wars. Forgot about the 3rd one. My mistake.

I stand corrected about wars often being started at the start of a new season or after only a few years. I made a generalization that is not accurate. The situation is more variable, but I do believe that some countries were almost preordained to start fighting again, either because they hated each other or for more logical reason: economics, politics, etc.
Mad Scandinavian

**screwtype** · 08-27-2005, 00:22

Originally Posted by Jambo

AIf for instance, the AI were to say "no, but we may reconsider if you were to offer 2,000 denari..." then it's at least putting something constructive back to the player from which they can make an informed decision.

Nice idea Jambo. In fact, I agree with all the comments in your post.

**Red Harvest** · 08-27-2005, 02:44

The Mad Scandinavian,

Your post was not unreasonable, which is why I focused on some clarification. (Welcome to the ORG by the way.

) The Carthage/Rome bit is one of the reasons I have not complained as much as others about diplomacy. Mainly, I don't have an easy solution. Why? Diplomacy has a lot to do with the "personality" of the culture itself in a historical context.

Let's take Rome for example. During both Pyrrhus' invasion and Hannibal's invasion, Rome refused to negotiate. (They only accepted an agreement with the Samnites because their field commanders had acquiesced after being trapped, and therefore felt obligated...and that only was allowed to stand a few years.) By normal measures they had been soundly defeated and should have been seeking to cut their losses with a favorable treaty, rather than risking absolute defeat. However, they were more beligerent than ever. It was a defining characteristic of Rome, and a very important part of their strength. Other cultures should respond differently, again depending on how they typically regarded friends and enemies.

To be sure, there are aspects of diplomacy that are whacked. I learned to wait, never offering treaties myself, and instead waiting for enemies to do the logical thing. I did play on VH so that most likely made the diplomacy model more challinging.