What kind of AI do you want?

[Geoffrey S]

I'd like to see an AI that, among other things, learns and saves it's own encrypted log files, which it can refer to later. So for example, if you start a campaign and always perform the same tactics, the AI wises up to it and eventually get's to know what you're doing. It could also borrow your tactics and use them against you.

That's a lot to ask for. Designing a good AI is hard enough, particularly for a game as complex as this, and one that actually learns is probably beyond the means of most games right now. However, if it keeps coming across cavalry heavy armies it could decide to build armies designed to cope with that, such as many spearmen; that should be reasonable.

Basics need to be right, though, which they certainly weren't in RTW. Armies should stay in formation, no suicidal generals, and the AI should recognise weak areas and focus on breaking them; coordinated charges would help, particularly from cavalry. But having the armies stick together and not spread out, especially when attacking, would help immensely.

[Tahanaman]

I agree with Orda Khan- hello by the way! I would like to see an AI that would hand my butt to me for making mistakes on the battlefield

[Ironside]

Although mostly issues with the MTW AI, I would like to see proper a "horde" mode, that is proper swarming if the comp has weaker troops but larger numbers. Or the closly related "everything is going to hell anyway, so why don't try to take out as much of the enemy before biting the dust"-mode.

The MTW AI has big problems with the second one. Proper handling of reinforcements for both MTW and RTW (although different ways) and proper treating of a fast general unit if there's large forces still active (aka in RTW, if the first army is smashed retreat the remaining cav and especially the general to the other army and for MTW the general retreats to meat up with a new row of a full 16 units).

That combined with a great AI (MTW quality minimum) and with battles that last more than 10 seconds MTW2 would look very promicing.

[Sir Robin]

I agree that designing a good AI is difficult but I have seen games with much lower budgets have far superior AI.

A good AI is very important to a games value. Designers, or at least their marketers, know this and so we always hear about how this or that games AI is "great." Sad how few games live up to this hype though.

[Ibn Munqidh]

AI that it truely AI, AI that is progressive, AI which will develope artificial intelligence during the game, something that was non-existant in Rome, where the AI kept performing the same, stupid manoevers and tactics over and over again.

[Mooks]

The AI is pathetic in mtw and rtw, except for a few battles, I wasnt EVER beat without insurmountable (practically ubeatable) odds. I can take on 1v4 of the comp.

Horse archers? The ai chases them around the map while being decimated

Seiges?Ai runs back and forth while your bombarding them with missles, then when its attacking it just sits there and gets wiped out.

The Ai never attempted to flank me, EVER. And iv played hundreds of battles. They always run into a strong front line and they rarely ever employ archers.

Bridge battles...May be a glitch, but most of the time they just sit there and do nothing.

The AI on the campaign screen is even worse. Though iv found that just turteling and letting the enemy get stronger then you is funner. The AI has no perception of decent armys, strategys, agents, and it backstabs you for no reason, no honor whatsoever, and refuses treaties that include them saving their asses and getting 500k and all their territory back.

The AI on hard mode doesnt improve, it just gets cheat codes/extra money and troops.

I could go on and oooooon. But ill save you time The AI needs to be redone.

[Orda Khan]

I agree with Orda Khan- hello by the way! I would like to see an AI that would hand my butt to me for making mistakes on the battlefield

Hello Tahanaman, I've not seen you in ages. Hopefully MTW II will prove to be worth the effort in MP

......Orda

[Servius]

MTW's AI was okay, but it had far fewer variables to deal with. RTW's AI might have been a bit better, but it played far worse. In part that's probably due to the significant increase in variables the AI had to wade through, but it's also quite posible the RTW AI was just worse too.

Either way, since MTW2 is using a map at least as complex as RTW, the AI needs a huge overhaul, or utter replacement, because RTWs sucked.

[caravel]

That's a lot to ask for. Designing a good AI is hard enough, particularly for a game as complex as this, and one that actually learns is probably beyond the means of most games right now. However, if it keeps coming across cavalry heavy armies it could decide to build armies designed to cope with that, such as many spearmen; that should be reasonable.

Not really, it would not be much different to the logs kept and used as an AI script by programmed chess opponents.

[sunsmountain]

I'm glad with all the valuable responses. We all want units to follow Sun Tzu's Art of War, and CA have aimed for this since Shogun.

The AI in RTW however, fails to keep to the basics in the long run. We seem to all agree that these basics are more important to get right than which formation, strategy or tactic to use.
These basics (keeping troops together, sticking with decisions once made) go wrong exactly because of the following design decision:

How often do you want the AI to re-evaluate its decisions?

In Rome:TW, the answer was: Too often, leading to such horrors as the save/reload bug on the campaign map, where the AI evaluates what it's doing EVERY load. On the battlemap it re-evaluates EVERY 5 seconds, leading to those wonderful scenes with enemy units marching back and forth without engaging, or engaging flank first, or archers repositioning and never firing.... brrr

In Medieval:TW, the answer was: Twice, at the start of battle and just before engaging. No updates after that, only (smart) unit behaviour according to Sun Tzu rules. Mind you, they had less options/formations to choose from compared to RTW, and were therefore more likely to do things right. The MTW campaign map didn't re-evaluate its decisions at all, they always built and moved the same. The map was simpler too.

CA's weak point seems to be that once they have made a design decision, they're sticking with it. If only they could translate that determination to the battlefield :) yes it's ironic.

A better question would be:
When is it necessary for the AI to re-evaluate?

I'd like to see an AI that, among other things, learns and saves it's own encrypted log files, which it can refer to later. So for example, if you start a campaign and always perform the same tactics, the AI wises up to it and eventually get's to know what you're doing. It could also borrow your tactics and use them against you.

Ahh.... you were talking about campaign map AI... then don't say: Tactics. Campaign is all about strategy, not tactics, tactics is for the battlefield:

What it can learn, is what kind of armies you are building, ie heavy in Spearmen, swordsmen or archers, and assemble its armies to match that. But Rome campaign map AI already does this (while building all military buildings, not focusing, so it doesn't matter, but still).

Perhaps one the AI designers from CA could comment on their design decisions or shed some light...

[Lord Adherbal]

Not really, it would not be much different to the logs kept and used as an AI script by programmed chess opponents.

actualy the TW game rules - or any RTS rules - a a *tad* bit more complicated then those of chess

They always run into a strong front line and they rarely ever employ archers.

yeah this is one of the most incredible flaws (as in they would've ben so easy to fix). The AI never uses an archer advantage, atleast not when attacking. If he has better archers then his opponent, and his infantry/cavalry advantage over his opponent is not like 10 to 1, then he should sit back, and NOT attack with hs inf and cav until every last arrow has been shot.
But perhaps CA figured this would be too boring for the average 12 year old kid ?

[caravel]

actualy the TW game rules - or any RTS rules - a a *tad* bit more complicated then those of chess



yeah this is one of the most incredible flaws (as in they would've ben so easy to fix). The AI never uses an archer advantage, atleast not when attacking. If he has better archers then his opponent, and his infantry/cavalry advantage over his opponent is not like 10 to 1, then he should sit back, and NOT attack with hs inf and cav until every last arrow has been shot.
But perhaps CA figured this would be too boring for the average 12 year old kid ?

I was referring, of course, to the campaign map AI. The actual battle AI is a totally different thing.