Campaign AI still disappointingly stupid?

[GFX707]

Having played the M2TW campaign now, it seems to me that the campaign AI is still suicidal and stupid. It may be better at apologising for its stupidity now, though, which is a great thing, and more agreeable than completely and utterly refusing to make any deals with you ever, but the old pattern is still there where even though it has 1 province and 200 peasants and you own most of Europe and could crush anyone else on the map it will siege one of your provinces, or more frequently the AI navy will blockade one of your ports or try to assassinate someone insignificant even if you've been allies for 150 turns.

The AI navies still seem to sail around at random and whenever they touch one of your ports they blockade it....or at least that's what it seems like.

The AI still sends multiple one-unit stacks around instead of knowing what to do with the armies.

The AI's army composition is usually 1/2 crossbows, 1/4 siege equipment and some rubbish melee troops, which is both easy and extremely tedious to beat.

It also seems to lack the ability to garrison, and frequently tries to siege my full-stack citadels with 1 general's unit and some archers.

Here is a typical campaign:

1) I play peacefully, building up my cities and armies.
2) Some AI neighbour (probably an ally) attacks one of my cities. Things seem like they will be exciting.
3) I beat my enemy and back to more peace.
4) Another AI neighbour (Once again, probably an ally) comes up and blockades my port
5) I beat that enemy and back to more peace.
6) Return to step 4.

I don't have to declare war once to win the campaign because the AI is suicidal.

I am impressed with the battlemap AI, especially how the enemies retreat stage by stage in city/castle assaults, and I can't wait to try out the battlemap AI on VH after hearing that it apparently gets more intelligent now instead of unrealistic bonuses, but does anyone else think that the same old pathetic campaign AI still exists from RTW?

[Doug-Thompson]

I think that a completely detached, objective look at this forum would conclude that it's somewhat dysfunctional because the same topics keep getting new threads.

[econ21]

To GFX07 - for a post like that, you really have to state your campaign difficulty level - and ideally your faction.

In my VH/VH English campaign, it's the challenge at the strategic level that has impressed me the most. I got some nasty shocks on the battlemap at first, but once I adjusted, I've been mowing down the AI with my longbows faster than you could say "passive AI bug" three hundred times.

The big change for me has been on the campaign map. It feels almost like the Risk style map of STW and MTW. Especially early on, I was always thinking if I move aggressively here, the AI will strike at the gap I have opened up. Just like with STW/MTW, invading from one province could expose it to simultaneous reciprocal counter-invasion. In my M2TW English campaign, it's turn 90 - Scotland is gone, France almost gone - but it's still tight: Denmark and Milan have been cowed, but now Spain and Sicily are stepping up to the fight.

I am not sure how much of that "tightness" of the campaign is due to better campaign AI as opposed to other improvements - the tighter economy; the bloodier battles etc. But there certainly is better AI. I've particularly noticed the ability of the AI to sometimes keep its armies out of reach of my powerful stacks; and to sometimes keep its armies adjacent for mutual support.

To be honest, I have not noticed most of the other stuff you mention - very few one unit stacks nor inappropriate stack troop mixes (try fighting the Danes - their stacks can be hardcore) etc. By contrast, those two flaws were major problems in RTW and MTW (respectively).

Now if by "stupid" and "suicidal" AI, you mean "psychotic", then you may have a point. On VH, all my neighbours have sooner or later attacked me. But then they always have in TW on higher difficulty levels. Play Oda in STW, HRE in MTW or Rome in RTR. I am top dog and the only way they can hope to win is by working as a pack to tear me down. I don't particularly like it, but with a game called "Total War", I can't sue CA under trade descriptions.


BTW - why do discussions of the AI always have to involve the words "pathetic" and "stupid" etc.? It's a computer program, for crying out loud, not a person. It's like kicking a dog for not being philosophical enough. Write me a "fantastic" and "clever" AI for a game as complicated as TW, then you'll be qualified to be so derogatory.

[IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer]

This is probably not a common case, but it's my situation nonetheless: As the Turks, I've been allied with the Venetians for at least 50 or so turns now. We've fought in tons of naval battles together against Russia and the Byzantines, and have fought a couple land battles and 1 siege together. It's been pretty cool. What's more, is that I am a Muslim faction. Also, I declared a Jihad on Rome and captured it from the Papacy, then the pope called a crusade on Rome to get it back. Every catholic faction left answered it - except Venice. They honored our alliance and stayed away.

I haven't been giving them money, either. We just have mutual enemies, and have been supporting each other pretty well. Good stuff.

[Reapz]

GFX707 I think the campaign AI is improved from RTW. VH in RTW means the AI factions just outbuild you with stack after stack of armies even though its economically impossible and its not much fun after the novelty of winning a few times wears off. In M2 however I don't see any of that type of AI advantage on VH. I am not sure what faction you are playing but try playing Rus on VH/VH and I don't think you will have the kind of experience you described. I'm about 280 turns into a great Rus vh/vh campaign where the AI did all kinds of "clever" things that really taxed my brain for a while. The AI did not let me build up peacefully it was a bloodbath from about 15 turns onwards. I don't think I have been "back to peace" for about 200 turns. Allies never attacked me. I had a couple of encounters with small armies that had no business wandering around hostile territory but I made that mistake myself.

[NihilisticCow]

I'm now playing my third VH/VH campaign, what I have noticed is that some factions seem to build fairly reasonable armies but others seem to just build really silly ones. The Italian states are the best example of it, rarely do I see one of their stacks that has less than 10 crossbows in it and quite often approaching 15... It just makes it far too easy to walk over their armies. With a proper army the battlefield AI does do a half decent job at times, though not really compared with human players ofc, but it just is a bit frustrating that it keeps getting fed rather rubbish armies that have no chance of winning by the strategic level AI.

It also seems to make quite a few irrational decisions, maybe that is more the VH campaign difficulty, but breaking an alliance to siege a well defended city with a very weak army and to retreat immeadiately next turn and request a cease fire seems.... well mad.

[neilm85uk]

In an English campaign Edinburgh, taken from the Scots, was assaulted by eight units of cavalry. This was quite amusing when I reached the battle map.