Far too easy?

[Soylent Green]

Don't know if you've ever played Civ 3, but the campaign (or strategy map) AI in that game makes a joke out of the M2TW AI. I'd believe it wasn't possible if I hadn't seen it somewhere else, but it is clearly possible to make AI much more challenging than the current one. So complaints about the shitty AI are very valid.

Agreed. Although part of that was down to the AI beginning with additional workers and settlers. And getting certain bonuses along the way. But i don't see why this couldn't be done with MTW2, it's certainly more valid than the player having to edit the game to achieve the same.

And with AI scripting, did anyone ever script missions for TA? I don't have a clue about programming, but i scripted complex unit behaviour for some missions, making them particularly challenging. It didn't affect system performance in the slightest. Now granted, TA was set piece maps and a different kettle of fish, but the principle is there.

Would you rather have 'huge' unit size or a challenging campaign? If performance is the issue, i know that aesthetic elements of the game could be glossed over to make room for a more powerful AI. There's so many claims that blitzing is 'taking advantage' of the AI's inadequacies, well, not only do we have very little choice, but being at war with multiple factions simultaneously provides the great challenge this game has to offer.

Total War people. Not total faff around making concessions to the AI.

[Kobal2fr]

@SoylentGreen : there's an old French saying that translates roughly as : "You can't please everybody and your father". Meaning, whatever you do, someone is bound to not like it. Case in point : earlier TotalWar titles gave the AI free cash, every turn. Hence no matter what you did, the AI would field stack after stack after stack, even when you just destroyed their whole army the turn before. Very, very hard to beat without blitzing.

We, the players, complained that it was unfair, and that it tremendously reduced the point of economic/agent/non military warfare against the AI, since what worked against you didn't work against them. CA changed this and made the AI not cheat anymore, merely banding up and being much more aggressive at higher dif levels. Then you complain the game is too easy if you blitz ;)

And scripting is all very well, but it's static. I remember being scared right out of my shorts when playing the haunted house level in Vampire : Bloodlines for the first time. I kid you not, I had a bruised knee for a month afterwards, I hit it against my desk so hard. The second time around, I still jumped at times, but the scare was gone. Now, I routinely race through the level without being scared in the least. That's because everything in there is scripted, appears and pops up at the same precise moment every time. I certainly wouldn't want that in TW. Replay value zero, when part of TW's appeal is to play a faction, then another, and have a different campaign each time.

[Spino]

AI issues aside I believe the biggest factor behind the game's lack of challenge is the much lauded provincial 'castle or city' system. Regarding the strategic game in previous TW games most of us complained about the AI's inability to build balanced armies, consolidate its stacks and not engage in suicidal multi-front wars. In MTW2 those issues have been addressed to a certain degree but now that the castle/city feature has been implemented it's as if we're back to square one.

Over the course of a few campaigns in versions 1.0 and 1.1 it's been my experience that army stacks produced by city provinces are pretty much a pushover in battle. I'm currently playing a campaign as the Danes and now that the early game 'rebel province rush' has subsided I'm finally going toe to toe with AI faction armies. Scotland has been giving England a hard time and now has eyes on the European mainland. In the past five turns they've sent no less than three full stacks to besiege my forces in Bruges. I am currently holding Bruges with a full, well balanced stack consisting of a couple of Royal Bodyguard units, several Mercenary Spearmen & Mercenary X-Bow units, Dismounted Huscarls, Norse Raiders and a few heavy and light cavalry units. Each time I leave Bruges or sally forth during a siege to engage these stacks I brutally massacre them. Why? Passive AI bug? No. Clever tactical deployment on my part? No. I'm mauling these stacks because every single one of them consists mainly of Town Militia, Crossbow militia and perhaps one or two cavalry units, for the most part crap units. Admittedly the last Scot stack I faced sported some Militia Pikemen in full plate but the lack of decent support units (i.e. axe, sword or heavy cav) meant they were simply dead men walking. Were it not for the castle/city build I would probably be having a much harder time of it. Sure, city provinces make a faction wealthier but at what cost? If an AI faction only has city provinces in the area you know you're going to have a much easier time of it. Take out an AI faction's last castle province and it's only a matter of time before it's knocked out of the game.

The provincial castle/city system does provide an added challenge to players but it also seriously handicaps the AI's ability to field effective, well balanced armies. Should CA have better programmed the strategic AI so that it's more effective at dealing with the castle/city system? Sure, but an effective AI that can effectively combine units from different castle and city provinces to create balanced stacks in the same fashion that a human player does sounds like a really, really tall order.

I'm inclined to say that modders should, if possible, dispense with the castle/city system altogether and instead leave only the castle tech path in place and add in the necessary City-only buildings for full economic & cultural development.

[Yun Dog]

I must admit I like the castle/city system - I think it would be a pity to have to mod it out - its always been one of the battles to try and code the AI to composed mixed stacks/armies and not just field masses of archers or seige weapons like it used to do in MTW. Pity the AI couldnt be tweaked a bit more to combine armies more effectively.

The CIv3/4 AI - yeh its hard - but why is it hard - it just gives the AI gifts - you have to learn to be an A grade exploiter of the AI weakness to even stay competitive - not my idea of fun - got bored with Civs for this reason - every game was the same - if I wasnt using template X for victory then you were losing - so really playing over prince difficulty wasnt really playing anymore - just exploiting IMO.

For my 5c - Ive had some enjoyable campaigns despite whatever limitations the AI must operate under.

My M/M camp as france - I turtled so well the game ended before I took the necessary provinces - maybe that was the AIs tactic to slow me enough by attacking me that I couldnt take the necessary land. ( hey I choose to see the posistives) - still had some epic battles against the germans and the danes - and good stacks of hard hitting troops - I lost battles and citys - cant complain - kept up relations with the pope - lost a general to inquision - didnt let it continue by increasing piety.

My H/VH short camp as the egyptians was also fun - fighting the crusaders - losing antioch to a combined polish/ventian army of 3000 hard core troops - rebels incited by the moors kicked me out of coroba and marakesh - it took almost every man I had to take one of those citys back and execute everyone in the city.Desperately had to find and wipe out the last Moorish city before I was indundated by the mongols who had arrived on the steps.

The Ai does the best it can - mods can tweak the game eg EB .. to make it a little tighter for the human via cash income and unit strengths etc, in EB the AI is improved this way - fielding better stacks of troops and making some better moves on the campain/empire front - if they can do it for RTW then they can make M2TW a hell of a game

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I really don't mind the caste/city system, in fact at ist I didnt dig it a lot, but now I can see it adds to the strategic element of things..a bit.

I think you will find the AI in the civ games doesnt get gifted...and is on the whole pretty impressive..on a diplomatic and strategic level...it makes mistakes..which is expected..and often desired too.

THe AI in MTW2 simply cannot be compared at any level to it. On the map, factions declare war, without the means to support it..or it being a good idea for them...they also many times fail to exploit obvious chances to take settlements too. They leave most of their home cities poorly defended...meaning even half a stack or less can take it with ease. Factions just delare war for no reason either...frequently..even if you do not spy or do anything to provoke them.

Weak as it is on the map...in battle/seiges it gets worse. I have frequently seen the AI leave one army at one end of a city..outside the walls...while it attacks with the other one..and gets wiped out..then slowly moves the 2nd army in to attack....a bit silly really, and a good way to help the human player wipe them out.

On a normal field..sometimes it does ok...and makes reasonable attack..but not very often..most players here...even not great one..can whip the AI and then some more, with a much smaller army...in fact the only battles I have lost have been when hugely outnumbered..even then what was left of the AI's army wasnt worth talking about.

AI is deeply flawed......it does the same thing every time..hence you can read it like a book...and beat it easily...

[katank]

I think the castle/city thing should stay. I actually tend to be of the opinion that the AI has too few cities to sustain a good economy. If they learn to specialize, that'd be great.

Same as Barry, I rarely lose to the AI and often give it a whipping. Even when I lose, it's a pyrrhic victory for them. In a memorable battle, a lone general + 2 units of Turkomens and 1 unit of Siphais gets attacked by a full stack of Byz troops (including some 4 units of Byz cav, 2 units of Vardarotai, 2 units of Skythion, 3 units of treb archers, and assorted infantry). Even though I knew I was going to lose, I managed to wipe out their entire cav wing and mauled 2 units of treb archers. This kind of thing simply should not happen. Instead of charging, they sat around while I had the high ground and shot them up, then killing several units while charging down.

[econ21]

It's surprising for me to read this thread, having played two English campaigns on VH/VH - one pre-patch and one post-patch -for a reasonable period of time. (Up to 1260 on the post patch one). I am finding the level of challenge excellent. The pre-patch game was ultimately broken because on the attack, the AI would just line up in front of my longbows (passive AI) but I have not seen that post-patch (they get shot to death on the defence, but not the offence, but that's fine, IMO).

I am not sure what I am doing "wrong" that makes my game so much more challenging than the OPs, but I suspect it is not rushing. I don't declare war on anyone unless attacked or I have a mission to do it. When at war, I try to take cities but don't try to "knock out" factions if the Pope tells me to back off (I back off).

In addition, I have avoided sacking cities unless desperate. I recently relented and that made the game massively easier - the money from sacking you get is amazing.

A third thing was crusading: I am trying to establish a crusader kingdom around Antioch and that is challenging in a fun way, given the religious unrest and the hostility of the Turks and Egyptians.

For me, no TW game since STW has been as challenging (in a fun way) as M2TW as England on VH/VH. (Well, ok, HRE in MTW was harder.)