Trusted allies in 1.02

[RickooClan]

That is, they randomly attack you for no reason even when you are much more powerful and have perfect relations + very good global reputation (Very trustworthy in my test case)

Try to think in the opposite way, if you are the smaller force and one of your ally is getting bigger and bigger [and the gap will likely be even bigger as big country grow faster]. In order to win the game, you, as the smaller country, has to take action before it is too late.

I somehow think the AI of ally is pretty good in 1.02 now. The AI will ally with you to buy the time to build up their countries, and betray you while they think the time is right. I especially like the idea that while one country is getting bigger, their relations with ALL other countries will getting worse as it make perfect sense for the game objective - only one winner for the game.

As the main objective of the game is taking lands and with only one winner. Developing and making ally/friends is the path or tools only to fulfill that objective and surely at some stages the AI or the player have to betray their ally in order to take their land and win the game. (or stopping your ally win the game faster than you)

Imagine you are playing a board game like Risk with your friends. While one of them obviously getting into the stage of one super power, as a smaller country, surely you will team up with the others to defeat/stop him to grow (even he is your ally). If not, yes your country might keep alive as the super power might not attack you "first" as ally (if the objective is not taking ALL the land) but by the same time you have fewer and fewer chance to win. You simply get no point to help your ally winning the game and the same apply to the AI ally in m2tw.

The key of the game is to become the first to take 40 lands + their target province (for long campaign). Hence keeping your country alive or mantaining good ally means nothing to the AI/player if somebody is about to win the game.

ps. the story will be totally different if the glorious achievement rules applied (GA mode in MTW) and thats why lots of players want it back.

[FactionHeir]

Try to think in the opposite way, if you are the smaller force and one of your ally is getting bigger and bigger [and the gap will likely be even bigger as big country grow faster]. In order to win the game, you, as the smaller country, has to take action before it is too late.

I somehow think the AI of ally is pretty good in 1.02 now. The AI will ally with you to buy the time to build up their countries, and betray you while they think the time is right. I especially like the idea that while one country is getting bigger, their relations with ALL other countries will getting worse as it make perfect sense for the game objective - only one winner for the game.

As the main objective of the game is taking lands and with only one winner. Developing and making ally/friends is the path or tools only to fulfill that objective and surely at some stages the AI or the player have to betray their ally in order to take their land and win the game. (or stopping your ally win the game faster than you)

Imagine you are playing a board game like Risk with your friends. While one of them obviously getting into the stage of one super power, as a smaller country, surely you will team up with the others to defeat/stop him to grow (even he is your ally). If not, yes your country might keep alive as the super power might not attack you "first" as ally (if the objective is not taking ALL the land) but by the same time you have fewer and fewer chance to win. You simply get no point to help your ally winning the game and the same apply to the AI ally in m2tw.

The key of the game is to become the first to take 40 lands + their target province (for long campaign). Hence keeping your country alive or mantaining good ally means nothing to the AI/player if somebody is about to win the game.

ps. the story will be totally different if the glorious achievement rules applied (GA mode in MTW) and thats why lots of players want it back.

Realistically, at least as a human you would realize that you cannot win if your ally is close to achieving victory or already has done so. You'd want to stay on good relations with that ally just to make sure you won't be the next target and may just end up as the ally's best friend. Consider the real world as an example.

If the AI does want to attack its trusted ally, it ought to do so when it can actually win and not a suicidal attack just to make a point. Attacking a random allied general with odds of 1:1 in the ally's lands isn't really smart nor is besieging a town that is heavily garrisoned with a small force that may give you good pre-battle odds (i.e. 6 dismounted feudal knights vs 10 horse archers)

[Foz]

Realistically, at least as a human you would realize that you cannot win if your ally is close to achieving victory or already has done so. You'd want to stay on good relations with that ally just to make sure you won't be the next target and may just end up as the ally's best friend. Consider the real world as an example.

If the AI does want to attack its trusted ally, it ought to do so when it can actually win and not a suicidal attack just to make a point. Attacking a random allied general with odds of 1:1 in the ally's lands isn't really smart nor is besieging a town that is heavily garrisoned with a small force that may give you good pre-battle odds (i.e. 6 dismounted feudal knights vs 10 horse archers)

I disagree entirely. Second place is the first loser. The goal of the game is not to survive, nor to treat your faction like you would in real life. Surviving beyond someone else meeting victory conditions is entirely moot. The only goal of the game that matters, as Rickooclan pointed out, is the singular goal of meeting your victory conditions. Upon realizing that you are nearing a win, or that it can no longer realistically win, it makes perfect sense for a weak AI faction to launch every sort of attack possible against you in order to at least try to prevent you from winning, because if you do so it has immediately lost the game. Moreover, its seemingly futile attacks may weaken your perimeter defenses enough to allow a different AI faction to follow up on the attack and actually break through. This would further serve the weak faction's goals, since before it can consider trying to win itself, it must first make sure you do not win. Even in a situation where all the faction can hope to do is make it a little easier for a different faction to damage you, that choice is still clearly more in the AI's interest than simply sitting there allowing you to win.

[Tran]

I disagree entirely. Second place is the first loser. The goal of the game is not to survive, nor to treat your faction like you would in real life. Surviving beyond someone else meeting victory conditions is entirely moot. The only goal of the game that matters, as Rickooclan pointed out, is the singular goal of meeting your victory conditions. Upon realizing that you are nearing a win, or that it can no longer realistically win, it makes perfect sense for a weak AI faction to launch every sort of attack possible against you in order to at least try to prevent you from winning, because if you do so it has immediately lost the game. Moreover, its seemingly futile attacks may weaken your perimeter defenses enough to allow a different AI faction to follow up on the attack and actually break through. This would further serve the weak faction's goals, since before it can consider trying to win itself, it must first make sure you do not win. Even in a situation where all the faction can hope to do is make it a little easier for a different faction to damage you, that choice is still clearly more in the AI's interest than simply sitting there allowing you to win.

Are you saying that you better have an AI faction who behave non-sense and illogical rather than one that behave realistic?

I have to completely disagree with you.

[dopp]

No, he's saying that the AI should use a different logic altogether, where it plays to win the campaign with full knowledge of the victory conditions, rather than trying to 'role-play' it. I prefer the AI to roleplay as it increases the immersion immensely.

I can't find any hint that the AI 'plays to win' in its dealings with other players. It is programmed to expand and to conquer its special target provinces, but no more than that.

[Stuperman]

Many people here (myslef included) can achieve the victory conditions for any given faction within 75 turns (150 years), this is only made easier when they attack you at random. If this is the one and only goal ( as many people have said) then it makes for a pretty boring game if you beat it before the mongols/turmids(sp)/america. In fact if this was the only goal, you should work towards excommunication, and ignore diplomacy entirely.

The AI should use trusted ally to expand in the other direction, go against a common enemy or attck the largest threat to themselves. They should NOT sit around till your empire is the biggest threat, then give up years of peace cause the player triggered it.

[Tran]

Many people here (myslef included) can achieve the victory conditions for any given faction within 75 turns (150 years), this is only made easier when they attack you at random. If this is the one and only goal ( as many people have said) then it makes for a pretty boring game if you beat it before the mongols/turmids(sp)/america. In fact if this was the only goal, you should work towards excommunication, and ignore diplomacy entirely.

The AI should use trusted ally to expand in the other direction, go against a common enemy or attck the largest threat to themselves. They should NOT sit around till your empire is the biggest threat, then give up years of peace cause the player triggered it.

I agree

[Whacker]

The AI should use trusted ally to expand in the other direction, go against a common enemy or attck the largest threat to themselves. They should NOT sit around till your empire is the biggest threat, then give up years of peace cause the player triggered it.

As far as I can tell, this is the case. I had 3 specific alliances (more, but just these 3 are relevant) on my northern Byz front to stabilize it at the beginning of my current game. I ended up having to break with Poland because Hungary attacked about 20 turns in, and the Venitians backstabbed me about 40 turns in and attacked me. So far my alliance with Hungary is holding, but I think they'd drop it/backstab me in a heartbeat if they didn't already have their hands full. As of late, I've seen a few small stacks probing my borders, and I noticed that they've also overrun most of the territories north of me. I haven't seen or paid attention to elsewhere on the map, but it would appear that this statement by Stuperman is basically correct.

[Foz]

Are you saying that you better have an AI faction who behave non-sense and illogical rather than one that behave realistic?

I have to completely disagree with you.

The problem with your logic here is you are basing your concept of sense and logic on the real world, not the game one. The real world does not have goals like "conquer 50 provinces and capture Jerusalem." Therefore, the rules by which you play a game with that goal are entirely different than any sort of real-world concept of sense and logic. There is no future in the game once someone achieves victory, so basing gameplay on planning for that future (as FactionHeir suggested) is simply nonsensical. Victory is the only goal, for both player and AI, and diplomacy should be viewed as what it really is in the game: a tool to utilize other factions to further your chance at victory. I've found that the AI largely treats me diplomatically just like I treat it - always looking for an advantage, treacherous or not. As a result it feels far more human than if it simply played nice with me or acted like a real nation might.

No, he's saying that the AI should use a different logic altogether, where it plays to win the campaign with full knowledge of the victory conditions, rather than trying to 'role-play' it. I prefer the AI to roleplay as it increases the immersion immensely.

I can't find any hint that the AI 'plays to win' in its dealings with other players. It is programmed to expand and to conquer its special target provinces, but no more than that.

This leads me to a question. When you play the campaign, do you ignore the victory conditions? Do you actually ignore them and only do exactly what your empire would do in real life? I doubt anyone here can make that claim, and if they can, then they surely have never won a campaign in this game, and never will. Achieving victory in this game necessitates doing things that you simply would not do in the real world. Why then should the AI play the game under some false pretense at real world emulation, when the player himself does not do so? I would much rather have the AI play the game with the same understanding that I do: that it must do everything possible to win, realistic or not. Restricting the AI to some concept of "realistic" play only allows the player to exploit it even more than its strategic and tactical shortcomings already allow, and would surely not be in the best interest of having an exciting and challenging game.

[Agent Smith]

This leads me to a question. When you play the campaign, do you ignore the victory conditions? Do you actually ignore them and only do exactly what your empire would do in real life? I doubt anyone here can make that claim, and if they can, then they surely have never won a campaign in this game, and never will. Achieving victory in this game necessitates doing things that you simply would not do in the real world. Why then should the AI play the game under some false pretense at real world emulation, when the player himself does not do so? I would much rather have the AI play the game with the same understanding that I do: that it must do everything possible to win, realistic or not. Restricting the AI to some concept of "realistic" play only allows the player to exploit it even more than its strategic and tactical shortcomings already allow, and would surely not be in the best interest of having an exciting and challenging game.

I understand what you're getting at, which is that the AI should play to win like the player does.

However, there is a caveat (I hope I spelled that right). You can win the game just fine without being at war with everyone. There's more to keeping an alliance than just building slowly and pacing the game while ignoring the conditions.

A perfect example is the one I gave about the Danes. I had an alliance with them since turn 10. Between us was Poland, and we were both at war with them. To their south, they were at war with the HRE. PLENTY of room to expand and try to mee the victory conditions. Instead, they throw that away by attacking my lone general that would have been gone in a turn or two from their borders instead of attacking a Polish stack that was right in front of their nose.

Achieving victory in the game CAN be done diplomatically to some extent. For instance, as Russia, I would love to have my western border secure and concentrate on moving through Turkey and into the Middle East. That can fulfill my victory conditions, and I don't need to go to war with everyone to do it. The AI should be able to accomplish that, too.

[dopp]

This leads me to a question. When you play the campaign, do you ignore the victory conditions? Do you actually ignore them and only do exactly what your empire would do in real life? I doubt anyone here can make that claim, and if they can, then they surely have never won a campaign in this game, and never will. Achieving victory in this game necessitates doing things that you simply would not do in the real world. Why then should the AI play the game under some false pretense at real world emulation, when the player himself does not do so? I would much rather have the AI play the game with the same understanding that I do: that it must do everything possible to win, realistic or not. Restricting the AI to some concept of "realistic" play only allows the player to exploit it even more than its strategic and tactical shortcomings already allow, and would surely not be in the best interest of having an exciting and challenging game.

That's not very fair to those of us who do enjoy roleplay. Go check the PBeM section of these forums to see some examples of roleplay in action. I at least can make the claim that I have won 20 grand campaigns in M2TW by 'roleplay'.

There are plenty of games that emphasize a more aggressive play style. A major strength of Total War has been the freedom to choose differently and to perhaps roleplay a little and take in the eye candy. Hence the enduring popularity of glorious achievement campaigns, the demand for 'fluff' like titles, elaborate roleplay efforts by players on the forums, and a variety of mods that promise better immersion and more realism. Computer opponents that 'roleplay' (and thus behave in a 'realistic' fashion) diplomatically thus add to the immersion and would please a sizeable percentage of players who value this style of play.

In any case, I fail to see what the fuss is all about. The computer does NOT, to my knowledge, play specifically 'to win'. It is programmed to expand, of course, and conquer the player if he gets in the way. But it appears to me that the current fragility of alliances post-v1.2 is the result of the computer faction's 'untrustworthiness' being taken into account. I have not found any trigger in the AI file that says 'if the player is about to win, stop him'.