Quote Originally Posted by Aquitaine
It's one thing to complain about actual bugs (like the passive AI issue) but keep in mind that AI isn't like graphics or gameplay where you can make lots of incremental changes. As a science, AI is an order of magnitude more complex and difficult than any other part of software development. Even in games with simple rules, like Chess, it takes quite a lot of computer power to outwit a capable opponent.

It's not going to be able to identify every permutation of every strategy you can think of, particularly if you've split your forces. It's an unreasonable expectation that it would. I want a good challenge, and I hope MTW2 delivers that, but there will always be those moments where you know that, had a human player been up against you, there's no way you would have pulled off that heroic victory.

The only real question we have to answer is whether we're satisfied that CA has made significant progress. I don't have an answer for that yet, but it's important to distinguish between consistent bugs (siege/passive AI) and general architectural difficulties with artifical intelligence. How else can you explain that Shogun and Medieval's AI were, in many ways, better than Rome's? Because the rules in Shogun and MTW were infinitely more simple than they are here. The more ways you have of outsmarting your opponent, the more features you add, the more challenging task you have to teach the computer how to take advantage of those features.
Well said. I agree completly. And from my observations the AI is improved. Look at the sieges for example. It methodically destroys walls and towers with artillery. It keeps ladders and rams in reserve to use them at the inner walls. That it still fails to beat the defenders most of the time is a problem of the odds calculation of the campaign AI, which attacks with too little units. Also the AI should try to starve out (English?) cities at least sometimes. As it is now the AI always attacks.