What kind of AI do you want?

**Zalmoxis** · 05-27-2006, 03:12

Wouldn't it take a long time to create a brand new AI?

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 05-27-2006, 03:30

Ah, but I'd play it longer. It would be worth it IMO.

**AwesomeArcher** · 05-27-2006, 05:09

I liked RTW's AI, it was a good difficulty for me, challenging, but winnable. Although i would like more options that the user could define. Such as the user could set whether the AI uses move infantry or cav. Or works on building an army for attacking or fortifying for defense, you know stuff like that.

**Monk** · 05-27-2006, 08:46

Building Ai is a complex thing, so i've been told. However, if CA is truely spending all this time polishing mtw2, i'd ask they spend this time on the AI. it needs a huge overhaul; anything better than an RTW AI will make me happy. and i'm willing to wait longer just for a challenging game

edit: because i sounded like a jerk. <3 CA

**BDC** · 05-27-2006, 22:11

An ai which holds it's lines together and coordinates flanking etc. And uses archers. Nothing too impressive, just maybe a script forcing it to keep infantry in a line would do.

I'd also say the MTW decision thing was better. At least it was commited and had a chance of winning. In Rome the ai just decided to stop charging at the very last moment.

**jadast** · 05-27-2006, 23:16

I would like an AI with a strategic vision. One that uses its resources to build up its territories and maintains well balanced armies.

**Mooks** · 05-28-2006, 02:14

Id also like, if you put it on very hard settings. That the AI does not get extra money/troops but has more skill. Blockading all of your enemys ports and laying waste all of his lands does nothing on vh/vh

**caravel** · 05-31-2006, 13:30

Originally Posted by Monk

Building Ai is a complex thing, so i've been told. However, if CA is truely spending all this time polishing mtw2, i'd ask they spend this time on the AI. it needs a huge overhaul; anything better than an RTW AI will make me happy. and i'm willing to wait longer just for a challenging game[/I]

My thoughts exactly. CA seem to have all the time in the world to spend on the eye candy, yet the AI, is "far too complex" according to some of their fans. I am not an expert on AI programming by any standard, but it seems to me that the AI in TW games could be improved vastly. The campaign map AI and diplomacy was downright stupid in all games to date. The battlemap AI is now worse than it was in MTW and STW. None of this has occurred because AI programming is this unstable and unknown science that some of the fans would have you believe, it has come to this because CA have dumbed down their games to suit a younger audience. Younger ex RTS players don't understand the effects of flanking, morale, weather, fatigue, height advantage... so CA made these aspects less important. How?

1) Flanking

In STW/MTW it was very important. In RTW not so much, because you don't need to do it as much due to the overpowered turbocav (despite roman cavalry of the period not being that good) and the fact that flanking didn't really have the same demoralising effect on the enemy.

2) Weather

In STW/MTW, wet bowstrings, climate etc all effected a battle. Fog effected visibility as did sandstorms. In RTW none of this was a real factor.

3) Fatigue

STW/MTW, your units get tired after chasing about and slugging it out for long periods, they tire faster in the hotter climes and are much more easily defeated when exhausted. In RTW this wasn't really a factor, the effects are hardly noticable.

4) Height advantage

with RTW's smaller flatter maps, this wasn't much of an issue.

This is why AI is not an issue for CA. Eye candy sells games to the main target audience which are kids and are mostly not registered on these boards, AI doesn't. Kids want to charge their romans or knights at the little barbarian men and cut them down and watch them run, the don't want to deploy and maneouvre their troops using real tactics and a strategy.

**econ21** · 06-01-2006, 15:47

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

1) Flanking

In STW/MTW it was very important. In RTW not so much, because you don't need to do it as much due to the overpowered turbocav (despite roman cavalry of the period not being that good) and the fact that flanking didn't really have the same demoralising effect on the enemy.

2) Weather

In STW/MTW, wet bowstrings, climate etc all effected a battle. Fog effected visibility as did sandstorms. In RTW none of this was a real factor.

3) Fatigue

STW/MTW, your units get tired after chasing about and slugging it out for long periods, they tire faster in the hotter climes and are much more easily defeated when exhausted. In RTW this wasn't really a factor, the effects are hardly noticable.

4) Height advantage

with RTW's smaller flatter maps, this wasn't much of an issue.

I have to say that in my experience, almost all of these points are false as regards the RTW engine (the only one I am not sure on is weather - I haven't looked for that). I agree in some vanilla games, you may not need to worry about the above effects. But they are modelled in the engine and are available to you. Play a harder campaign, fight tougher battles and you will end up relying on this stuff.

Flanking is incredibly important. Try playing RTR where morale levels are so high, if you just have frontal engagements, it will be mutually assured destruction. I would say flanking is the tactic in RTW.

I thought from Puzz3D and others than fatigue is overdone in RTW. Set up on a map edge and typically the AI are exhausted by the time they get to you and so they flee easily.

Height is an enormous issue, in my experience. Archers on a hill, or even just javelins, greatly outrange those below and seem more lethal. I get cut to pieces going up hill. I think the advantages of meleeing downhill are still there too.

People criticising RTW really need to play mods like RTR or EB. They'll find most of the gameplay they loved in MTW is still there. (And the historical aspect is far better.) The main thing we've lost is the greater strategic challenge from the risk style campaign map, but that's a gameplay vs realism trade-off IMO.

**Furious Mental** · 06-01-2006, 16:56

Height advantage should be important, but the AI should know how to deal with a player in a strong position. It should try to use archers, arquebusiers and especially artillery to draw the player down. I also think that units should be more prone to chasing after the enemy, such that the AI can use feigned retreats to pull the player's soldiers down the hill. If that fails the AI should retreat in an orderly fashion to fight another day. What it should not do (1) pointlessly attack up hill with no chance of success; or (2) string its entire army out into a disparate and vulnerable line of individual units, leaving them to be easily slaughtered by the player's cavalry!

**Kralizec** · 06-03-2006, 15:42

Originally Posted by econ21

I thought from Puzz3D and others than fatigue is overdone in RTW. Set up on a map edge and typically the AI are exhausted by the time they get to you and so they flee easily.

It's just that the AI will mindlessly run his units towards you, and by the time they'll reach you they're off course tired. MTW AI never did that.
I think it might be related to a quirk that occurs when you send multiple units to march somewhere. If you just click on the destination, some will run and others won't. It doesn't occur with click-and-drag commands.