AI in BI: Evaluation

[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."

[TinCow]

I chose better/better. The tactical AI is still easy, but no longer inept. Other than sitting in front of towers during a siege, it no longer does the moronic blunders that made it easy to kill thousands while losing dozens. When given a large force with cavalry support, the AI even makes use of hit-and-run tactics and army-wide envelopment. Still easy to defeat unless heavily outnumbered, but it requires more careful planning and victories without loss are far harder.

The strategic AI seems to maintain larger armies and lead them with generals more often. It engages in multi-stack attacks more often and seems to obey ceasefires and alliances more readily. Other than with Hordes though it does not attack as aggressively as it should and it again represents more of a lack of incompetence than any actual positive ability.