[56k Warning] Quirks from Patch (Agent Missions, Aggression, Passive)

[OMGLAZERS]

I've noticed a few problems today that I feel are pretty major and persistent. I felt I should share them with everyone, including accompanying images. All games were played on VH/VH, Long with Milan or the Moors (the two camps I tried since I patched). And YES, I am patched. I do see v1.1 in the top right :P

1) Passive AI Persistance? (Or just DUMB AI!)
This could either go under Passive AI problems or possibly just bad and dumb AI.

While playing as Milan, Sicily sent three units of feudal knights and a calvalry to attack a settlement. This wasn't a bad move, considering the settlement only had three militia (It was the closest Island to Rome, can't remember the name). However, I simply pulled away my main stack from it's desired destination and sent it flying at the Sicilians. Rather than running, they stayed to fight!

300 vs 1800+ men. Expecting a simple battle, I lined my four units of crossbowmen in front of the huge army of militia, marched them forward.

I stood nearly DEAD center with them, and unloaded on them. They did NOTHING! They didn't move, attack, or anything! They should have withdrew from the siege to begin with (considering the odds) but stood their ground. Even stranger, in the face of all these men, they stood their ground. I killed every single one with crossbows. Not a single of their unit ran. They all died where they stood. It's the only time I encountered possible passive AI, and so far, thats a good thing.

Accompanying Screenshot:

2) Suicidal or Small Invasions / Diplomacy Hack!
No screenshot for this, but i've noticed as Milan I constantly have the Moors, Sicily and Venice sending a unit or two to attack, or even a full stack. Often when this happens, I just am forced to send my full stack and repel it. One time, I decided to attempt to negotiate with the Sicilians as they began to lay siege. I offered a cease fire, and found out that I could also get 1500 gold to boot! Now, I imagine the reason why is because my armies in the city so outnumbered these tiny little invasions. However, this occured nearly three times or so with Sicily in a 25 turn period before I nearly gave up on the situation.

3) CRAZY Aggression
AGGRESSION = GOOD! I mean, I love the whole, they can't get enough of attacking you. It provides for a good game. However as Milan, within the first few turns I was attacked by a tiny cadre of Sicilians. Expectable. However, the next turn, the MOORS showed up! They invaded and blockaded me with one ship and like two militia! I couldn't believe it! What the hell were the Moors doing in Italy on turn seven?

This strange aggression that seems to be focused towards the player alone just seem weird. In the 25 turns I tried to play Milan, the Moors and Sicily constantly took turns throwing their tiny stack at me, forcing me to pretty much run a stack between two islands where they kept persisting to invade. EXASPERATING and annoying. No good honest to god invasions or battles; just tedium.

which leads into the final problem:

4) Pre-Programmed grudges or early rushes
When I say early rushes, I do mean like, Zerg-Like rushes. After playing 30 turns of the above problems with Milan I decided to start a new game with the Moors.

I'm going to link to a screenshot and let it do the talking:

That stack showed up on my doorstep as the Moors on turn eight. Not a single peasant in it. All cav and infantry. It looked like Sicily found every unit it could, got it on that boat and spent two or three turns shipping it to my doorstep.

Now I don't know if some nutty Sicilian/Milan/Moor aggression triangle has been created, but in 1.0 I NEVER encountered rushes or tiny invasions like these on the amount that they happened so early in the game.

It almost seems like the computer is either sucidial or hell-bent on killing you, at the expense of everything else (defense, economy, etc.)

5) Pre-Determined Agent Missions
Not so much a bug as a prevention of cheating by quicksave+load to make sure people don't do that to get agent success. Agents now no longer have randomized chances each turn to succeed. If you fail, load and try again, you will ALWAYS fail. Normally this would appear unscientific in an assasination as in reality, you can't predict the % to come out exactly as such.

But in trying to have a princess seduce a prince with a %40 chance or so, I QS'ed, and attempted. She failed, disgraced, and married him. I QL'ed twenty or so times, and EVERY time the same result. I let a turn pass, and tried it again. Ten times she attempted, and succeeded, EVERY time. Let another turn pass, and this time she failed, rejected, ten times.

So, just a heads up: QS/QL for agents doesn't seem to work anymore. Not a bug but a definite change.

I have no idea if I somehow messed the patch up and caused this, but it's just some problems i've noticed I thought needed to be addressed in detail because I haven't heard anyone else mention them and figured i'd say it out loud and see what I could find out from others.

-Glen

[Shahed]

1. Correct, the passive AI isn't really fixed.

The passive AI is "fixed" in the sense that all it will do is charge, and that's it. It won't think of ways to get out of the situation. Mostly however it will stand there and get shot up.

The campaign AI does'nt seem to be much fixed either. It is better but very often I've seen Huge stacks just sitting there when they could be attacking.

In fact I am the one who's always attacking. I'd like to get attacked. Can't wait for the Mongols and Timurids.

However we should note that in a lot of cases, the AI cannot do anything, except a suicidal charge. They are outnumbered outgunned etc.

3. Correct also, the aggression is stupid. I've seen that post patch. I like it though, lambs to the slaughter.

4. Personally I always allow the AI plenty of build up time, so I often see large rushes with teched troops, which I then proceed to destroy. Makes for a lot more fun battles. What you can do is stack against their border so they don't dare attack unless they have huge superiority, then it's interesting.

5. Agent missions are not pre-determined. You have to reload, then do something else, assign a build que, recruitment, another agent to a mission whatever. Then save the game and re-do your original mission. The result is different if you follow this procedure. BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO DO THIS A FEW TIMES BEFORE IT CHANGES THE RESULT !

[OMGLAZERS]

I liked MTW2's AI before much much better. It wasn't so INSANE about attacking, nonstop, suicidally and then giving up the second a cease is offered.

I am seriously considering uninstalling the patch and waiting for modders to fix these problems because it seems impossible for CA to manage to fix anything properly anymore :\

[Faenaris]

Actually, being attacked by the Sicilians is actually a good thing. Pre-patch, I would regularly take over the islands near Italy and abandon my holdings on the mainland. I was NEVER challenged by a naval invasion and the game was actually way too comfy. Now, I have to fight for my islands and I like it.

Just my two bobs.

[OMGLAZERS]

Actually, being attacked by the Sicilians is actually a good thing. Pre-patch, I would regularly take over the islands near Italy and abandon my holdings on the mainland. I was NEVER challenged by a naval invasion and the game was actually way too comfy. Now, I have to fight for my islands and I like it.

Just my two bobs.

Perhaps I was just seriously shocked by the massive aggression increase, but they seem to attack so quick I can only call it a zerg rush!

Maybe VH is now, VERY hard!

[Handel]

The passive AI during the sieges is not fixed. The AI still stays under the fire untill his catapult/ballistas are destroyed or finish the ammo.

About the naval invasions - they invade and the fleet leaves. So just a minor defeat leads to whole stacks destroyed.

[OMGLAZERS]

The passive AI during the sieges is not fixed. The AI still stays under the fire untill his catapult/ballistas are destroyed or finish the ammo.

About the naval invasions - they invade and the fleet leaves. So just a minor defeat leads to whole stacks destroyed.

That seems pretty much worse than before.

Am I crazy or did the patch just make the game worse?

[Cesare diBorja]

I have read the AI scripts as far as campaign and battle........so what you are saying is that somebody built the ultimate AI and didn't programme it right? LOL!
I will work on this beast.

[OMGLAZERS]

I have read the AI scripts as far as campaign and battle........so what you are saying is that somebody built the ultimate AI and didn't programme it right? LOL!
I will work on this beast.

It seems like they went from no aggression to, suicidial and retarded aggression.

I'm going to try H/VH to see if that helps the INSANE and retarded moves by the the computer.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Mmmh - I think the patch has vastly improved things - the AI is capable of putting troops on ships - that bug was game-breaking for me. The battlemap AI still sucks, but hey - it's an improvement - I didn't expect my 'puter to be Clausetwitz after the patch (although that'd be great).

To the OP - so what exactly are you complaining about? 1-2 stack attacks ore some force showing at at you doorstep in turn 30? I see your point in critism on #1, but I'd hope for more of #2 on VH.

[Handel]

Just found out the next thing the patch didn't fix in the battle AI.
A 7:3 (according to the computer auto-calculate battle chances) superior force - mixed army with feudal knights & general vs my standart town militia & 2 generals... A spy opened the gates... and all enemy infantry tried to climb the walls Where the feudal knight were slaughtered from 2 town militias. And when the infantry was routed the enemy general charged through the opened gate... where he charged a nother town militia, but in the same second was charged in the flanks by my two generals and quickly exterminated.
The final results - my troops killed 197 enemies and I lost 127 troops.

[Spark]

I can't believe this stuff even got through testing to version 1.0. Battle AI (especially siege AI) is so horribly broken, sitting there losing 50% of its men before even engaging. I've alpha/beta tested some games in the past, and something as game breaking as this would -never- have made it past the first stages of testing unless the devs didn't have the least bit of care about their game. I've not started a new campaign with the new patch yet, but if after some battles it looks like the AI plays the same retarded sit-there-and-die games, I don't think I'll bother. As it is, during sieges, I always have to sally out and weep as my archers annihilate the enemy AI while it does some ridiculously dumb maneuvers (or none at all). I barely managed to last through one campaign in R:TW with its ridiculously bad AI, I don't think I can go through that all over again :(

[Bob the Insane]

Interstingly I still see the enemy AI being passive when backed into a corner (on the battle field). You know, as above when you chase down a small rebel stack with a much superior one The enemy stck does not dare attack, but can't run away so you can cut it to pieces with missile troops.

But in much larger and more even battles where I have had a distinct missile troop advantage the AI will advance it's formation until it's missle troops start firing. Then the missle troops stay in place but the rast of the Army continues to advance through them and ultimately attacks my line.

The battle in question was a me as the HRE with an army approximately 50% merc spearmen and 40% merc crossbows (plus a general and some knights). The Milan army (the enemy) had only three crossbow units and and a general, the rest of their full stack was Italian Milita units.

Basically my opinion is that it (the battle AI) acts better in some specific ways but still has some wrinkles to work out.

A biggy is ignoring gates opened by spies when it has no cavalry and other siege engines. Another battle in the same campaign see a surprize attack by a french half stack on a castle defended by two armoured spearmen and two peasant archer units. I can't chose deploment at the start and I get the message about the gates being opened and my troops are scatered around the castle. So at the start I retreat all back to the town square to try and hold out there (a little cheesy I know). So gates are open and undefended. French have two Balista units amoung a quite sensible selection of archers and spear sergeants. Before they attack the balista wear them selves out firing at the wall to the right of the gate (looking out) and only manage to damage it before running out of ammo. Then, still ignoring the opened gate (though not completely because I note they have a ram that they abandon and fai to use) they thier one set of aldders to the walls and set them up. Now all the infantry units and archers type to climb at the same time an get into a mess (no lag though which was nice). Individual soldiers appear to be blocking each other when trying to climb the ladders. I have to though away one of my units in an attempt to kick start the AI into life. After a coupld of attempts this appears to work and the rest of the solders successfully climb the ladders and once all troops are on the wall the start down out of the towers and the battle continuned normally from that point on

Victory for me, but a close run thing and entirely dependant on the immunitely to routing granted by the town square. INteresting if you stand them close enough the towers on the keep will actually fire too (it was new to me... )...

This is all post patch of course...

[Handel]

About towers firing - in first (before the patch) and in my second (after the patch) campaign as France, the ballista towers in the LARGE cities don't fire at all! So I have to keep my fingers crossed all the time hoping to upgrade to huge city before enemy with lot of catapults arrive.

[Mega Dux Bob]

Isn't attacking you at all costs what the AI at VH supposed to do? I've read people saying the at M is more challanging because the AI holds back and builds up.

[Spark]

Isn't attacking you at all costs what the AI at VH supposed to do? I've read people saying the at M is more challanging because the AI holds back and builds up.

There is some truth to this. I found the higher up I go in difficulty, the more the AI creates massive stacks of peasants, militia and low tech troops, which are pretty much fodder for your strong armies. Medium difficulty is unfortunately not at all challenging, whereas on VH difficulty, I find my good generals with professional heavy infantry and cavalry routing a sea of militia in every battle :\
I think H difficulty is pretty decent, although the AI still makes hordes of militia, it starts teching up later on in the game.

[OMGLAZERS]

There is some truth to this. I found the higher up I go in difficulty, the more the AI creates massive stacks of peasants, militia and low tech troops, which are pretty much fodder for your strong armies. Medium difficulty is unfortunately not at all challenging, whereas on VH difficulty, I find my good generals with professional heavy infantry and cavalry routing a sea of militia in every battle :\
I think H difficulty is pretty decent, although the AI still makes hordes of militia, it starts teching up later on in the game.

Exactly the problem. VH has now become wave after wave after wave at any cost, poor troops.

It's even worse than before.

Im going to start a new, Hard/Very Hard campaign and see if that makes any spit of difference

[gardibolt]

Hm, I'm playing at M/M, and the AI is creating about half-stacks of very good troops--no peasants or minor militia to be seen--and shipping them to my less-well guarded islands, which is causing me no end of grief. Maybe there is something to the M being more challenging than VH?

[Anubis King]

How is the calvary in the patch? Still super strong or is it balanced out?

[Chrisky]

Still strong, takes more losses on charges however, but if you manage it it is a LOT easier to get them to charge. However they still suck at chasing routers, spreading over the map or coasting along at 100 feet parallel to them.
They still get slaugthered when attacked by infantry from behind without fighting back automatically and sometimes let routers "drip off" their front without capturing them, just standing there. It's just horrible. I just discovered my old M:TW copy and am seriously thinking about installing to get some reference if that happened to be so messed up as well...

At least in M:TW the problem with retreated besieged units (now just standing there as sitting ducks) was eased by the keep shooting arrows, so you'd have to take down remainders fast.

I can't understand why towers in M2:TW don't shoot inwards, after all they were historically doing this. Maybe CA was unable to program the towers to fire cannons outside and arrows inside? hard to believe. Also, towers occupied by opposing forces can't fire at all anymore - silly.

I don't see how CA can seriously expect people who payed money for this bugged thing to wait another 6 weeks for another PATCH. That means 3 month waiting for a patch that fixes flaws QA should have definitely gotten.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I have had the insane attacking AI...and well it isnt much fun. I am all for tasty battles and the like..but after 20 times defending the same settlement..fromt the same flawed attack..that always fails..tends to get a tad tiresome.

What I find even more interesting is post patch..how YOU are the ultimate target for all the surrounding factions..yet they rarely seem to have the same zeal for attacking other CPU factions in the same way.

As for Passive AI..no it isnt fixed..in some cases it is working better....not for seiges really. And the horrible pathfinding still grates...

Um cannot say I am overly happy....I would have liked a working much more game....before they shipped it...tending to play MP games a lot more now...just to enjoy the battles....

If there is a lesson to be learnt here...for CA..it is that the next TW game MUST be properly tested BEFORE..it goes out the door. Nobody expects no bugs at all....but this is still like some toddler was running round the CA office...deleting code on the main pc! lol

[Von Nanega]

There is some truth to this. I found the higher up I go in difficulty, the more the AI creates massive stacks of peasants, militia and low tech troops, which are pretty much fodder for your strong armies. Medium difficulty is unfortunately not at all challenging, whereas on VH difficulty, I find my good generals with professional heavy infantry and cavalry routing a sea of militia in every battle :\
I think H difficulty is pretty decent, although the AI still makes hordes of militia, it starts teching up later on in the game.

Well this may be a challenge. I had an unit of Viking Raiders wrecked by peasants in my Denmark game. Darn those Uber Peasanrs

Captain of Raiders: "My prince, here comes Peasants!"

Prince:"GOOD Kill Them ALL!"

C.O.R.: "But they are peasants!"

Prince: "Don't tell me you, desendants of the mighty Norse Raiders have become soft!"

C.O.R.:They have Kitchens knives your worship. We can not stand!"

Prince:"Charge"

Minutes later as the Viking raiders run, "God help us, the peasants are chasing us."

[sapi]

The trouble with the AI is that it does tech up, but it doesn't specialise, meaning that human players can get good units quicker because they don't build, say, 3 lvl2 troop producing buildings in one settlement but rather one lvl5 one. This means that the player is able to use his superior tactical skill and troops to smash both the AI's economy and professional army, forcing them to revert to militias.