Passive AI is not fixed.

[Shahed]

Greetings

I thought it necessary to post this. This is mainly an informative post of my experience with Update 1, with regards to passive battle and campaign AI.

I'm playing H/VH.

I've just done a bridge battle, and for the 5th or 6th time (this is only one example) out of slightly more than a dozen or so battles, the AI has just stood there. It's worth mentioning that the AI army was shouting orders in loops but no action was being taken, damm rebellious troops! ;)

In a few battles, actually in most, the AI still allows itself to be shot up, it does not move.And if it does anything at all, it is a 20 second charge and then back to the wall for the firing squad. of course the problem also may be that the AI is not making enough investment in anti-missile troops (e.g light cavalry).

It's better as it does'nt happen all the time, but passive battle AI is not fixed.

I can see 3 armies for a total of more than 2200 men, amassed on one of my borders. I have 600 men defending that border, my army is sitting on a road in flat terrain, ideal ground for a battle. The Polish AI is clearly in the superior position yet for about 8 turns the situation has remained the same. No attack and no movement.

Incidentally I also have 4 Crusade armies for about 3 turns now close to the same spot, in the same province (you can imagine the combined armies of these foes would be overwhelming) They don't attack, and they don't move either. Possibly because the Bosporus is blocked at both land bridges by my fleets, fact remains they don't attack, withdraw, or move.

The campaign map AI is much better, as I see fewer instances of this, but it is not fixed either.

That's 2 points off the readme which are out.

This needs to be reviewed for update 2.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

No, its not fixed!

In fact it happens more often (passive AI). To me at least.

Also new crashes to black screen with permanent turning MTW2 hourglass during some battles.

[IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer]

Definately seems fixed to me. Haven't encountered it at all yet, they've been very agressive from what I've seen. Even when they're defending.

[Satyr]

I am seeing the hard crash during battles now too. Never had a crash of the game before patch.

I am also seeing suiciding generals again dammit. I was sieging the Spanish and first the king, then after he is dead one prince, then later the other prince all suicided straight out the gates and into my lines before any of the rest of their army got on the scene.

And cav losing cohesion seems at least as bad and maybe worse. And it doesn't charge worth a damn still and has a heck of a time killing some routers.

And yes, my game does say 1.01 and I did start a new campaign. I am pretty damn disappointed!

[www2]

No its not fixed, not nearly.....in atleast half of my bettles the evemy just stands there and, no wait they do not just stand but they are continusly changing they formation but they do not attack.

One more thing I have noticed is that when they do attack they allways send their archers first but the rest of the army is too far behing the archers so I can usually just charge my calvary and cut them down before their other units start to charge......another stupid bug, dont know if it was mentioned

[noodles]

hey just got patched - its not perfect but it deffinetley doesnt stand around anymore ... as for bridge battles - if i remember from RTW the AI almost never tried to cross and attack and always waited for you on the oter side ...

[Jagger]

Wow, I am seeing a very aggressive battlefield AI. It almost sounds like there were two different patches released...

[Yossarian]

Well, as far as I can see the passive AI bug is fixed for normal field battles. I've encountered very aggressive AI behaviour during my campaign with the patch installed compared to before. But when I sally forth this is not the case at all. During sallies the enemy always patiently waits while my pavise crossbowmen form up and reduce his lines to piles and piles of dead. During my last sally I had reinforcements coming in from the enemy's rear which resulted in five units of crossbowmen lining up towards the front and rear of his army. The result? Most of his knights dead including the general.

Isn't this part of the passive AI bug that was supposedly gone?

[John Johnston]

I've not seen the passive AI bug at all since the patch. On the other hand there is a very obvious "cue" point in any battle - the moment any troops engage in melee combat, the computer opponent decides to attack with as many melee troops as possible.

It looks to me something like:

IF (I have lots of melee) AND (player has lots of missile) THEN ATTACK WITH MELEE
IF (I have lots of missile) AND (player does not initiate melee combat) THEN ATTACK WITH MISSILE
IF (I have lots of missile) AND (player initiates melee combat) THEN ATTACK WITH MELEE

[PureFodder]

The computer still just stands there if you leave all you forces near the back and just send in mounted missile troops round the back. Once somone runs out of ammo and takes a swing in melee then off goes their army towards your lines.

As was said, the computer still just stands in range of your archers if you sally forth and will even allow you to send mounted missile troops out of the front, round the back of them to murder their general.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

As far as I can see..there are still problems..

AI seems more responsive..in general..but not always...sieges are a huge problem still.....passive sitting back...AI wasting time attacking towers..but not engaging with the army.

Cavalry still wandering off...hard to control..a little better in some ways.

Deployment sometimes a bit dodgy with units in the city...not 100% fixed..

Pathfinding seems even worse! major problems for cavalry in a city....

Not really very good overall...and have had some crashes too...

Patch 2 is a long way off...it had better be pretty darn good...

[noodles]

myea just tested the sallying bit against a AI sieger ... still passive tho this seems the only way it still happens - the ai still doesnt make great decisions.. its more aggresive but most often it charges its melee troups right in front of my pavise line...

[Von Nanega]

AI attacks more. Cavalry charges working better. Most of the line engages instead of just the few in front. Seems to be a bit better but 1.2 needs to better adress old issues.

[Vlad Tzepes]

True, AI it's clearly more aggressive on the battlefield (had tough time yesterday against Scots in some woods), but clearly the same in sally battles.

AI just sits in front of the gates, out of towers range, and waits as I deploy all my cav behind its lines.

At the beginning I used wide circling maneuvers to place myself behind, fearing a fast reaction, now I just walk happily by AI's flank. In RTW (and even MTW), placing troops behind the AI made those waver (or at least quite worried), now it's like they never even notice all the heavy cav getting ready to send them to hell... 40 yards behind.

AI reacts at a point, it's true: after losing men and in an unbalanced battle (in my favor) during a missile duel, it decides to retreat.

[Rothe]

Lets try something different. I have gotten passive AI treatment too, I am playing M/VH (in Lusted's Lands to conquer mod though).

I suspect that the battle difficulty may have an effect on the AI. It may be that the VH difficulty just often brings the AI to a decision where it does not assault you if it does not have a clear advantage and if you play smart you never give such an advantage -> passive AI.

However, if someone has tried with M or H battle difficulty, I would like to know if it is different. It may in fact be a bit more risk taking behaviour that is required to break the passive "lock" that seems to happen way too often.

So when you comment the AI, please list the difficulty levels you are using.

My experience:

Battles at VH -> passive AI occurred in battles where I sallied with missile superiority and melee was about even.

Battles at VH -> passive AI did not occur in a field battle, me assaulting AI. I had clear missile superiority (6 longbow vs. 2 crossbow militia), AI had about +20% more melee troops.

Battles at VH -> "even" battles (no more than about +20% differences in melee or ranged) seemed to be free of passiva AI too.

I think that the sieges are a major pain for the AI and often result in passive or suicidal behaviour. The problem is that in the game sallying is a common thing for the player as the AI sieges you often with equal or slightly worse troops. Solution for me has been to station armies in the field (with general) to avoid boring sieges.

[Yossarian]

True, AI it's clearly more aggressive on the battlefield (had tough time yesterday against Scots in some woods), but clearly the same in sally battles.

AI just sits in front of the gates, out of towers range, and waits as I deploy all my cav behind its lines.

At the beginning I used wide circling maneuvers to place myself behind, fearing a fast reaction, now I just walk happily by AI's flank. In RTW (and even MTW), placing troops behind the AI made those waver (or at least quite worried), now it's like they never even notice all the heavy cav getting ready to send them to hell... 40 yards behind.

AI reacts at a point, it's true: after losing men and in an unbalanced battle (in my favor) during a missile duel, it decides to retreat.

My experiences during sally battles are exactly the same.

1. I march out my troops, crossbowmen in the frontline.

2. My cavalry circle around the enemy's rear.

3. I send my crossbowmen to start diminishing his lines.

4. I send in my cavalry to take care of my opponents remaining cav + general.

5. AI decides to finally react by retreating or routing...

Sally battles are hardly challenging if the enemy lacks enough missile units, and even then it's way too easy to take out the enemy general with a charge from the rear.

[grinningman]

It may be better after the patch, but the AI is definitely too passive sometimes.

Playing last night as the Moors, I sallied to attack a sieging Papal states army made up of mostly infantry (Swiss guard, pikemen and halberd militia) and crossbowmen, along with a family member. My army was made up of 5 militia crossbowmen, ~4 Granadine jinetes, a family member and a couple of infantry units. I moved my jInetes to the rear of the enemy's formation and destroyed the Papal bodyguard unit with Javelins. Then the jinetes + my bodyguard destroyed the enemy crossbowmen (which were out in front of the rest of the infantry) with a few charges. Finally the rest of the enemy infantry just sat there while my crossbowmen emptied all of their ammunition into them.

The moral of the story is that the remaining infantry units, which were full strength before my crossbows started firing at them, just stood there and took ~80% casualties from missile fire alone. (The other moral is that javelin-throwing cavalry are *really good*).

Surely there should be some sort of trigger when a unit takes more than 50% casualties from missile fire - it should attack (or the formation of which it is part should attack) the nearest unit firing on it.

*edit* This is playing on H campaign, VH battles. *edit2* Normal unit sizes.

[Bob the Insane]

The only time I have had difficulty with Sallying is if the A has lot of cavalry, in that case I have seen it charge home with these troops as I have tried to get mine out of the gate.

Mind you this was pre-patch...

[Kobal2fr]

Yes, I've also seen it pre patch (been modding, haven't taken the time to play post patch ), this shouting-orders-but-not-moving fast loop. I think it's a pathfinding thing, as it happens most often in sieges. I haven't been able to nail what exactly causes it though. It's not the same thing as passive AI though.

Passive AI is when the army will not even try to move, this is trying to move but failing for some reason.

As for the crusade stacks, well there you have it : you're blocking landbridges, which is something of an exploit that the AI isn't programmed to take into account. The code tells them in this situation that the faster route is through the landbridges, and issues the order. Then the order fails. Cue next turn. The AI is not a neural network type of AI, it doesn't learn from its mistakes .

[Jambo]

The AI still seems to have pathfinding issues in sieges and these can lead to passive AI. What units sizes are you all playing under? It's possible the passive AI caused by pathfinding problems is only apparent at huge (and large?) unit sizes?

I don't tend to conduct many sally from castle battles, so I can't comment on the AI during those situations.

Field battles seem to work fine for me.

[PureFodder]

Huge forces = huge problems. I only noticed later that you can't see the German forces camped 10ft outside my walls on the screen shot. Even my Javalin men were able to lob horrible death onto them.

[Husar]

Well, had a bridge battle yesterday, I was attacking.
The AI stood on the other side of the bridge and I sent a single unit of militia crossbows onto the bridge. The AI had two units of peasant archers and about 10 units or so of feudal foot knights who were lined up in a single line towards the border of the battle map on one side.
I had my militia crossbowmen fire at the archers and nothing else happened because I had more range, the AI didn't even move the archers a few meters forward to fire back. After doing that with three units of crossbowmen and after they all ran out of ammunition, I set up my mercenary arquebusiers. Took them some time to use up their ammunitione with only 6 or 8 men in front on the bridge. Then my unit of regular arquebusiers and after them my second and last unit of arquebusiers who hadn't even used up half their ammunition when the enemy ran.

End result was a victory for me with not even a single loss, Crossbow militia killed about 100 men each while the arquebusiers and mercenary arquebusiers had about 500 kills each! They slaughtered about 1000 dismounted feudal knights who just waited there.

[danfda]

I've not seen this problem either. Ai seems more aggressive, and even when I have a large missile advantage they either attack or back off. No standing around. 'Course, I don't really do sally from seige battles either (usually I bring in reinforcements, which means no sally).

Cav seems also to be greatly improved; charges actually charge and the horsemen seem a lot more responsive to my commands.

On another note, I don't like the Byz...

[Jagger]

I've not seen this problem either. Ai seems more aggressive, and even when I have a large missile advantage they either attack or back off. No standing around. 'Course, I don't really do sally from seige battles either (usually I bring in reinforcements, which means no sally).

Cav seems also to be greatly improved; charges actually charge and the horsemen seem a lot more responsive to my commands.

On another note, I don't like the Byz...

If you don't like the Byzantines, try Lusted unit export file. With his upgrades, fighting the Byzantines similiar to fighting the Mongols. They are tough....actually probably a bit too tough.

[Orda Khan]

This is just my opinion. CA have used a game enging that still needs plenty of work, it is far from finished and we could be on patch number 10 and still finding problems.
I would gladly give up pretty graphics in order to at least return to MTW AI. Not perfect either, I agree, but the game as it stands is not worth the effort

........Orda

[IsItStillThere]

I have also found passive AI behavior is sally battles (both pre and post patch) where the AI is laying seige with an inferior force. Sometimes they stand correctly out of missile range, but sometimes they are in missile range and I can pepper them until I run out of ammo. They don't respond to units running around their back very well either. There should be some process that the AI should have to let them know they should just retreat out of missile range, to at least make me come out of the walls. Or better still not to beseige superior forces in the first place.

I also have observed the suicidal AI general charge, where his unit is the first through the gates and he gets himself killed. Doesn't happen very often, but its nice when it does.

[Shahed]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Keep em coming.

At this moment, it should be reviewed for Update 2, from the amount of people who still experience this. I'll add a post to the bug list, eventually, if this number continues to grow.

Of course if anyone else wants to add to the buglist, go right ahead.

[Goofball]

Lets try something different. I have gotten passive AI treatment too, I am playing M/VH (in Lusted's Lands to conquer mod though).

I suspect that the battle difficulty may have an effect on the AI. It may be that the VH difficulty just often brings the AI to a decision where it does not assault you if it does not have a clear advantage and if you play smart you never give such an advantage -> passive AI.

However, if someone has tried with M or H battle difficulty, I would like to know if it is different. It may in fact be a bit more risk taking behaviour that is required to break the passive "lock" that seems to happen way too often.

So when you comment the AI, please list the difficulty levels you are using.

I play medium battle difficulty and in literally every battle I have played since the patch, the AI just stands there and does nothing.

Very frustrating.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

This is just my opinion. CA have used a game enging that still needs plenty of work, it is far from finished and we could be on patch number 10 and still finding problems.
I would gladly give up pretty graphics in order to at least return to MTW AI. Not perfect either, I agree, but the game as it stands is not worth the effort

........Orda

I sadly have to agree...there are some fun and great moments in this game..but they are too far and few between the frustrating ones...sure a few bits work..but to me the game is not finished...

I noticed lots of RTW code in the program (look for yourself)...but I wonder why it is still there? Messy coding? I think so myself...cut/paste job? Even that wouldnt explain the level of problems..

The bottom line is in its present form..the game is broken..aka not working as it should...and it should not have been released like this..end of story. Xmas period or not...this needs more work..summer 2007 it probably would have been perfect...

I only wish it did have MTW AI..!

[Vlad Tzepes]

This is just my opinion. CA have used a game enging that still needs plenty of work, it is far from finished and we could be on patch number 10 and still finding problems.
I would gladly give up pretty graphics in order to at least return to MTW AI. Not perfect either, I agree, but the game as it stands is not worth the effort

........Orda

You know what? This is so strange... A couple of months ago, waiting for MTW2 to launch, I loaded a Shogun campaign... and started my favs, Takeda... And I was really surprised by AI's agresivity and cunning. It would always go for my flanks and give me a hard (but fun) time.

I love all the TW games, but I feel something was lost along the way, during the quest to find new gizmos that would charm the eye.

By the way, I lost the 2006 Takeda campaign