Normal Vs Hard/VH difficulty

[Oaty]

Well since STW the only difference between norm and hard/veyhard on the battlefield was bonuses the A.I. would get on the battlefield was bonuses minus a few(very Few). Now the battlefield A.I. can be a spaghetti messs to program as there are so many variants. Of course the campaign is a spaghetti mess too but IMO less noodles to deal with.

One of the big gripes of RTW was the cheap upkeep of cavarly, IMO just feed the horses straw and grass. Obviously the game has to be catered to all crowds of people and to the fans.

So to help cater to all crowds perhaps cavalry would be cheap on normal and easy difficulty and on hard and very hard certain troops esp cavaly recieveve a substantial upkeep cost to maintain.

RTW was designed by default or mistake that 1 unit could dominate the whole battlefield, yea it really sucked 1 in every 100 battles the A.I. just annilated your army with 1 unit............ then again there are those other 99 battles.

Anyways on harder difficulties the elite units should become more costly at least in upkeep making them harder to keep, by 2-4 fold or more while weak units don't increase but are not a great introduction to yr stack

IMO the battlefield AI was never lacking much considering that quite often the AI would field losers (there was l in the shape on her forehead)

The battlefield AI was quite a joke, not because of how it handled the situation (ok to a degree). but if it brought knives to a gunfight why program the battlefield A.I. So hopefully the A.I. will make better decicions on the campaign so that us fans can legitmately criticize the battlefield A.I.

Until then programming the battlefield A.I. is worthless as I am only seeing knives in a gunfight.

[WarMachine420]

Well since STW the only difference between norm and hard/veyhard on the battlefield was bonuses the A.I. would get on the battlefield was bonuses minus a few(very Few). Now the battlefield A.I. can be a spaghetti messs to program as there are so many variants. Of course the campaign is a spaghetti mess too but IMO less noodles to deal with.

One of the big gripes of RTW was the cheap upkeep of cavarly, IMO just feed the horses straw and grass. Obviously the game has to be catered to all crowds of people and to the fans.

So to help cater to all crowds perhaps cavalry would be cheap on normal and easy difficulty and on hard and very hard certain troops esp cavaly recieveve a substantial upkeep cost to maintain.

RTW was designed by default or mistake that 1 unit could dominate the whole battlefield, yea it really sucked 1 in every 100 battles the A.I. just annilated your army with 1 unit............ then again there are those other 99 battles.

Anyways on harder difficulties the elite units should become more costly at least in upkeep making them harder to keep, by 2-4 fold or more while weak units don't increase but are not a great introduction to yr stack

IMO the battlefield AI was never lacking much considering that quite often the AI would field losers (there was l in the shape on her forehead)

The battlefield AI was quite a joke, not because of how it handled the situation (ok to a degree). but if it brought knives to a gunfight why program the battlefield A.I. So hopefully the A.I. will make better decicions on the campaign so that us fans can legitmately criticize the battlefield A.I.

Until then programming the battlefield A.I. is worthless as I am only seeing knives in a gunfight.

are you a fan of Total War?

[Masy]

are you a fan of Total War?

[Bob the Insane]

I can't say I fully understand the first post but I do have an opinion on difficulty levels...

I just want one where the AI has all it's clever tricks enabled but without an bonuses or penalties applied to the troops...

Seperating the strategic and and Battlefield difficulties in RTW was a step in the right direction. But I would like to see the some separation of the AI's tricks and bonuses and penalties...

[WarMachine420]

I can't say I fully understand the first post but I do have an opinion on difficulty levels...

I just want one where the AI has all it's clever tricks enabled but without an bonuses or penalties applied to the troops...

Seperating the strategic and and Battlefield difficulties in RTW was a step in the right direction. But I would like to see the some separation of the AI's tricks and bonuses and penalties...

That's always been my sentiments exactly. In all genres, not just the strategy genres, it's bothered me that STILL we watch improved AI be in the form of a predetermined advantage given to the AI side, not a more challenging strategic approach. Was the same with Madden Football for years (has gotten worked out by now)...instead of better strategy and reads by a defense on All-Madden, DB's with 65 speed could run just as fast as WR with 99 speed. That's total garbage.

With Rome, I can't say it's as bad. This is why I don't play video games anymore and focus on pc games...they're just "smarter". But still, giving the AI unit an "invisible" chevron or weapon/armor boost isn't improving the AI. That's just candy-coating the lack of it. I want the AI to perform smarter on the campaign map and on the battlefield..period. Nobody has ever asked for invisible stat buffs to units on the AI faction's side.

I'll tell you the other thing that doesn't cut it either: Phalanx units controlled by the AI running AS FAST or FASTER than cavalry units, strictly because they were about to be flanked and decimated. Now that's exactly what I'm talking about...not better AI, just a cloak.

Still though...I would never have started a thread on this myself as asking for "better AI" is kind of like saying "life's not fair". Obviously.

[Mikhal]

I just want one where the AI has all it's clever tricks enabled but without an bonuses or penalties applied to the troops...

But I would like to see the some separation of the AI's tricks and bonuses and penalties...

yes, definetly. i had to play on medium battle difficulty as i just couldn't accept those unrealistic and lame bonuses, i hope i diden't miss out on any true AI smartness because of that.

[WarMachine420]

yes, definetly. i had to play on medium battle difficulty as i just couldn't accept those unrealistic and lame bonuses, i hope i diden't miss out on any true AI smartness because of that.

That's the whole point. You didn't miss out on much except the stat bonuses. However, after the 1.5/1.6 patch I did notice battlefield AI improve slightly on H and VH difficulties. Medium, which I see MOST players playing on, is just so trivial it's not even worth it. And I don't even consider myself one of the "better" players. Medium is a joke.

I dunno...my point was stated, but now...I think people are just worrying too much about problems which either a) aren't going to be in the game anyway so there's no sense in panicking or b) 99 percent of the gamers won't notice anyway.

[Puzz3D]

are you a fan of Total War?

Yes he's a fan or Total War, and his point is a very good one which you totally missed. You have gone off talking about battlefield AI which is what he's saying isn't worth talking about unless the strategic AI brings competitive units to the battlefield. His other point is that a lot more could be done with the strategic difficulty settings besides just giving the player less money to start. He gives an example of increasing the upkeep on elite units on the higher difficulty settings. This would increase the difficulty of the battles since the AI would be fielding better units.

Another related point that I've been harping on is that there are features in the game that the AI hasn't been programmed to handle. The seemingly weaker battle AI is the result of changes to the battle mechanics since STW that the AI hasn't been adjusted to handle. The AI doesn't even know how to use a shield which is a pretty blatant omission. Shields were introduced in MTW, and the battle AI still doesn't know about them in RTW/BI. The more this type of thing is done, the easier Total War campaigns become. Sure there is more to manage, and maybe a huge number of battles to fight. So what? The player is just going through tedious micromanagement and battles without any real competition.

[x-dANGEr]

Until then programming the battlefield A.I. is worthless as I am only seeing knives in a gunfight.

I wonder how you see it.. If you play on VH difficulty, you get exactly what you're asking for.. Knives that can beats guns in a gun fight.. A general unit that can beat 7 units head on alone.. A Hesitati unit that somehow just goes through that line like a hot knife on butter..

Another related point that I've been harping on is that there are features in the game that the AI hasn't been programmed to handle. The seemingly weaker battle AI is the result of changes to the battle mechanics since STW that the AI hasn't been adjusted to handle. The AI doesn't even know how to use a shield which is a pretty blatant omission. Shields were introduced in MTW, and the battle AI still doesn't know about them in RTW/BI. The more this type of thing is done, the easier Total War campaigns become. Sure there is more to manage, and maybe a huge number of battles to fight. So what? The player is just going through tedious micromanagement and battles without any real competition.

Which is why I'm against the "Men Pool Production System".. I can just see how well the AI will handle it..

[Oaty]

I wonder how you see it.. If you play on VH difficulty, you get exactly what you're asking for.. Knives that can beats guns in a gun fight.. A general unit that can beat 7 units head on alone.. A Hesitati unit that somehow just goes through that line like a hot knife on butter..

The problem --- I never tried easy difficulty, but I'm sure all I would need to recruit troops for is breaking the walls and garrison. I then could use my generals to destroy whole armies as I can do this on normal difficulty. Now if when the A.I. is on very hard I may win the battles until I hit a general and will lose everybattle after that. Not a very enjoyable game when I see 1 cavalry unit go charge, wham, route, charge, wham, route through a whole line of infantry. In the TW's predecessors cavalry (and infantry for that matter) was tied up long enough to make this impossible. With RTW 1 unit is the whole battle.

[econ21]

With RTW 1 unit is the whole battle.

I noticed something like that going back to vanilla with RTW. A barbarian general's unit can do an awful lot of damage, even to a phalanx. But surely this can be modded? Cut them down to 1 HP and trim the armour, defence and attack. They will still be very powerful, due to their mobility (even the AI knows hammer and anvil if you give it a chance), but this time mortal.

[Orda Khan]

The player is just going through tedious micromanagement and battles without any real competition.

Precisely. It has become so easy to create an army that dominates the battlefield time and time again. The AI insists upon attacking your seasoned army with a bunch of peasants; you destroy them with minimal losses.
In one battle I sent my newly come of age family member with only his bodyguard to meet up with one of my field armies. He was instantly attacked by a Gothic army of 800+. I targetted a HA unit and coralled it to the map corner where it was killed/routed. Next I began to lead the infantry (a mixture of runaway slave spears and Gothic spears) around the map, trying to encourage their general away from safety. Sure enough, after a while he attacked and I defeated him before his army arrived. When they did it was only a matter of some flank attacks before they were routed from the field!
I gave up playing after that. The AI needs attention more than any other part of the game. Good grief, in STW the AI would keep a cohesive army formation at least but even invisible upgrades would do little to save an army that acted like those Goths

........Orda

[econ21]

In one battle I sent my newly come of age family member with only his bodyguard to meet up with one of my field armies. He was instantly attacked by a Gothic army of 800+. I targetted a HA unit and coralled it to the map corner where it was killed/routed. Next I began to lead the infantry (a mixture of runaway slave spears and Gothic spears) around the map, trying to encourage their general away from safety. Sure enough, after a while he attacked and I defeated him before his army arrived. When they did it was only a matter of some flank attacks before they were routed from the field!
I gave up playing after that.

I've experienced things like that. They can be quite fun but not really a reason to stop playing. What you are doing is basically an exploit and I would not use it to fault the AI. It's programmed to fight a pitched battle, not a chase a lone cavalry unit (and having chased lone horse archer units, I know that such chases are not trivial). Once you've killed it's cavalry, it's not really a "battle". Given your manouvrability edge, he's brought a knife (ok, many knives) to your gunfight.

Rather than a problem with the AI, I think it points to problems with the settings: cavalry is too strong (mod your bodyguards' hit points down from 2 to 1); spears are too weak against cavalry; and morale is too low. Try those tactics with a "realism" mod like EB or RTR. They might still work - and in reality a body of what are effectively knights often could beat up large numbers of mediocre infantry. But I would not count on it and you certainly wouldn't have many cavalry left.

[x-dANGEr]

The thought of blaming the stats rather than the AI is wrong.. (IMO that is). If the AI kepts his men together, and carefully surrounded Orda's general unit, it'd have won.. BUt.. As I said manytimes, it can never get high to such a level.

[Puzz3D]

Precisely. It has become so easy to create an army that dominates the battlefield time and time again. The AI insists upon attacking your seasoned army with a bunch of peasants; you destroy them with minimal losses.

The AI attacking with a weaker army might be a result of the bias, put in by the dev who programmed the strategic AI in RTW, which favors the AI in the auto-resolve. This bias isn't in effect on the battlefield, so it's an easy win for the player. This in turn makes the campaign easier because the AI suffers massive casualties while the player suffers few casualties. This auto-resolve bias may also have adversely affected the design of the battlefield AI to prevent the AI from withdrawing its army and not engaging its units on the battlefield eventhough they are weaker. I've seen the RTW battlefield AI make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the unit they are attacking. I never saw this in STW which I tested extensively.

A bias in the auto-resolve on normal difficulty is a bad idea. It should only come in on the harder difficulty levels, and should be made to track the combat advantage given to the AI on the battlefield. I would say the auto-resolve should be tied to the tactical difficulty setting not the strategic setting.