New Developer Blog: AI and Battles

**econ21** · 09-15-2006, 12:23

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

I guess that means that a default unit will have 60 soldiers.

Yes, I think you are right. You can see the Portugese and Turkish roster on two of these screenshots:

http://www.g4mers.com/screenshots.as...&type=1&page=5

On normal, it seems you have:

60 - basic infantry
48 - archers + good infantry
32 - cavalry + dismounted cav
16 - general's unit + artillery

The Turks also have a 24 and even a 16 sized infantry unit (the latter maybe naptha?). They lack any 32 sized dismounted cav (their one 32 sized unit does not seem to be dismounted cav whereas the 24 sized one might concievably be).

I can't quite recall how the unit sizes scale up on large, which is my preferred setting.
IIRC, in MTW, you had 100 for basic infantry and 60 for good infantry, cavalry was 40 and I think generals' units did not actually scale up, making them less important in larger scale campaigns.

**Ciaran** · 09-15-2006, 12:33

In RTW the higher settings double the unit size for each step, i.e. a unit that has 60 men (officers not included) on default will have 120 on large and 240 on huge. The MTW, and I think the STW system too, are slightly different in their scaling factors. I can´t say I prefer one system over the other, and we´ll see how it´ll turn out in MTW2

**AussieGiant** · 09-15-2006, 12:42

Ok, but what does he mean by "Magic numbers".

What do they do? I get the impression it is some type of "balancing" issue, but I really have no idea.

**Soulflame** · 09-15-2006, 12:56

Glad to hear about the AI, and it proves that what I experienced at the demo probably wasn't a fluke, but really built into the AI.

Even though I played from Shogun, I'm not sure what he means with the unit sizes and 'magic numbers'. I wasn't really bothered with the changes in unit sizes in Rome.
More important is how hard it is to handle units on the screen, I couldn't play huge and even large sometimes lagged me a bit, so in Rome it's normal for me. But we'll just have to see.

**SpencerH** · 09-15-2006, 13:04

It sounds promising but it's still a 'wait and see' for me. Another side of this AI behaviour may be being forced to chase horse archers who wont retreat round and round the map in a futile attempt to catch them.

**shifty157** · 09-15-2006, 13:09

Maybe if we're lucky the demo will ship with a limited custom battle feature so we can actually see how well the AI fights without the help of all those historical battle scripts.

**Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)** · 09-15-2006, 13:42

The ai is improved.

**Zatoichi** · 09-15-2006, 13:53

Another good blog - very promising stuff.

"Regarding combat the user must now get more involved, “Ctrl-A’’ double click wont be good enough. It’s back to the days of maintaining lines and issuing orders on the way to battle. Gone are the days of the AI determining what are the best targets and the user having to continually try and drag them out of unwanted combat. With slower combat speeds and greater control, strategy now plays a bigger part in battles."

That just made my day!

**screwtype** · 09-17-2006, 16:14

Originally Posted by SpencerH

It sounds promising but it's still a 'wait and see' for me. Another side of this AI behaviour may be being forced to chase horse archers who wont retreat round and round the map in a futile attempt to catch them.

Actually that happened sometimes in Shogun. If you only had foot units, you would chase the horse archers around the map getting peppered until your footsoldiers got exhausted, then the HA would charge and route your forces.

I thought it was quite realistic actually. That's what should happen if you try to run down HA with footsoldiers...

**SpencerH** · 09-17-2006, 22:42

Originally Posted by screwtype

Actually that happened sometimes in Shogun. If you only had foot units, you would chase the horse archers around the map getting peppered until your footsoldiers got exhausted, then the HA would charge and route your forces.

I thought it was quite realistic actually. That's what should happen if you try to run down HA with footsoldiers...

I'm not discussing the tactics of a HA army v foot army. I'm taliking about after I've obliterated the AI standing army but one or two (usually) HA units refuse to retreat off the map and must be chased endlessly round and round. I've even 'lost' battles in this fashion.

I know it happened in Shogun, MTW, and RTW. Isnt it about time it was fixed. I'm not saying this will contribute to the problem BTW, I'm just pointing out the possibility. Given that the tone of the article suggests that the author was pleased and surprised by the AI behaviour I have to wonder if there hasnt been sufficient playtesting.

**shifty157** · 09-15-2006, 13:00

In STW all types of units had the same number of men (except for yout daimyo).

Well I guess the post is impressive although i have to say that im still very unsure. As far as the AI goes i really wont believe anything until I have the game in my hands and i see it happen. Ill probably play my first game on hardest difficulty and if i am defeated by the computer then ill proceed to laugh out loud and fall in love with the game.

**screwtype** · 09-17-2006, 16:09

Originally Posted by econ21

IIRC, in MTW, you had 100 for basic infantry and 60 for good infantry, cavalry was 40 and I think generals' units did not actually scale up, making them less important in larger scale campaigns.

I think in STW you only had a unit of 10 heavy cav for the general didn't you?

Mind you, those 10 heavy cav still came in pretty handy...