1.3 RTW Comments

[Red Harvest]

Well I don't kow about weakening archers. They get a lot of kills againt low armored units, but I had 3 archers firing at a sacred band inf unit that was marching towards me, and the archers didn't get a single kill. This was large units, so the archers were 80 men each.

The Sacred Band have 11 armour with 5 for a shield. Archers shouldn't be too successful against them. I just did a test, same old miserable AI... I suspect you either got unlucky, or the AI stayed in phalanx and took fewer casualties than normal.

Player: 3 Roman archers, AI: 1 Sacred Band
Conditions: Grassy flatland, midday, calm weather, summer, medium

I put the archers in line centering on the front of the approaching SB. I halted the count when my center unit retreated in skirmish mode. Starting with 82 men, the SB fell to 75, 73, and 74 in three successive tests--not taking flank fire as best I could tell. Note: The AI was mostly staying in non-phalanx march although it would lower its spears repeatedly.

Tried this from the other side, wanting to approach in phalanx. The "brilliant" AI of course aligned its three archers into three lines in column--the worst possible formation other than three columns in column. It then marched up to skirmish range, jumbled its forces, then scattered without firing a shot. I then extended into a long line, and managed to clip one of the units and slaughter it as the others finally peppered away at me from the flank and rear. I took serious casualties as I fought out of phalanx. Then more casualties advancing on and pinning the next unit before slaughtering it. With about 35 men left, the AI decided it could whip my SB in melee with its lone remaining unit. I lowered my spears and made short work of it.

I hope that BI's AI is better, as RTW's AI is still AWFUL! RTW's AI simply can't use missile units effectively. Has anyone run a similar test with appropriate units in BI? I would really like to hear what the archers do.

[Jambo]

I think judging the AI as awful based on a 3 archers vs 1 sacred band test is a little presumptious. I can't remember ever being in that situation in the RTW or BI campaign. Fight the AI using two standard balanced armies and then judge how the various components interact.

[Red Harvest]

I think judging the AI as awful based on a 3 archers vs 1 sacred band test is a little presumptious. I can't remember ever being in that situation in the RTW or BI campaign. Fight the AI using two standard balanced armies and then judge how the various components interact.

No, it isn't presumptuous, the AI sucks with standard armies too, this is confirmation of what I see in battle. This is a simplified test. If the AI can't handle the force properly in the simplest test, it isn't going to do much better on the field. Hence, the AI charging it's Cretan archers into my Hastati without firing a shot. It is the same problem we had with the AI before in RTW. In fact, the test gets right to the heart of the matter. It's not like I've run one test and made the conclusion. I did the same sort of thing in 1.1, 1.2, and in MANY, MANY battles. I ran the test to try to understand what I was seeing in battle.

The RTW AI can't use missile units with effect. There are a host of issues about that and some of them clearly reveal that those doing the AI design didn't figure out a way to render the skirmishing of the time. Heck, it even showed in the scripting of the demo.

Examples: Look at default army formations, the skirmishers are often in the rear, bass ackwards.

I've not yet done a javelin test of the same, but in a recent battle vs. a nearly all javelin army (with rebel bodyguard general) it used its javelinmen as melee vs. my infantry. It didn't skirmish and try to inflict maximum casualties or disrupt me before being forced to engage.

It comes down to this: Do ranged units use their weapons effectively under AI control? The answer is a resounding "No!" They still close to skirmish range, then go "Oh crap! What am I doing here?" I haven't retested in 1.3, but in previous versions they did the same thing vs. CAVALRY 1 vs. 1.

[screwtype]

No, it isn't presumptuous, the AI sucks with standard armies too, this is confirmation of what I see in battle. This is a simplified test. If the AI can't handle the force properly in the simplest test, it isn't going to do much better on the field. Hence, the AI charging it's Cretan archers into my Hastati without firing a shot. It is the same problem we had with the AI before in RTW. In fact, the test gets right to the heart of the matter. It's not like I've run one test and made the conclusion. I did the same sort of thing in 1.1, 1.2, and in MANY, MANY battles. I ran the test to try to understand what I was seeing in battle.

The RTW AI can't use missile units with effect. There are a host of issues about that and some of them clearly reveal that those doing the AI design didn't figure out a way to render the skirmishing of the time. Heck, it even showed in the scripting of the demo.

Examples: Look at default army formations, the skirmishers are often in the rear, bass ackwards.

I've not yet done a javelin test of the same, but in a recent battle vs. a nearly all javelin army (with rebel bodyguard general) it used its javelinmen as melee vs. my infantry. It didn't skirmish and try to inflict maximum casualties or disrupt me before being forced to engage.

It comes down to this: Do ranged units use their weapons effectively under AI control? The answer is a resounding "No!" They still close to skirmish range, then go "Oh crap! What am I doing here?" I haven't retested in 1.3, but in previous versions they did the same thing vs. CAVALRY 1 vs. 1.

That's bad. It makes you wonder how they could miss such an obvious problem.

In the previous games, missile units would sometimes appear to choose melee over ranged fire at critical moments. But if they can't replicate that behaviour in RTW/BI for some reason, it would be better if they just made it that all AI controlled missile units must fire all their missiles before engaging in melee.

[IceTorque]

Bridge battles in 1.3 are worse with the AI's archers drowning themselves,
In one battle i ordered my general and one cav unit to chase the fleeing army across the bridge my general went straight onto the bridge but my cav unit ran to the right of the bridge and drowned themselves with only a handful
surviving.
Also when training cav units i am getting family members instead of the cav unit but these family members do not appear on the family tree, as i am playing a modded version could anyone confirm this in vanilla ?

[Puzz3D]

I tried Red Harvest's test of 3 AI archers vs 3 hastati (two in front with the general behind) on the flat map. The archers move into a column, but individually stay in 3 deep formation. They advance into firing range of all 3 hastati and start shooting. The front two archers are overlapped, and the general remains some distance behind. The AI archers distribute their fire evenly amoung the 3 hastati so that they all suffer about the same kills. Once my hastati are each reduced to about 40 men (half strength) the archers charge them frontally, but are routed very quickly in the melee. I think this result indicates that the AI charges because it thinks it will win the melee. It actually isn't even close to being able to win the melee with 240 archers against 120 hastati.

I repeated the test this time with my hastati 3 abreast. The archers moved on top of each other and set up further out because it could target all 3 hastati from further away. One archer ran out of arrows, advanced and waited while the other two continued to shoot. However, their arrows were less effective from this distance, and the hastati were only reduced to about 58 men each. At this point, the two archers which still had arrows moved up to where the archer without arrows was standing, and the archer without arrows moved into a flanking position on the hastai. The other two archers opened fire from this shorter range on the center hastati while the first archer made its flanking charge on the lefthand hastati. The charge was repulsed. The hastati which had been attacked pursued, but I halted it and returned it to the line. It took losses down to 40 men from arrow fire on the way back to the line. At this point the second archer (the AI general) ran out of arrows. The AI setup a frontal attack with the general on the left and center hastati in combination with a flank attack on the left hastati by the archer that had routed and rallied while the 3rd archer supported with arrow fire. This attack was repulsed, and the hastati pursued. When they got close to the 3rd archer, it attacked the hastati trying to stem the pursuit, but was routed. At no time did the AI use fire arrows. I think this shows a pretty sophisticated AI except for the moving on top of each other, but it does overestimate its ability to win the melee with archers vs hastati.

I repeated the test with 3 archers vs 3 archers but I didn't shoot. The AI did the same thing as in the previous test, but this time they charged frontally and did win the melee easily since my archers were decimated to about 20 men each by arrow fire. So, the AI does shoot, and it correctly judged it's ability to win the melee in this case. Of course, it's going to win the melee because these are equal strength, low armored units in this test, but it's interesting that the AI waited as long as it did before charging.

[Jambo]

Other than the column setup, that's pretty much what I would've done given the same situation and no retreat. There's little point in the archers not attacking as retreating in a custom battle serves no purpose. It would be interesting to see if the same is apparent in a campaign game where retreat is sometimes an option.

[Red Harvest]

Did a few more tests 1vs1: Some equites vs. vanilla slingers, vanilla archers, and forester warbands, and dacian archer warbands. Their are a few patterns emerging:
1. High melee archers like the foresters seem undecided. They will pause and stand well within their range, rarely firing, mostly just standing to receive the charge. They will win in melee thanks to their spears and high attack, but a wide horse formation on the charge can inflict very high casualties on them. Still it's a waste not to make the most of the high missile attack and range. When I play as the foresters side, the cav don't even reach my lines most of the time, and when they do they are easily beaten.
2. Most mid or low melee/moderate missile attack archers will stop at about the limit of their range, then restart walking. Sometimes they stop and fire a few rounds. Once, one stopped at the very end of its range and let loose quite a few vollies causing me heavy losses before melee. (Never could get it to do that again--I think it happened because I used 3x and didn't go back to 1x before they hit the outside of the range.) Sometimes they don't fire at all and wait for the charge.
3. Low missile attack/low melee slingers advance, but never try to shoot, they stop at about their range, then turn to run. Occasionally, they kill 1 or 2 mounted men in melee. Other than that, they are dogfood.

AND THE MOST STUNNING/AMUSING OF THE TESTS...an accident...I took the field with 1 Roman archer vs 1 Roman archer by mistake:
My counterpart walked up through a barrage of fire. He didn't run, he didn't stop at range. He just walked up to within about 40 yards being massacred. After losing about 40% of his force, he decided to go to loose spacing, then walk back to a range of about 70 yards, and trade vollies. By the time he reached that point he had less than half his force left. After a few more vollies it ended with all but 6 of his guys dead. I "suffered" 4 casualties out of 81.

[Red Harvest]

Wanted to add a positive:
15. I've been listening to the speeches again. They are far more varied and colorful than when I started playing. There are several that I've never heard mentioned before (I had heard quite a few zingers, and some related here.) Something about slapping an ass (as in donkey I presume) comes to mind.

[screwtype]

Yeah I've heard some new speeches. But I'm not sure if they are really new because I've been playing the Julii for the first time, and maybe they always had different speeches. I always played the Brutii before.

Pity about the ranged units though. They sound just as broken as before.

[Puzz3D]

The Sacred Band have 11 armour with 5 for a shield. Archers shouldn't be too successful against them. I just did a test, same old miserable AI... I suspect you either got unlucky, or the AI stayed in phalanx and took fewer casualties than normal.

The AI sacred band did stay in phalanx while advancing. It's possible they had an armor upgrade. I don't know.

I put the archers in line centering on the front of the approaching SB. I halted the count when my center unit retreated in skirmish mode. Starting with 82 men, the SB fell to 75, 73, and 74 in three successive tests--not taking flank fire as best I could tell. Note: The AI was mostly staying in non-phalanx march although it would lower its spears repeatedly.

How is this an argument for reducing archer effectiveness? On average you got 3 kills from each archer. I'll try this test myself later today.

Tried this from the other side, wanting to approach in phalanx. The "brilliant" AI of course aligned its three archers into three lines in column--the worst possible formation other than three columns in column.

In RTW, the shape of the formation doesn't matter very much. If one man can fire then all the men in the unit fire even if they are out of range and all with apparently the same effectiveness. I guess men further back might be a little more likely to miss since they are farther away from the target.

[Red Harvest]

How is this an argument for reducing archer effectiveness? On average you got 3 kills from each archer.

Considering these were bottom end archers with no experience or missile upgrades, they inflicted substantial casualties when used frontally against one of the best protected units in the game. From the flanks and rear they of course completely slaughtered them (I let the guys march on through after the test and let it run out without giving any more commands.) Of course, we have the old problem of men firing at extreme oblique from the end of a column as well.

Those archers should be next to useless against these guys frontally. Historically, archers did not have that much impact vs. a formed phalanx. Even the compound bows in use by the horse archers at Samarkand had trouble vs. the phalanx. It was when the men broke that they were cut down.

The problem is not so much with the heavily armoured, as with the moderately/lightly armoured, where the kill rate gets out of hand in a hurry. A couple of volleys, and a unit is useless. In my last 1.3 campaign I found it rather easy to cut down Spartans with a single unit of Cretans--who now have the same missile attack as Roman archers, though more distance.

Vanilla archers should be very ineffective. They represent novices with indifferent equipment.

In RTW, the shape of the formation doesn't matter very much. If one man can fire then all the men in the unit fire even if they are out of range and all with apparently the same effectiveness. I guess men further back might be a little more likely to miss since they are farther away from the target.

Yes, I understand the weakness of the missile model with respect to formation. I don't believe there is distance attenuation; accuracy is not directly modified for distance (there was not any noticeable in 1.2.) The slight attenuation observed was explained best by the angle of the arrow strikes vs. the target--it appeared to be solely a hit box issue since the profile is smaller at and angle than perpendicular. I did some tests with various spacings, ranges and missile velocities and such to confirm this.

[Puzz3D]

I repeated Red Harvest's test on the flat map, large units with 3 standard archers in a line 3 deep vs an AI controlled sacred band infantry and got the same results. I did not put the archers in skirmish and fired until the sacred band touched my center archer. The had 74 and 75 men left at that point. I didn't count the number of volleys.

Something interesting happened in the 3rd run. The sacred band got stuck about 100 meters or so away from the archers and couldn't advance (raising and lowering their pikes) so the archers got to fire all 7200 arrows. They got 22 kills using all the arrows. That averages out to 0.24 kills per 80 arrow volley. If you shoot into the back of the sacred band with a single archer, you can kill essentially the whole unit with 30 volleys. That's about 2.5 kills per volley.

When the AI uses ranged units as melee, I think this is another consequence of the AI being designed to charge into melee with units that are slightly weaker than the target unit. In STW, the AI does not make direct frontal attacks unless it can beat the unit it is attacking. If its unit is weaker, it always attempts to make an indirect attack. The AI makes attacking decisions using the unit stats in effect at that moment, so there is no doubt about having a combat advantage unless the AI is being tricked into thinking it has a combat advantage by some weighting factor. I can see several tendencies of the AI in battle which suggest a weighting is occuring, and we know that CA used weighting in the auto-resolve so they aren't above designing it into the battle AI to make things more "exciting" I suppose.

[Red Harvest]

When the AI uses ranged units as melee, I think this is another consequence of the AI being designed to charge into melee with units that are slightly weaker than the target unit. In STW, the AI does not make direct frontal attacks unless it can beat the unit it is attacking. If its unit is weaker, it always attempts to make an indirect attack. The AI makes attacking decisions using the unit stats in effect at that moment, so there is no doubt about having a combat advantage unless the AI is being tricked into thinking it has a combat advantage by some weighting factor. I can see several tendencies of the AI in battle which suggest a weighting is occuring, and we know that CA used weighting in the auto-resolve so they aren't above designing it into the battle AI to make things more "exciting" I suppose.

I'm sure weighting factors into a lot of the AI combat decisions. You can see some of the weighting by looking at the bar in 1vs1, and it often does not do a good job of representing the actual balance in dissimilar units, particularly when one is a missile unit. CA has a really obvious weakspot with ranged units of any type. I highly suspect their weighting is flat out wrong for melee. Pri/sec bug or the strange charge effect types of issues with the weighting are possible.

In weighting, I'm not sure how much the lethality, charge, and combat bonus parts factor in, nor discipline, morale, stamina, etc. I know fatigue plays a significant role as the bar shifts as fatigue changes. (It is a huge effect down in the "very tired" and "exhausted" range.)

Regardless of the weighting though, there is a bigger issue: Failing to use missile primary units as ranged attackers first and foremost is a major flaw. Whether or not they can win the melee is secondary. If they can win without losses by engaging in ranged combat, then why melee at all? Resorting to melee should be last resort, or used when the weighting (one that actually is correct) says they have a huge advantage.

P.S. Wouldn't surprise me if CA made a simple divisor or sign error. The game/stats have been full of these. Just for the sake of argument the melee test might have been intended as:
If missile unit melee > 2 * target unit melee, then attack
However, the actual formula might have gotten garbled so that the 2 is a divisor or on the wrong side, e.g.
If 2 * missile unit melee > target unit melee, then attack.

[Puzz3D]

Regardless of the weighting though, there is a bigger issue: Failing to use missile primary units as ranged attackers first and foremost is a major flaw. Whether or not they can win the melee is secondary. If they can win without losses by engaging in ranged combat, then why melee at all? Resorting to melee should be last resort, or used when the weighting (one that actually is correct) says they have a huge advantage.

In my custom battle tests, the AI did try to win by shooting. Even when shooting at a weak unit like archers, they didn't charge until my archers were down to 20 men. Against the hastati they either waited until I was reduced to half strength or they used all of their arrows before attacking.

[Puzz3D]

I did the same test with 3 AI Cretan archers (3/6/4 chg/att/def) vs 3 hastati (2/7/14) abreast on flat map. The hastati have not had fire at will enabled in any of these archer tests so they don't throw the pila.

In the first test there was a glitch where the Cretan archers turned 90 degrees and marched off to my right. At about 45 degrees to my right they got stuck and couldn't move although I could hear orders being given by their commander. After 5 minutes of that, I turned my hastati line 45 degrees to face the archers and they started to move as soon as my hastati started to move. After some indecisive right/left movement, the archers organized one behind the other and advanced into firing range. They distributed their fire so as to reduce the hastati evenly by shooting at the unit with the most men. When my hastati were down to 45 men the first archer attacked my left hastati (the general's unit), but was routed. It rallied, made a second attack and routed again with 21 men rallying off to my left were it set up to shoot. At this time the second archer attacked the two hastati on my left while the third archer shot my right hand hastati. The 21 man archer then made a flank attack and my general died. All 3 hastati routed quickly after that.

In the second test, the Cretan archers moved directly forward one behind the other into shooting range. Once again they fired until my hastati were down to about 45 men. This time the first archer attacked my right hand hastati which only had 43 men. The archer routed and the second archer then attacked my lefthand hastati (the general's unit) which had been weaken further by archer fire, although my right hand hastati was the weakest one except it was set slightly bechind the line. The first archer rallied with 36 men and also charged my lefthand hastati while it was engaged and routed it on contact. The third archer (the AI's general) was shooting my right hand hastati this whole time and had it down to about 20 men. The first and second archers engaged the center hastati and routed it, and then quickly defeated the right hand hastati.

It all seems pretty reasonable except that the AI charges when it can't win.

Note: I forgot that I turned off fatigue.