Simple changes by CA that would improve the AI

**CBR** · 08-15-2005, 14:05

Yes and some of does seem to be very easy to implement...at least the outnumbered bit, double team and putting good generals in big stacks.

I have also had fun with RTR last week but the AI is very stupid sometimes and it just feels so easy to correct some of the worst stuff.

CBR

**Mongoose** · 08-15-2005, 17:47

RTR is great. Sadly, the AI kinda ruins it a little.

phhyrus(sp?!), in my game as Rome, left his army and went to manage a small town. I fought 2 battles where he could have easily commanded an army but no....he would rather manage croton.

**CBR** · 08-15-2005, 18:08

Originally Posted by mongoose

phhyrus(sp?!), in my game as Rome, left his army and went to manage a small town. I fought 2 battles that he could have easily commanded an army but no....he would rather manage croton.

In my campaign he stayed at Tarentum while his huge army stayed in Croton...sigh.

CBR

**Red Harvest** · 08-15-2005, 18:47

Good list Simon. On the high ground thing...a big problem is not just the pivot. The AI won't slide laterally with its forces to block the player attempting to gain its flank via a parallel march.

mongoose brings up another point, while I was editing the strategic map to make it more challenging, I found that the AI inherently likes to split its forces for no apparent reason. If I put a nice stack of rebels in a city, the AI would take all but a handful out of the city and march them off to the hinterland to stand alone. The AI would be defeated in detail, even by other AI.

**magnum** · 08-15-2005, 19:06

As far as the splitting units throughout a region goes, I believe it was likely the solution to how the AI would handle 'guessing' what the player would do. Unlike MTW where provinces one a single whole and entering it would cause the attacker to face all units within that province, in RTW players can feint attacks, do amphibious landings, and simply run around known AI units. Thus the AI tends to scatter its units so the player will have to engage them. You'll notice that once you've entered their territory and attacked something that the AI does tend to quickly gather all the units together to fight you. The AIs actions seem to be a simply solution to a complex problem. (Simple, but definately not strategic)

Overall though I agree with the majority of items on the list.

**jimmyM** · 08-15-2005, 20:36

Hmmm... surely a better idea would be to put small delaying/scouting forces in the province+the majority in the city? speculation, speculation, ho hum...

(2) Keep phalanxes in a line and march forward into combat - stop them veering off to make piecemeal unit to unit match ups.

can't overemphasise this. the way the A.I thinks about these guys needs to change...I can pull a.i phalanxes out of formation into a big amorphous blob in the centre of the field with skirmishers they try to chase, then charge in and finish them quickly...but they really should keep in blocks or they're dead and useless - even if it got to the point of the A.I going "these guys are in battle line, they're not deviating 'till they contact the enemy line/general, etc." of course the problem being how do you judge what the line will need to do once its been formed from constituent phalanxes, thtere we go...the whole idea of carefully controlled setups gets derailed by the over-detailed unit-unit matchups the AI does...

**AntiochusIII** · 08-15-2005, 20:43

Not exactly AI but I think diplomacy also counts.

A simple code change (I presume) could help a lot if:

1. AI honours the alliance they have with you. If changing their behavior to actually help you directly is too complicated for BI right now then at least make them more honourable in keeping their peace. It shouldn't be too hard.

Reason: players, even (or especially) casual players like it when AI act sensibly and keep their alliance with them. I know it's Total War but the game's diplomacy that actually works would please many people indeed, hardcore fans or not. People tend to keep their alliances with a trustworthy AI for a long time or even for the rest of the game if the CA coders fear for their lives and want them to have a chance

2. Protectorates honours their "alliance" with you first even if you are the aggressor against their allies. A simple code change, I believe.

Reason: It angers many people when they lost their protectorates just because they attack that protectorate's allies. It's absurd and often forces you into some irritating diplomatic position ("I forced [faction] to be my protectorate but why the **** is this subject of mine betray me for their ally? I'm their master!" - situation happens often)

**gardibolt** · 08-15-2005, 21:13

The AI dishonoring alliances and back-stabbing is 100% true to life. It's not realistic to be able to entirely rely that your allies will be faithful. They're just not. They look out for their own advantages and rationalize any breaches of good faith they have to incur. If they sense you are weak, they will and should attack you. If you want the alliance to be strong, you have to do things to make it so. There's not a problem here.

I've not had enough experience with protectorates to address the second point.

**LestaT** · 08-16-2005, 08:49

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Not exactly AI but I think diplomacy also counts.

A simple code change (I presume) could help a lot if:

1. AI honours the alliance they have with you. If changing their behavior to actually help you directly is too complicated for BI right now then at least make them more honourable in keeping their peace. It shouldn't be too hard.

Reason: players, even (or especially) casual players like it when AI act sensibly and keep their alliance with them. I know it's Total War but the game's diplomacy that actually works would please many people indeed, hardcore fans or not. People tend to keep their alliances with a trustworthy AI for a long time or even for the rest of the game if the CA coders fear for their lives and want them to have a chance

2. Protectorates honours their "alliance" with you first even if you are the aggressor against their allies. A simple code change, I believe.

Reason: It angers many people when they lost their protectorates just because they attack that protectorate's allies. It's absurd and often forces you into some irritating diplomatic position ("I forced [faction] to be my protectorate but why the **** is this subject of mine betray me for their ally? I'm their master!" - situation happens often)

Maybe a trigger that make your rival ally (which is stronger/bigger/bordering) to attack you when your faction leader dies only.

Just a thought.

**Mongoose** · 08-16-2005, 05:14

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

mongoose brings up another point, while I was editing the strategic map to make it more challenging, I found that the AI inherently likes to split its forces for no apparent reason. If I put a nice stack of rebels in a city, the AI would take all but a handful out of the city and march them off to the hinterland to stand alone. The AI would be defeated in detail, even by other AI.

Interesting. I haven't really seen it as you describe it, but in my games the AI will almost always take the 10 star commander to some God forsaken pit while it's army marches off to doom.

10 star Greek general: Remember, this battle is for our country. If we are defeated, there will be no retreat. We are even in numbers but with my amazing tactical skill we may defea...

Greek messenger: Sir, you are urgently needed at croton!

General: Why?

Greek messenger: The town has passed a new law regarding the number of names you can have for a mule. They need you to sign it.

General: I will go there right away! *gallops off at full speed*

Greek soldier: i don't think he's coming back...

Greek soldier two: What do we do now?

Greek solder one: I have the perfect plan! the army is saved!

Firse we send half the army to attack our allies in sicilly, then we send the other half to attack our allies in macedonia!

Greek soldier two: Sounds good. what about or cities in italy? won't the Romans take them?

Greek soldier one: you're right. We should do something else...**Player reloads**

Greek soldier two: What were we talking about about?!

Greek soldier one: i don't know. let's just carry out the plan.

**sapi** · 08-16-2005, 07:41

Strategic/Tactical ai:

Take into account strategic (ie production capacity, economic income, overall troop numbers) rather than tactical (ie outnumbering the local fleet) when declaring war.

**Creeper525** · 08-16-2005, 08:28

most of the improvements do seem to be simple If statements:

If player_unit_count > ai_unit_count then
.............status = dont_attack
elseif player_unit_count =< ai_unit_count then
.............status = attack
endif

this is an example, BUT it could be more complicated and other exploits created.

continuing with this example, the quality or type of troops is not included in any way, so a huge army of peasents could scare off a small but elite army. so then someway of rating the units in the army needs to be included (can you tell this is going to get complicated?)

the AI should run an auto resolve of a battle before actually engageing in it, if the fake auto resolve doesnt come up in their favor, they should not attack