Simple changes by CA that would improve the AI

[magnum]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[manbaps]

But when the ai offers an alliance/ceasfire then attacks the very next turn whats the point? Backstabbing is fair enough but one turn is hardly enough time to lure your ally into a false sense of security.

As for protectorites there should something coded like there not able to attack for a certain number of turns on top of automatically siding with you. The whole point of them is that the protectorite should be in a position where is will lose so the ai shouldnt break this alliance unless it thinks it can win, breaking the treaty one turn after its made is retarded.

[AntiochusIII]

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.

But the AI will ALWAYS break the alliance with you whether it's sensible or not. They often break it within..say..1 turn. This should be addressed. That they backstab is fair enough, but be sensible when do so, and I think it should be dependent on the faction characteristics as well, but, of course, it would take a bit more coding for that.

To ally with one faction means alliance...not temporary peace which means absolutely nothing different from neutral stance...

[Mongoose]

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.

No. this is incorrect and the statement shows lack of experience.

I Do *not* have a problem with the AI attacking if you are *weak*. The issue here is that the AI attacks when you are very *Strong*. I have 20 provinces. you have 1. I have a huge army and you have two units of peasants. i have given you 1000's of denarii. why are you attacking me?



The problem is that you cannot rely on them *1%* of the time. The AI will attack no matter how many provinces you have and no matter how much money you give them. A big part of the problem is that the AI will often do this 100% to their *disadvantage*

Some times the AI will

1:Pay *you* for a cease fire
2:Attack

And all in the same turn!


I am sorry, but the AI attacking you no matter how strong and friendly you are, refusing a cease fire even though you haven't fought in years, and paying you for a cease fire that they are going to break on the same turn is 100% BS.

[Shaun]

i know, the AI is very random, and even the best mods are boring now because of the AI, like RTR 6, the AI is so rubbish that the RTR teams work is ruined(cos RTR is a great mod), its not the modders fault, its CAs for making crap AI. if the modders cood hange the AI, RTW wood be great, but as the AI is as clever as my cat, then RTW is just too easy. All the diplomatic stuuf os pointless, the AI isnt clever enough to know what to do!

[BobTheTerrible]

i know, the AI is very random, and even the best mods are boring now because of the AI, like RTR 6, the AI is so rubbish that the RTR teams work is ruined(cos RTR is a great mod), its not the modders fault, its CAs for making crap AI. if the modders cood hange the AI, RTW wood be great, but as the AI is as clever as my cat, then RTW is just too easy. All the diplomatic stuuf os pointless, the AI isnt clever enough to know what to do!

Well you have to understand, if they released the AI SDK (is that the abbreviation I'm looking for?) then people could accuse them of forcing the players to make their own AI, and being too lazy to make a good one themselves. Although I'm sure most people would want them to release it, it would be modder's paradise.

[Lord Preston]

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?)

even if you use a existing stat such as morale (the best single indicator while not perfect) the increase in processing of fetching, adding and comparing every army battle could be too much.


so my point is, they seem "simple" but thats how you introduce new bugs/exploits and every extra bit of code with validationand checks will increase computing time, for all the improvements listed here i think there would be a notacable increase.

Im sure the AI programmers have come up with these aims but were not able to impliment them due to not everyone having super computers.

hopefully the professionals can come up with ways to get most or at least some of the improvements into BI without making it so you can go eat dinner while it computes a turn

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I Do *not* have a problem with the AI attacking if you are *weak*. The issue here is that the AI attacks when you are very *Strong*. I have 20 provinces. you have 1. I have a huge army and you have two units of peasants. i have given you 1000's of denarii. why are you attacking me?

A good point here. Moreover, it's not as though you catch one of their assassins sabotaging or trying to kill one of your dips -- that kind of subterfuge might make sense. Instead, those peasants lay siege to your lev 5 town.

As to the starter of this thread, I wonder how easy some of the proposed alterations would be to code? They seem fairly localized to me, but....

SF

[Shaun]

well, CA better do these "simple changes" in BI! these little changes cood make RTW good, by having an AI that is clever and can challenge the player, the TW series wood benifit!

[caesar44]

No. this is incorrect and the statement shows lack of experience.

I Do *not* have a problem with the AI attacking if you are *weak*. The issue here is that the AI attacks when you are very *Strong*. I have 20 provinces. you have 1. I have a huge army and you have two units of peasants. i have given you 1000's of denarii. why are you attacking me?



The problem is that you cannot rely on them *1%* of the time. The AI will attack no matter how many provinces you have and no matter how much money you give them. A big part of the problem is that the AI will often do this 100% to their *disadvantage*

Some times the AI will

1:Pay *you* for a cease fire
2:Attack

And all in the same turn!


I am sorry, but the AI attacking you no matter how strong and friendly you are, refusing a cease fire even though you haven't fought in years, and paying you for a cease fire that they are going to break on the same turn is 100% BS.

Agreed .

[gardibolt]

No. this is incorrect and the statement shows lack of experience.

I Do *not* have a problem with the AI attacking if you are *weak*. The issue here is that the AI attacks when you are very *Strong*. I have 20 provinces. you have 1. I have a huge army and you have two units of peasants. i have given you 1000's of denarii. why are you attacking me?



The problem is that you cannot rely on them *1%* of the time. The AI will attack no matter how many provinces you have and no matter how much money you give them. A big part of the problem is that the AI will often do this 100% to their *disadvantage*

Some times the AI will

1:Pay *you* for a cease fire
2:Attack

And all in the same turn!


I am sorry, but the AI attacking you no matter how strong and friendly you are, refusing a cease fire even though you haven't fought in years, and paying you for a cease fire that they are going to break on the same turn is 100% BS.

Well, that certainly is different from my experience. I've cultivated an alliance as Julii with both Pontus and Scythia, and it has lasted for nearly 20 years (40 turns), even though I border both of them. I hold 83 territories and Pontus holds 4 and Scythia holds 5. Maybe you're doing something to offend your allies. I've also had an alliance with the Macedonians against the Greek Cities fall apart when I left my territories bordering Macedon too poorly garrisoned.

But having learned that lesson, I DON'T rely on my allies to be faithful. I garrison large armies on my borders with them, on the highways between our cities. And voila, no backstabbing.

[Jambo]

Simon, the suggestions you've put forward as simple ways to improve the AI are spot on. However, I'd hazard a guess that if these haven't already been addressed in BI at this stage in development, then they won't be in by final release...

[econ21]

Simon, the suggestions you've put forward as simple ways to improve the AI are spot on. However, I'd hazard a guess that if these haven't already been addressed in BI at this stage in development, then they won't be in by final release...

Yes, I am sure that's right. I wasn't trying to influence BI, which must be pretty much done and dusted now, but just trying to look at the much discussed AI flaws in a constructive way. But you never know - given the success of RTW, it seems inevitable that there will be another TW game and CA may even patch BI somewhere down the line.

[Mongoose]

Well, that certainly is different from my experience. I've ivated an alliance as Julii with both Pontus and Scythia, and it has lasted for nearly 20 years (40 turns), even though I border both of them. I hold 83 territories and Pontus holds 4 and Scythia holds 5. Maybe you're doing something to offend your allies. I've also had an alliance with the Macedonians against the Greek Cities fall apart when I left my territories bordering Macedon too poorly garrisoned.

But having learned that lesson, I DON'T rely on my allies to be faithful. I garrison large armies on my borders with them, on the highways between our cities. And voila, no backstabbing.

Maybe the money i gave them offended them? Some factions will often refuse money as a gift for what ever reason. Is the AI so good that it has it's own "iron man" rules?


What difficulty setting do you play with? Medium diplomacy isn't quite so bad....

[Deus ret.]

But having learned that lesson, I DON'T rely on my allies to be faithful. I garrison large armies on my borders with them, on the highways between our cities. And voila, no backstabbing.

What's the point of being allied then? The AI rarely attacks me as long as I keep decently-sized border guards, even when we're at war.

Generally it seems that 'medium' is the level at which it's best to play at. Battles run at an endurable speed and the AI behaves somewhat more realistic (I dare not say "challenging") on the campaign map....that's weird.

[gardibolt]

The main advantage was that eventually I persuaded the Parthians to give me military access so I could descend upon the Armenians from several directions and wipe them out. But it's true, the advantages are fairly marginal.

[Tim]

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.

Please, don't pander to the poor AI. This is my biggest problem with some players. Ever notice when someone complains about how the AI just stands by and does nothing while its men are being showered by arrows, (especiallyh before first patch) whether in a battle, or particuarlly during a seige? People pop up and say, "well, it's realistic to loose some men to this." Please....

There is NO reason why you cannot maintain alliances. You do not have to conquer the whole map, just 50 provinces. You can't keep alliances for (usually) a few turns if you are close by. I can at least 'role-play' and keep my end of the bargain and watch our empires grow. The alliance system DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FULL PROOF gardibolt, but it should work much better that it does now. Let's be honest, it simply is broke in its current form.

[PseRamesses]

How hard would it have been to make a fold-out scroll list with settlements to where you want to direct enslaved populations when you´re given the option to "occupy", "enslave", or "eterminate"? This way micromanaging your empires growth would have been a possibility. As for now you have to move your govenors out of every city before the battle that will generate slaves which is tediaus as h_ll.

[gardibolt]

You can't keep alliances for (usually) a few turns if you are close by.

Pish-tosh. I was directly next to Pontus in my last Julii campaign (indeed, had them surrounded on 3 sides) and kept my alliance with them going without any problems for over 40 years. Same thing for Parthia, though I only bordered them on one side.

[Jambo]

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]

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.

[screwtype]

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.

[The Mad Scandinavian]

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]

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.

[LestaT]

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.