New Developer Blog: AI and Battles

[Jambo]

Bear in mind that a developer's blog is likely to be on the biased side. It's all part of the marketing and they're not exactly going to berate the AI now are they...

Still, at least they're putting their money where their mouth is and being up-front. If the AI doesn't do exactly what it says on the tin when it arrives, then they won't have lived up to their promises.

[Barbarossa82]

I agree caution is needed, but the mere fact that a developer acknowledges that slower and more cohesive combat is a selling feature to be promoted bodes well. They could have slowed down RTW with every patch they brought out but they chose not to. Even if the MTW AI isn't as great as they make it sound at least this time they appear to be aiming at it, rather than writing it off as a niche concern.

[Martok]

I agree caution is needed, but the mere fact that a developer acknowledges that slower and more cohesive combat is a selling feature to be promoted bodes well. They could have slowed down RTW with every patch they brought out but they chose not to. Even if the MTW AI isn't as great as they make it sound at least this time they appear to be aiming at it, rather than writing it off as a niche concern.

All good points, Barbarossa. I naturally still have my doubts as to whether the battle speeds have been slowed down enough, but I'm glad they're at least touting slower battles speeds as being a good thing.

As for the AI, we can only wait and hope that it's been vastly improved. It is somewhat encouraging they're actually talking about it, however. It's nice to see them acknowleding its importance to the fans.

And... I might be wrong, but he said something about a... replay? We'll have the option to record battles?

Wow, I totally missed that! I hope that means we can now save our campaign battles like in the original MTW; that would be very happy.

[Dutch_guy]

Wow, I totally missed that! I hope that means we can now save our campaign battles like in the original MTW; that would be very happy.

Same here

[Drake]

Did anyone else get caught in Rome, usually always with an Egyptian army that when you defeat 99% of it there's one chariot left who runs around for bloody ages and you end up chasing it around and around the battlezone.

I hope the battle AI is fixed up so that should this happen in MTW2 that this unit catches a grip and runs for the hills when faced by about 500 men.

[ToranagaSama]

Just logged in to the Org to post a 'heads up' to the OT forum and to my incredible astonishment I am greeted with this news. I'll have to wait until the weekend to delve into the details.

Here I sit staring at my monitor and all I can think is OMFG!

OMFG!!

"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."

OMFG!!!

"With slower combat speeds and greater control, strategy now plays a bigger part in battles."

OMFG!!!

OMFG!!!!

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess I can't wait til the weekend.

...“WOW” just like STW and MTW....

It would appear that CA has is finally taking a more 'hard-core' direction toward the AI and it's related attributes and accompanyments, but I can't fail to note that comments such as the above truly belie the ---mis-direction--- taken with the development of RTW.

...M2TW is as much a top down strategic game ....

Fundamental change in the correct direction. Thank you.


Well, there's a couple things to realize:

1) "Jason" is NOT a developer, he's a 'Play Tester' or to be more accurrate a QA Tester; a bit of a difference.

Play-testers don't develope/code their purpose is to *break* code. Ideally, for Org interests, it'd be best if he were a BA, but I'm not sure they have those in regards to 'game development'. (QA-Quality Assurrance; BA-Business Analyst (BAs are the human interface between Users and Developers. If CA had people in BA equivalent positions, they would be the ones we would talk to most in the forums).

2) It's a 'Blog' not a .plan (which is what I believe I requested), which accounts for the 'fluffy' nature of the writing (which is pretty good).

The great thing is that they are opening up communications a bit (thank you!). The bad thing is its all so 'fluffy' and 'Puffy', which is typical of The Shogun.

And they are giving straight examples of situations. It's not a gamble what they mean, they describe in detail a situation (in this case a skirmisher army) where the AI improved. I don't think there is a better way to make clear statements about what's possible.

Yeah, but not all that much in the way of *telling* detail for hard-core dessemination. The most significant is the manner in which the *archer* army reacted to an advancing army---GOOD.

But, after they run out of arrows (one would think an MTW2 AI capable of realizing its wasting arrows; stop firing and engage with **directed** fire), contact is made, and all he says is:

It continued to do this until it ran out of ammo at which stage it threw its infantry at my staggered infantry lines and flanked with its cavalry.

Sorry, "threw its infantry" sounds much like normal RTW combat; and

what exactly does "flanked with its cavalry" mean?

For example (at the risk of repeating myself ad nausem), the Shogun AI was only capable of flanking in just one direction or the other. The MTW AI was capable of flanking SIMULTANEOUSLY in two directions. Both were capable of using terrain for cover-to-advance; both were capable of pre-positioning units pre-battle; Both were capable of feigning (battlefield attacks) and counter-moving; and most importanly, reacting (adroitly and intelligently) to player feigns and counter-moves.

With MTW2, one would expect some advance in flanking capability, as well as regarding all the above I mentioned (and more). The Blog does not provide evidence of such. Remember the Poll, you all voted for an AI better than STW/MTW.

As we all know, AI flanking in RTW was non-existant to pathetic, so to say that MTW2's AI "flanked with its cavalry" means what exactly? Moreover, with STW and MTW flanking was not reserved to just calvalry.

What did the *reserve* footmen do? Flank? Fill-the-gaps? or just Press-the-backs of the front-line (which is unexceptable!)?

I *need* a complete battle description.

To cut a long story short....

WHY cut it short??? What's a blog for? It's obviously not a .plan so what's with the short-cutting? I don't get it. There is absolutely nothing else to blog about. This from a play-tester??

I could care less if that catapult had taken his head off! Give me battle details W/O the eye-candy touring.

For what its worth, I applaud CA (and specifically The Shogun) for the effort, but give me less Fluff n Puff and more detail.

Speeds are slower? Good, so what did it allow the player to accomplish that he couldn't in RTW.

Greater control? Good again, so tell me how having greater control allowed the player to do more than he could with RTW.

Strategy now plays a bigger role in battles? Welllll, show me some strategic thinking and application on the part of the player in response to the AI----a bit more than:

To cut a long story short I advanced to engage...

Moreover, I want to hear how the "greater control" allows the player to play with innovation!!!!! This is what its all been about since the inception of Shogun. We don't want to be stuck with the typical RTS rock/paper/scissor *race-to-build* battle model. Control, AI, battle and terrain, as well as weather EFFECTS is what allowed this tired model to be broken by Shogun: Total War

I repeat, I MUST be capable of innovating upon the battlefield in order to defeat a superior in numbers and/or capability AI (or even human) opponnent.

Note, it wasn't stated whether he won or lost, nor how long the battle took (this fact alone would be rather telling).

Frankly, for the remainder of AI development, I call for a **true** developer .plan. Why? For one, the nature of a .plan eliminates the Fluff n Puff.

The Blog is good, and that it be done by a play-tester, just give us detail. Sales to hard-core players will depend majorily upon the AI, battle and terrain effects (ala STW/MTW). I, for one, still won't be a first day of release purchaser, and will only purchase upon positive reviews from **known and original** hard-core Org members (if there are any left!).

And, NO, I will not be a purchaser based upon the Demo, nor comments from CA regarding anything they might change as a result of the community's reaction to the demo. (Sucker me once, shame on me, it won't happen twice.)

Nor will the five other people who will wait for *my* say so, before they purchase MTW2.

~TS~

[Bob the Insane]

Wow, I totally missed that! I hope that means we can now save our campaign battles like in the original MTW; that would be very happy.

Well he started off by saying this was a custom game and you could always save custom battles, so nothing new there...

I know that many out there have pretty exacting standards, but it would not have taken all that much to improve the battles in RTW. The mods do half of it already with speed, stat and morale tweaks. Simple things like getting the AI to maintain a formation and make intelligent decisions as to when to attack and when to retreat and keeping the commander safe would have made a very large impact into the game. (Note I mean simple in concept, not necessarily in code)

What I mean is that RTW would have been way better with a few little improvements in the battle AI so if they have made big steps in improving the battle AI, well I am pretty excited...

[Midnight]

I'll be very happy if the AI now uses its forces intelligently. Slower combat speeds also sound great.

[Martok]

Well he started off by saying this was a custom game and you could always save custom battles, so nothing new there...

Now don't you go ruining my optimism. We want saved replays for campaign battles! Let's hear it!

I know that many out there have pretty exacting standards, but it would not have taken all that much to improve the battles in RTW. The mods do half of it already with speed, stat and morale tweaks. Simple things like getting the AI to maintain a formation and make intelligent decisions as to when to attack and when to retreat and keeping the commander safe would have made a very large impact into the game.

Indeed. If Rome's AI had been able to at least follow some of the simpler aspects of battle, I think most people's opinion of it would have been much more favorable. I really hope they've fixed the AI in Medieval 2 so it doesn't make as many blatantly bone-headed mistakes.

[Puzz3D]

The magic number for unit size in the original battle engine was 60. When that was coupled with the 1 second combat cycle and a chance to kill that nominally ranged between 0.5% (NI vs NI) and 10% (ND vs ND), you got frontal combat resolution times ranging from 3 minutes to 30 seconds. You also got predictable results vs melee and missle combat factors within a reasonable degree of uncertainty. With a 20% advantage in melee combat factor (1 point) you could expect to win 6 out of 10 times, and with a 40% advantage (2 points) you could expect to win 9 out of 10 times.

MTW introduced variable unit size. Although it still ranges around the 60 man size, it makes balancing harder because of the fixed 20% step in melee combat factor (The steps in RTW are apparently 10% which is better). Combat factor has to be used to compensate for the disadvantage suffered by smaller units vs larger units due to multiple attacks on individual men, and it's not a linear relationship. I remember Tosa and I tried to balance 100 man yari ashigaru units in STW/MI against the rest of the 60 man units, and we weren't successful to the degree necessary to ensure balanced gameplay. Variable unit size also complicates balancing ranged units because the ranged unit's overall effectiveness on a target will vary depending on the size of the target unit.

Also, in RTW artillery apparently gets the same number of kills regardless of the size of the target unit which doesn't mesh well with the morale system, if it's similar to the system used in STW/MTW, which applied a morale penalty based on the percentage of men in the unit killed in a combat cycle.

I think it's important to use the original game, STW, as the standard of comparison when you talk about playbalance and gameplay. If MTW is used, you have the situation where, although improved, M2TW could still be inferior in terms of playbalance to CA's original standard, and if you use RTW as the basis, inferior in not only playbalance but overall gameplay (missing features in the engine) as well.

In terms of AI, it's certainly a big improvement to have the AI wait until it has used it's ammo and then charge forward as a whole army rather than use piecemeal attacks where a unit goes forward only to decide that was a mistake and turns around and walks back to its lines. If you don't have a strong rock, paper, scissors battle system, then making individual unit matchups isn't as important. However, the AI is still going to be predictable unless it varies its strategy for similar situations the way a human would. Original STW had an AI that varied its strategy over about 3 different choices for the same initial battle situation.

[ToranagaSama]

The magic number for unit size in the original battle engine was 60. When that was coupled with the 1 second combat cycle and a chance to kill that nominally ranged between 0.5% (NI vs NI) and 10% (ND vs ND), you got frontal combat resolution times ranging from 3 minutes to 30 seconds. You also got predictable results vs melee and missle combat factors within a reasonable degree of uncertainty. With a 20% advantage in melee combat factor (1 point) you could expect to win 6 out of 10 times, and with a 40% advantage (2 points) you could expect to win 9 out of 10 times.

MTW introduced variable unit size. Although it still ranges around the 60 man size, it makes balancing harder because of the fixed 20% step in melee combat factor (The steps in RTW are apparently 10% which is better). Combat factor has to be used to compensate for the disadvantage suffered by smaller units vs larger units due to multiple attacks on individual men, and it's not a linear relationship. I remember Tosa and I tried to balance 100 man yari ashigaru units in STW/MI against the rest of the 60 man units, and we weren't successful to the degree necessary to ensure balanced gameplay. Variable unit size also complicates balancing ranged units because the ranged unit's overall effectiveness on a target will vary depending on the size of the target unit.

Also, in RTW artillery apparently gets the same number of kills regardless of the size of the target unit which doesn't mesh well with the morale system, if it's similar to the system used in STW/MTW, which applied a morale penalty based on the percentage of men in the unit killed in a combat cycle.

I think it's important to use the original game, STW, as the standard of comparison when you talk about playbalance and gameplay. If MTW is used, you have the situation where, although improved, M2TW could still be inferior in terms of playbalance to CA's original standard, and if you use RTW as the basis, inferior in not only playbalance but overall gameplay (missing features in the engine) as well.

In terms of AI, it's certainly a big improvement to have the AI wait until it has used it's ammo and then charge forward as a whole army rather than use piecemeal attacks where a unit goes forward only to decide that was a mistake and turns around and walks back to its lines. If you don't have a strong rock, paper, scissors battle system, then making individual unit matchups isn't as important. However, the AI is still going to be predictable unless it varies its strategy for similar situations the way a human would. Original STW had an AI that varied its strategy over about 3 different choices for the same initial battle situation.

Nice post. Really nice post.

[Dutch_guy]

Now don't you go ruining my optimism. We want saved replays for campaign battles! Let's hear it!

Hear, Hear !

[Geoffrey S]

I can't for the life of me remember where it was, but there was a developer somewhere saying replays of campaign battles was being considered. Must add my voice to those hoping they'll be included.

Blog is interesting, but AI before release is always suspect; particularly in FPS, where a hyped-up AI turns out to be simple, predictable scripting. The explanation from Puzz3D on the magic numbers is interesting too, definitely a step forward for particularly multiplayer if results are consistant.

[Soulflame]

Bear in mind that a developer's blog is likely to be on the biased side. It's all part of the marketing and they're not exactly going to berate the AI now are they...

Still, at least they're putting their money where their mouth is and being up-front. If the AI doesn't do exactly what it says on the tin when it arrives, then they won't have lived up to their promises.

And they are giving straight examples of situations. It's not a gamble what they mean, they describe in detail a situation (in this case a skirmisher army) where the AI improved. I don't think there is a better way to make clear statements about what's possible.

And like you said, if it isn't in the end game, they'll be branded liars, so chances of it being untrue is very, very small.


I'm still not sure about the 'magic number' units, because like Econ21 pointed out , there are already screenshots that prove that unit sizes won't be one single number. So maybe they changed the ratio's a bit, but that doesn't sound like me as 'magic', but more like 'balancing'. Personally I'd be happier if there was a distinction between unit sizes (like the screenshots prove). Oh well.

[Vlad Tzepes]

"To say I was impressed is an understatement, I think I called the replay “Golly gosh” well to be honest it wasn’t that politically correct but you get the idea."

"Golly gosh"? Vat iz zat? Well if he was impressed, that raises some hope!

And... I might be wrong, but he said something about a... replay? We'll have the option to record battles?

[Nathanael]

Custom battle replays were savable in Rome, weren't they?

The numbers I remember from MTW were 100 for most defensive infantry (spears, pikes) and peasants, 60 for most offensive infantry (swords, axes, polearms, etc) and missile units, 40 for cavalry, 20 for royal cavalry, and 12 for special units like hashishin or naptha throwers. There were obviously a few exceptions (muwahid foot soldiers (an offensive spear unit) and gothic seageants come to mind).

Looking at the Portugeuse units, it looks like the ratios are similar (at a smaller unit size). Respectively, 60, 48, 32, 16, (no special units). Biggest difference is that it looks like the javelin type units are in the large, defensive infantry and peasant category rather than the offensive and missile category. All the 32-men infantry are probably dismounted cavalry (just like foot knights in the first game).

The Turkish units hold up to this theory, with similar unit sizes. Again, there are differences - naffatun are 16 instead of 12, and there's that curious 24-man unit. I doubt they're dismounted anything (as there's no corresponding 24-man cavalry unit). My guess is that they're a new take on hashishin, losing the bows but getting a larger size unit. I imagine they're much like arcani from RTW. It also looks like they have one or two regular javelin units (the guys with their arms up) at the 48-man size like most missile units, and a 32-man size one. I imagine the 32-man unit is dismounted cavalry, and maybe the 60-size javelin unit the Portugeuse have is more of a peasant unit. 48 is probably the standard javelin size.