AI in BI: Evaluation

[Grifman]

Now here comes the rant: What on earth have they reduced the strat-map too? Some 2/3 of the original vanilla, or even less? Africa 5 regions, Iberia 4, Italy 4, Asia Minor 4 - jeeeees! It´s like playing that kids-game: RISK. Can´t wait for RTR or EB to release a BI-version with 200 regions to "horde around" in.

I like the fewer provinces better. Fewer provinces is NOT a kid's game - that's just a silly assertion. More is NOT necessarily better - more cities means more micromanaging, and I suspect fewer cities makes it easier on the AI from a strategic POV. If you dislike fewer cities, fine - just don't exaggerate the impact by calling it a kid game. I frankly didn't like all the extra cities RTR added, and I suspect it didn't make the game easier for the AI. Be careful what you wish for.

[Kraxis]

Votes, by accident, much better tactically and better strategically. But thinkin about it, it is perhaps not so far from the truth. I would just prefer something in between better and much better.

I agree with the Grif here. Cities seems to be right on the front all the time, not perhaps attacked, but you feel a need to take action right away as every single city is important.
Also, with the cities farther apart it gives the Hordes some room to play out their game. You can't come to the aid of a city in trouble as easily.
With cities farther apart fieldbattles seem more prolific. I quickly got tired of the constant breaking siege or laying siege with little in between, in RTR.

Meanwhile, how long or much of an impact would the Hordes have if the Goths, Sarmatians, Burgundii and so on all had 3-4 cities? We would see the Hordes blow their steam while those factions would still survive. With few cities the other factions will be forced out and put a much more significant pressure of the two empires.

I simply don't believe more cities are always something good.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Votes, by accident, much better tactically and better strategically. But thinkin about it, it is perhaps not so far from the truth. I would just prefer something in between better and much better....

Sorry, only had 5 minutes to compose the quiz. I understand your point.

Seamus

[afrit]

The strategic AI still suffers from long periods of unexplained inactivity. But overall, it is better than classical RTW .

I agree that decreasing the province number was a good idea.

[Azi Tohak]

I am torn about the number of cities. I liked the number in RTR, lots of monies coming in, but yes, it became a war of sieges. Which was both good and bad. Good in that lots of money, and my main strategy (besiege city, let army try to break siege, crush both relievers and garrison) worked great.

Perhaps you guys can help (especially Kraxis), but I thought war in the ancient times, all the way up to the US Civil War and 7 Weeks War was mainly sieges. Not as glamorous as Gaugamela, Cannae, Hastings, Waterloo etc, but I thought that was how war worked. I'm curious, but this might also belong in the Monastery.

Azi

[Kraxis]

Well, it was mainly sieges, but often sieges were more open than the ones we have. Basically they were often just an army camping near a city, preparing to assault it. And I agree that siegebattles are very effective, but I seek not effectiveness, I seek fun (not that you can't find those battles fun, nor me for that matter).
I absolutely love the fact that it took me three massive attempts to take Hatra from the Sassanids, and nother four to even lay siege to Ctesiphon. My armies simply had to retreat after suffering massive losses to the Sassanids fieldarmies (I won of course but it was costly each time).

Why sieges in large numbers are bad:
You eliminate the enemy army completely. Often in field battles the enemy army manages to reteat some important parts, and can thus easier reform for another battle.

[Doug-Thompson]

I'm not sure how much any improvement in the strategy game can be attributed to changes to the AI, and how much of it results from being surrounded by enemies in a more interesting situation. Also, religion is a big new wrinkle that's not really an AI improvement.

R:TW suffered greatly from getting simpler and simpler as the game wore on. You might have a city rebel once in a while, but so what? There was no threat of a break in the succession like in M:TW, where you could have a full-scale civil war on your hands if you weren't careful, or if you were just unlucky.

All you had to do in R:TW was pound down your strongest enemy. You got stronger every turn while your enemies got weaker — and fewer. R:TW was practically a city management game by mid-game.

R:TW is less wholly predictable, and that's not just because it is new. The horde feature reminds me a lot of the Crusades and Jihads of M:TW, with the added bonus of giving dying factions a last resort.

Religion was simpler in M:TW. While there's no excommunication or inquisitors in BI, there's no priests, imans or cardinals, either. You can't pave the way to conquest with "missionaries."