So How has the AI improved ??

[Didz]

What comes across from your post is that a game that's "on the line" is decided by "the hand of god" in TW. It isn't.

Nope! its determined by the combat sub-routines random variable generator, God has nothing to do with it.

The point I was trying to make, and have been since the start of this debate, is quite a simple one. Namely that if you present the AI with a totally balanced scenario where neither it nor its opponent has any advantages then any action the AI takes cannot be a test of its performance because any risk assessment it performed would be unable to establish a preferred reaction.

I realise that I have failed miserably to get this point across but I shall have one more attempt before I give up.

Lets look at an extreme example:

Two opposing but identical spear units facing each other across a totally flat peice of terrain. No wind, no sun in eithers eyes, absolutely identical conditions and stats. The only difference between each is the colour of their uniforms. The AI assesses the situation and comes up totally blank. There are no advantages to be gained by moving, there are no disadvantages either. If it attempts to move to a flank the enemy will change frontage. Worse case scenario is that if it moves it loses unit cohension therefore it stands and does nothing. Therefore, its default 'do something' sub-routine kicks in and forces it to perform a random action. It advances, the result could go either way, but the result was not initiated by the AI but by the default 'do something' routine which overrode the AI to make it attack.

Lets look at two other examples:

CHESS PROGRAMS: Chess programmes probably have the most sophisticated AI routines in the gaming industry, some can even beat grand masters. But no chess programme AI routine can generate an opening move, simply because at the start of a chess game there are no advantages or disadvantages to compare. The board is totally balanced and so if given the problem an AI routine will go into introverted analysis for ever in the hope of finding one. To avoid this Chess programmes are given a database of standard opening moves, sometimes five or more moves in a sequence, which the program will select from at random as a 'do something' strategy. So, in the first few moves of most Chess games against a computer you are not actually playing the AI at all by a random move sequence hard wired into it.

and finally an example from an AI used in real warfare:

Onboard ship to ship defence systems are heavily control by computerised auto threat management and response computers, with highly sophisticated AI systems. However, even they cannot make decisions based upon a totally balanced scenario. This situation was never considered likely to happen in real warfare and so was initially overlooked, until a ship found itself under attack from two identical missiles fired from exactly the same distance but from different directions. The AI routine went into 'assessment mode' looking for any factor which would help it decide which missile to deal with first and continued to monitor the alternative threats but do nothing until both missiles hit the ship. Now all such battle systems have built in 'do something' sub-routines which will kick in and override the AI to force the ships system to attack one or other of the threats at random.

That was really the only point I was trying to make, and I could not see how one would judge the performance of an AI in a situation where effectively it isn't at the helm but has been overridden.

It not an important point, but if one is then going to judge the AI on what happens its worth noting that in fact it probably isn't responsible for the end result. Its actually the 'do something' sub-routine that your testing.

However everyone seems to expect that the AI will beat them at their own game of exploiting this or that: fair enough. You might be waiting more than you think though from my perspective.

Certainly the best AI would be one that monitored both its own and its opponents performance and adjusted its own strategies to compensate.

In other words an AI which learns from its own mistakes and adjusts its own playing strategies to expliot not just the immediate situation it is in, but the long term behaviour of its opponents.

There have been some attempts at this sort of AI before but so far its yet to become common in gaming.

[TevashSzat]

The ai imo has improved since RTW. That being said, it still has much faults. Personally, I think the battle ai is half decent like it wont do anything that incredibly stupid, but any decent player can easily win outnumbered. The bigger problem is the campaign map ai. They just have a horrible sense of economics and somehow thinks that they must spend every penny they have every turn or someone will come out and take it. What ends up happening is that they spend a huge amount of money creating this huge militia armies whose upkeep doesn't allow them to upgrade their cities hence forcing them to only rely on militias until late in the game.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Didz
Two opposing but identical spear units facing each other across a totally flat peice of terrain. No wind, no sun in eithers eyes, absolutely identical conditions and stats. The only difference between each is the colour of their uniforms. The AI assesses the situation and comes up totally blank. There are no advantages to be gained by moving, there are no disadvantages either. If it attempts to move to a flank the enemy will change frontage. Worse case scenario is that if it moves it loses unit cohension therefore it stands and does nothing. Therefore, its default 'do something' sub-routine kicks in and forces it to perform a random action. It advances, the result could go either way, but the result was not initiated by the AI but by the default 'do something' routine which overrode the AI to make it attack.

I've run several such situations with the aim to "test" unit performance in melee. There are things that do make a difference in such a situation and the AI seemed always aware of most of them and used them :

1. Attack the opponent partly from the flank/rear: the AI marches diagonally to the enemy unit aiming to "hit" partially the flank in the charge. This little advantage in first kills with the charge may be the deciding point. The AI acknowledges it and uses it.

2. Hitting a full face of the enemy unit upon charging: if you manage to hit with all the front of your unit simultaneously the flank of an enemy unit at the charge, the charge will be devastating - if a few only men of yours do so, then the charge is not as effective. The AI seems fully aware of this and uses it in such confrontations.

3. Hold formation/engage at will: hold a charge with hold formation/engage at will after charge is over. The Ai doesn't seem particularly inept at doing this. I know though that for example if you pit cavalry that can do wedge he'll use that because its more effective on the charge. The AI uses the special abilities but not the melee modes.

4. Formation width during melee : it does affect a lot especially relative to how an opponent fights, for example : if the X spears are in hold formation in a medium size breadth formation, then the Y spears can be employed at an engage at will wider formation to catch both flanks, and "eat" the enemy formation from the sides.

Assuming a very small slope exists somewhere:
5. The AI will pace the unit he controls and move diagonally towards you along the slope so when you engage he has a small high ground advantage.

This is AI competence purely IMO - there is no "do-nothing" routine kikcing in IMO because there's plenty to consider. Moving around may give a potential advantage by the relative positions of the units ie how you approach the enemy unit - how much you and they are fatigued - how you fight them in melee upon engagement (you can also change the formation breadth during melee, by dragging it longer and click immediately attack, more of your guys will line on the flanks of the enemy then. Depending how the opponent fights - ie are they spears or swords? - it might give an advantage in kills or serve a purpose (hold up/pin more than one units)).

*edit*= Your example is also the only occasion where the gameplay is left essentially with a single match up (no better or worse match ups no match up component) and only some partial flanking (and not with a reserve unit) - that is it is dramatically restricted in possibilities as it has been reduced in gameplay components. Therefore it is inadequate IMO and for the truth of it try to imagine how much more complex the situation becomes if you add to both sides a sword unit. That is: a sword and a spear vs a sword. and a spear.

Will in the range of the possibilities of this new encounter the AI be tested or not? Now there is really plenty to do: pin the sword with your spear and aim for your sword to kill the enemy spear quicker. Double the enemy sword or spear. Let the enemy double your sword or spear with the aim to flank with the other. Pin both the enemy sword and spear with one of your units and take them peacemeal by flanking with your second unit. Pin the enemy spear with your spear and get the enemy sword by a better charge.

The Ai will not just "stay there" - even if he has no initial plan and he is adapting to your movements. Do nothing is not an option he'll take his chaces when the opportunity comes to defeat you.

The situation will become all the more complex if you add a horse and even more if you add a shooter. Equal forces - flat ground but immenselly more complexity of possibilities to test the opponents than your example.

It is in the exploring and executing of these possibilities that the AI is tested. Now try the same experiment adding a few upgrades to your units or putting them in a hill.

The odds are tipped to one's favor - unless the payer does a major/singularity mistake (giving up the high ground) there's no match up that he'll lose (due to the upgrades or the high ground) and flanking cannot be done effectively as the opponent is slower than you (he has to move uphill to flank you) nor does it have the same effect (if your units have upgrades). So which exactly quality of the AI is tested there?

The same goes if one has reserves and the AI has not.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Didz]

This is AI competence purely IMO - there is no "do-nothing" routine kikcing in IMO because there's plenty to consider even if the ground is flat.

Sorry, to be pedantic about this but there must be.

In fact, I would bet on the fact that some of the examples you just listed are probably the default 'do something' options hard wired into the AI.

The bottom line here is that a computer program cannot make a choice or exercise a reasoned judgement, it can only calculate mathematical odds. Therefore, if you present an AI with a scenario which is totally balanced it cannot calculate a solution. In the MOD scenario I mentioned the navy actually thought that the program had crashed or frozen and wasted months looking for a program bug. It was only after careful analysis that it was realised exactly what had happened. The video footage actually shows the missile defence systems controlled by the AI dithering between one threat and the other as it AI system desperately tried to calculate which threat was the greater during the few seconds prior to impact.

Presented with a perfectly balanced situation in a TW game the AI will do exactly the same thing, and we even have some evidence of this in the way troops dither about in battles and armies do in campaigns.

The only way to break this effect is to overide the AI and give it a direct arbitary action, which says if the threat assessment is balanced 'do this'. Therefore, we need to be careful when we set the AI tests that we are actually testing the AI, and not this 'do something' routine.

I would even go so far as to suggest that some of the passive AI complaints might be the result of the AI's inability to calculate a solution. I certainly don't see any evidence to support your statement that the 'AI will not just stay there' as I've explioted this very failing too often in both battles and seiges to inflict critical missile casualties on the AI controlled army. They do absolutely just stay there and let you shoot them, in fact, interestingly I've noticed that on some occassions they will let you empty your entire ammunition supply into them and then when you begin to withdraw your missile troops will actually try to advance. Suggesting to me that the detection of the movement to the rear is just enough to sway the AI routine into making a decision to attack.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Didz
The only way to break this effect is to overide the AI and give it a direct arbitary action, which says if the threat assessment is balanced 'do this'. Therefore, we need to be careful when we set the AI tests that we are actually testing the AI, and not this 'do something' routine.

The AI is an aggregation of the do-this or do-that routines in all probability - what to test is how all these perform in unison.

Your argument concerns only the initial conditions and not the course of a battle that can change them. The AI responds to that or even takes the initiative. Also you forget that when the AI "attacks" by default he will come at you and try to break you with his forces whether equal or not. If he is defending he will try to resist your assault whether he has equal forces or not.

Having an aim he takes an action - so the "do-nothing" option doesn't sound convincing for the TW Ai to me.

(PS please read the edit of the above post i was writing while you posted - thanks.)

PPS It might be a be-still is better than moving option (while in defence for example), however you seem to claim that the AI breaks down upon being confronted with equal forces. I sincerely doubt that - but its easy to check: just make up two identical 20 units armies in custom and pit them in flat ground. I bet that if the AI is on the offensive he'll come at you.

The "passive" AI - was a new bug in TW to the best of my knowledge - i haven't obsrved it in any of the previous games and certainly not in the two older ones. You seem to claim that it is an inherent property of the AI. It doesn't sound right to me.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Didz]

Your argument concerns only the initial conditions and not the course of a battle that can change them.

Not really, obviously the initial assessment is the key one in that it ought to provide the AI with a clear understanding of its strategic or tactical position and indicate the nature of its most promising solution. But one would hope that the AI is constantly re-evaluating its situation during play so that it can modify its initial decisions.

In fact, I'm sure it does this becuase as I've already said it is possible to play the AI for a sucker by feeding or denying it opportunities during play. Thus you can create false opportunities to draw it into traps and you can deny it opportunities to render it passive.

Having an aim he takes an action - so the "do-nothing" option doesn't sound convincing for the TW Ai to me.

And yet it is possible to acheive and therefore must be an option the AI considers valid under the right circumstances.

however you seem to claim that the AI breaks down upon being confronted with equal forces.

No, what I said is that no AI can calculate a solution if its assessment is faced with a totally balanced situation. It hasn't broken down, it merely has nothing to work with, thats why all AI routines have override routines that trigger a 'do something' action when the AI cannot make a decision.

I sincerely doubt that - but its easy to check: just make up two identical 20 units armies in custom and pit them in flat ground. I bet that if the AI is on the offensive he'll come at you.

Only becuase that is the most like 'do something' action programmed for that situation.

The "passive" AI - was a new bug in TW to the best of my knowledge - i haven't obsrved it in any of the previous games and certainly not in the two older ones. You seem to claim that it is an inherent property of the AI. It doesn't sound right to me.

Nope, that situation has been in existence since day 1, I've used it in STW, RTW, MTW and I'm still using it in MTW2. Arbalesta's were brilliant at explioting the passive AI in MTW for example, as were muskets in STW.

However, its not a bug and its wrong to call it one. In most instances it occurs because the AI has calculated that an attack cannot succeed and yet the morale state of its units does not justify a withdrawal. To overcome this CA have introduced some additional 'do something' triggers which seem to kick in if the AI units are suffering excessive missile casualties.

This 'do something' routine overrides the AI and forces the AI controlled units to make a pointless attack on the missile unit inflicting the most casualties. The result leads to the unit chasing the missile troops until the action is overridden by a fresh AI assessment that points out the futility and risk of the action and causes them to break off and return to their original position.

I exploit this conflict between the AI and the 'do something' routine a lot during sally battles as the AI recognizes the threat posed by the city wall defences but is constantly overridden by the 'do something' routine when hit by sallying missile troops. Thus you can kite the AI units into range of the wall defences, wait for the AI routine to kick in and order them to withdraw, then shoot them in the back with the sallying missile troops as they fall back triggering the 'Do something' routine to override the AI and order them to attack and repeat the process until you run out of arrows.

[Didz]

A simple test to prove the existence of the 'Do Something' routine.

Just to prove the existence of the 'do something' sub-routine here is a very simple test.

Step 1. A level playing field leaving the AI to decide.

By Didz at 1969-12-31
Two identical units of spearmen face each other over a totally level peice of ground. The AI commanding the Scots has been told it is on the defensive and so the 'do something' routine has not overridden the AI to force it to attack. Consequently the AI does nothing as it cannot calculate any solution.
I left these units staring at each other for 15 minutes before taking this picture nothing moved.

Step 2: A level playing field but letting the 'Do Something' routine override the AI.

By Didz at 1969-12-31
A second battle with exactly the same set-up, except that this time the AI has been told that it is the Attacker. Therefore, when the battle engine detects that the AI is unable to calculate a solution the 'Do Something' routine kicks in to override the AI and force it to attack. The affect was instantaneous with the Scots advancing as soon as the battle started.

Step 3: Proving that the AI does exist.

By Didz at 1969-12-31
Finally, just to prove that the AI does exist and will calculate a solution if it has the potential to do so. The third test puts the AI back on the defensive but this time gives it more troops and thus a numerical advantage. As you can see in this final test despite being on the defensive as in Step 1 the AI has calculated the odds realised it has an advantage and has ordered an attack.

Conclusion
As predicted, if the AI is presented with a totally balanced scenario and left to its own devices it will do nothing. However, if the 'Do Something' routine is told it is the attacker, it will override the AI and force the AI to attack even though it still has no advantage. Finally, if given an advantage the AI will move to expliot that advantage even though it is contrary to its mission.

[redriver]

I am as my join date suggests a long time lurker, fairly recent member and dedicated fan of the TW series, well the last part isn't totally accurate and is valid only until MTW which is why this query is being posted.

Needless to say RTW was in most respects a complete disappointment for me, especially with regards to both the strategic and the tactical AI. In fact in my opinion the overall game was sub-standard enough to put off my purchase of MTW II till the release of the initial set of patches. Now that I am contemplating purchasing the game I would like your input on certain matters.

A continuous perusal of the forum seems to indicate a significant improvement in the AI, however that by itself is insufficient so I intend to ask a specific set of queries to judge the actual level of improvement:

Firstly, one of the major problems with RTW and BI was the inability of the AI in a majority of situations to maintain a battle line. Even with Darthmod formations the AI would hold the battle line only until it was about 100 mts away from my battle line- at which point it would decide that to utilise tactics from the Homeric age and would then engage my battle line one individual unit at a time deliberately destroying the cohesion of its battle line.Has this major defect been rectified, because if not then we can end this thread right at this point for without the AI attacking as a cohesive whole there is no point in father inquiring about any subsequent improvements.

False. This is not how it works in RTW 1.5

Secondly, is the AI able to deal with severely depleted units or does one still face 20 unit AI stacks that have a roster of less than 200 men. Infact does the AI utilise any form of automerge or does it ever retrain its depleted units?]

Thirdly, does the AI always aim to secure terrain and height advantages as It did in MTW and does it seek to consistently outflank my battle line?]

It will do that in RTW 1.5 dependin' on cercumstances...

Finally, is the AI able to co-ordinate multiple stack armies to present me in a position of numerical inferiority?]

As stated above your response on the following points will be appreciated, so I wish to thank all those who contribute to my queries for their time and input.

don't have MTW2 so my points are regardin' RTW 1.5 instead...

[Noir]

@Didz,
i disagree with all of your points including the "illustration" (in which you've used two exactly same single units despite my argument that this detracts gameplay components); however instead of going on with another long post - i'll leave it here. I think we both expanded our arguments enough and there is no need to further post, as far as i am concerned.

BTW, our observations generally match - its the interpretation that differs (as it happens in these cases).

Thanks for the exchange of arguments and sorry if things got heated unecessarily - it was entirely my fault.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Alsn]

Didz, i think that youre way overthinking this "do something" routine that you claim exists.

From your post with your test i would draw the following conclusions:

The first example(where the AI did nothing) the AI was on the defensive. In this game(M2:TW that is) if the time runs out then the defenders win, thus if you are presented with exactly equal odds then the logical thing to do would obviously be to just wait(if the opponent doesnt respond it guarantees a victory).

If the AI is on the attack then waiting will guarantee a loss which means the only possibility for the AI is to attack(its still 50-50 if they attack).

If the AI is on the defensive but has a numerical advantage it logically concludes that that it shouldnt be able to lose and thus attacks.

I fail to see how these arent purely logical decisions and instead supposedly part of some "do something" routine you claim to exist.

[Didz]

@Alsn
Yes, thats why step 3 was important. Step 1 and 2 could easily be explained by the existence of a 'do something' trigger which says something like if your on the defensive 'do this' if your on the attack 'do that'.

What step 3 proved is that there is a evaluation routine which assesses the odds and can make a decision to attack if the odds favour such an action.

Basically, what your saying is that step 1 and step 2 could be the result of a 'do something' trigger without any AI evaluation, and I think thats possible if unlikely. However, I think it would be hard to argue that step 3 was the result of anything other than an assessment of relative strength by the AI.

The question I raised right at the start of this saga, was if the test scenario was totally balanced, how would one establish that the actions selected by the computer were the result of the AI assessment and not merely the default 'do something' routines hard coded into the battle engine.

All of this of course assumes that there is an AI routine. I agree with you that the entire behaviour of the computer might be governed by nothing more than a massive list of 'do something' triggers as you seem to suggest. It would certainly explain some of it 'dumber' actions but it seems unlikely given the wide variety of possible situations that the computer would have to be pre-programmed to react to.

Nevertheless, traits are triggerred by such a massive list of triggers, so I suppose its possible that no AI system exists.

[R'as al Ghul]

Step 3: Proving that the AI does exist.

By Didz at 1969-12-31
Finally, just to prove that the AI does exist and will calculate a solution if it has the potential to do so. The third test puts the AI back on the defensive but this time gives it more troops and thus a numerical advantage. As you can see in this final test despite being on the defensive as in Step 1 the AI has calculated the odds realised it has an advantage and has ordered an attack.

Conclusion
As predicted, if the AI is presented with a totally balanced scenario and left to its own devices it will do nothing. However, if the 'Do Something' routine is told it is the attacker, it will override the AI and force the AI to attack even though it still has no advantage. Finally, if given an advantage the AI will move to expliot that advantage even though it is contrary to its mission.

Hello,

sorry for coming so late into this discussion. Didz and Noir make both interesting points. I can't possibly comment on all of them but I'm inclined to agree more with Noir. Anyway, this third step that Didz posted seems odd to me. Yes, the AI has a numerical advantage and it's right to attack in that situation. What I don't understand is, why it doesn't attack with both units at the same time. Judging from the picture and my own tests the AI doesn't seem to coordinate its units. If it had walked its general unit to the back of the enemy unit it surely would've had better results in terms of casualties. Shouldn't the AI be aware of that and wasn't that the case in STW and MTW?

How did this test play out Didz? Was the general just standing there, doing nothing or did it eventually join the fight?

I've already posted this somewhere else, but imo it should be almost impossible to beat the AI if both armies are equal and on flat terrain. The unbeatable advantage of the AI should be numerical assessment of the situation (terrain, morale, weather, unit strength, etc.), its reaction time and the ability to manage 20 units simultaneously.
This poses the question: What exactly is the AI doing anyway?
I'd love to hear a response from CA to that.

R'as

[Kobal2fr]

My guess is that in the 3rd test, the AI doesn't wish to commit its general for fear of losing him to a bad die roll. After all, it doesn't need to to win : either its spears win the 1-on-1 fight and it wins, or the player wins the fight with a severely depleted unit that the general unit is sure to beat. Whereas should both units attack, and the player kills the AI captain, both AI spears could end up routing...

[Didz]

How did this test play out Didz? Was the general just standing there, doing nothing or did it eventually join the fight?

To be honest I never bothered to play these battles out to a conclusion as it wasn't necessary to establish the point I was testing. But I agree with you that whilst the AI seems to have decided that attack was a good strategy it doesn't seem to have made best tactical use of its resources.

That second unit did just stop where it is shown and watched its partner fight, whereas I'm pretty sure a human player would have moved it round the enemies flank or rear as you suggested.

Again this could be a random trigger that chooses each units tactical response and perhaps the programmer thought flanking moves inappropriate for spearmen. It depends really on where the AI breaks off in terms of its assessment, perhaps it doesn't get involved in the close in tactical stuff.

If such close in tactical decisions are determined by random triggers then that might also explain why attacks by the AI are often so fragmented. Its has certainly puzzled me in the past why the AI would calculate that an attack was a good strategy and then only send one unit to be slaughtered at a time instead of its entire battleline. Likewise the fact that it doesn;t always do it, suggests some sort of random factor is involved.

[PseRamesses]

Firstly, one of the major problems with RTW and BI was the inability of the AI in a majority of situations to maintain a battle line. Even with Darthmod formations the AI would hold the battle line only until it was about 100 mts away from my battle line- at which point it would decide that to utilise tactics from the Homeric age and would then engage my battle line one individual unit at a time deliberately destroying the cohesion of its battle line.Has this major defect been rectified, because if not then we can end this thread right at this point for without the AI attacking as a cohesive whole there is no point in father inquiring about any subsequent improvements.

Secondly, is the AI able to deal with severely depleted units or does one still face 20 unit AI stacks that have a roster of less than 200 men. Infact does the AI utilise any form of automerge or does it ever retrain its depleted units?]

Thirdly, does the AI always aim to secure terrain and height advantages as It did in MTW and does it seek to consistently outflank my battle line?]

Finally, is the AI able to co-ordinate multiple stack armies to present me in a position of numerical inferiority?]

As stated above your response on the following points will be appreciated, so I wish to thank all those who contribute to my queries for their time and input.

Sorry for joining the discussion late but to answer Amritochates´ questions: no, no, no and no!

Some of us, including me, has played TW since the first release of Shogun. And IMHO that game is a gem. Most of the time the AI really tries hard to maintain a favorable position, like a ford, hill etc. Many times I was located on top of the hill the AI would line up and send some cavs around my flanks. Not seldom both groups arrived at the same time.

In MTW the AI would still hold a ford/ bridge/ hill etc but was acting as individual units out in the open.

In RTW this behavior had been even more diluted (sp?) and you could actually lure the AI across a bridge or down from a hill.

In M2 the AI rarely do anything right, I´m sorry but I´m so fed up with this game going in the wrong direction. Everything has improved graphically but not gamewise. Anyone can be a desktop general with M2 but back with Shogun or M1 your battlefield maneuvering actually did matter.

One thing stands out as a huge improvement: siege battles, they are immensely fun to play and the AI holds favorable grounds, falls back on que drawing eager attackers into ambushes from sidestreets etc etc. I love playing siege-battles in M2 (and the graphs doesn´t make it less fun either).

[R'as al Ghul]

My guess is that in the 3rd test, the AI doesn't wish to commit its general for fear of losing him to a bad die roll. After all, it doesn't need to to win : either its spears win the 1-on-1 fight and it wins, or the player wins the fight with a severely depleted unit that the general unit is sure to beat. Whereas should both units attack, and the player kills the AI captain, both AI spears could end up routing...

Mmmh. If the enemy spear unit is engaged and the General walks around to launch an attack in the rear how can the General get killed? I think waiting for the melee to be decided offers a greater chance to loose the general because the AI has to launch a second frontal attack, which poses a greater risk to the Gen than attacking the rear.

If such close in tactical decisions are determined by random triggers then that might also explain why attacks by the AI are often so fragmented. Its has certainly puzzled me in the past why the AI would calculate that an attack was a good strategy and then only send one unit to be slaughtered at a time instead of its entire battleline. Likewise the fact that it doesn;t always do it, suggests some sort of random factor is involved.

Random factors would certainly explain a lot but I shudder to think that's purely random. I also think that any manouver should be available to all units if the situation is appropriate. Not having spears doing flanking manouvers would certainly be a programmed disadvantage or a simple omission.
I'm certain that the tactical AI in STW is better in that respect and that the same test would have played out differently. I may post some results if I find the time to test that theory.

[Kobal2fr]

Mmmh. If the enemy spear unit is engaged and the General walks around to launch an attack in the rear how can the General get killed? I think waiting for the melee to be decided offers a greater chance to loose the general because the AI has to launch a second frontal attack, which poses a greater risk to the Gen than attacking the rear.

Because flanked/rear-attacked elements in a unit will turn around to face the new threat. Sure, it's a lower chance of death than being attack frontally, but as they say, "next to none is worse than plain ol' none". And frankly, I'd rather have the AI use its generals timorously than recklessly. How many times have promising STW/MTW/RTW battles turned sour and boring because the AI just charged its general head-on and died stupidly ?

[TosaInu]

Because flanked/rear-attacked elements in a unit will turn around to face the new threat. Sure, it's a lower chance of death than being attack frontally, but as they say, "next to none is worse than plain ol' none". And frankly, I'd rather have the AI use its generals timorously than recklessly. How many times have promising STW/MTW/RTW battles turned sour and boring because the AI just charged its general head-on and died stupidly ?

Hello,

It's hard to judge whether it's too far away for moralesupport and a -hit, so we give it the benefit of the doubt there. By far the best action (keeping general safety in mind) is to move the generalunit closer to the action, ready to immediately backstab/flank in case unit one loses (against all odds). This will be a double cutting sword (which might already be the case) and provides the strongest position (in this case) if everything goes wrong.

More checks are needed, because the AI may 'know' it will win and just keep his general out of harm.

-What happens when there are more than 2 AI melee units? Two of them are not a general, so will it use quick hammer and anvil then?
-What does it do when it certainly needs more than one unit to defeat the player?
A. two AI units, so the AI general must fight.
B. more than two AI units, so the general may not have to fight.

[Kobal2fr]

Agreed on all points but one : if the general unit gets too close, then it gets too close to charge. The best charge distance for inf. units is 40 errr... meters ? squares ? game units ? Anyway, 40 of those. Or, 1/3rd shortbow range. And remember that spear units generally have a high charge bonus to go with their crummy combat stats and penalty against infantry, so unless 40... things is further than the morale boost area, it's probably a better idea for the general to stay back in case the 1-vs-1 fight goes pearshaped.

I wholeheartedly agree that said charge opportunity would probably be better used with the general on a flank, so that even if the first unit routs, it in turn gets a flanking chance should it rally later. But I also recall reading somewhere that units that are cutoff from their side of the map get a big morale penalty, so the AI might be taking that into account here, and not dare risk it.

[TosaInu]

Hello Kobal2fr,

Agreed on all points but one : if the general unit gets too close, then it gets too close to charge.

True, but it would get the complete benefit of a backstab, while the enemy unit could turn around and fight back when the general is keeping distance (1 cycle of combat is enough to get the AI general killed). It's a con and a pro vs another con and pro I think the unit would be seriously dented and not be able to do anything when receiving a proper blow in the back, instead rout instantly.

I wholeheartedly agree that said charge opportunity would probably be better used with the general on a flank, so that even if the first unit routs, it in turn gets a flanking chance should it rally later. But I also recall reading somewhere that units that are cutoff from their side of the map get a big morale penalty, so the AI might be taking that into account here, and not dare risk it.

Turn it around: the AI general could cut off the players side of the map (the player would be sandwiched). Indeed, of course still a chance that the AI general will get a fit too, but then it doesn't see propely what his ally is doing.

[R'as al Ghul]

Because flanked/rear-attacked elements in a unit will turn around to face the new threat. Sure, it's a lower chance of death than being attack frontally, but as they say, "next to none is worse than plain ol' none". And frankly, I'd rather have the AI use its generals timorously than recklessly. How many times have promising STW/MTW/RTW battles turned sour and boring because the AI just charged its general head-on and died stupidly ?

Yes, right, they can turn around now. I forgot.
Anyway, it hasn't happened to me before that the General gets killed in such a manoeuver and I think the chances are pretty low that it happens.
Of course I don't want any Suicide Generals either but that's something different.

[Didz]

I'm certain that the tactical AI in STW is better in that respect and that the same test would have played out differently. I may post some results if I find the time to test that theory.

Thats my recollection too.

I can recall that the AI in STW was very good at identifying beneficial terrain and pretty difficult to prize off it once it had established itself. Likewise the matching of units in close combat was also pretty effective, much more so than in MTW2.

However, I wonder how much of this is down to the sheer complexity of MTW2 combat as opposed to STW. STW after all had compartively few units types and all armies had the same whereas MTW2 has much more variety to cope with. Like wise I wonder how many of the current problems are due to the gradual introduction of more and more 'do something' triggers to the mix, which overrides the AI to force units to respond to specific situations. The one thing which is definately possible in MTW2 which was never the case in STW is the ability to 'kite' computer controlled units into suicidal attacks. In STW the AI simply stuck its nose in the air and refused to be suckered but in MTW2 the 'taking excessive missile casualties' trigger alone can be used to 'kite' specific individual units into traps by triggering a foolish attack move.

Random factors would certainly explain a lot but I shudder to think that's purely random.

By random I didn't mean totally random, but rather a random selection from a pre-determined set of actions the programmer/designer considered appropriate under those conditions.

So, for example if a unit is hit by missile fire and takes an excessive amount of casualties there is a pretty good chance that the 'do something' code will kick in and override its current action with an order to 'attack the missile unit'. That seems to be an almost standard response for all except missile units with ammo.

However, sometimes the attack of the first unit with trigger a more general advance, which suggests that there is a secodnary 'do something' trigger that says something like 'if the unit next to you attacks, then you attack'. However, this is not consistent, sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't suggesting that it is only one of at least two random actions available when that 'do something' trigger is activated.

I suspect that over the course of the series more and more of these triggers have been incorporated into the code in an attempt to combat specific complaints about the performance of the AI. After all the easiest way to deal with complaints about a 'passive AI' is to code enforced actions into the battle enegine that make units do something.

However, the problem is that because they are triggered by specific events they do not take into account the wider tactical situation and so not only can they be explioted by human players but they frequently produce 'dumb' results.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

A quick test in MTW VI using equal infantry units, on a flat map.

AI attacking: general and another unit.
Player defending: general.
Both AI units attack immediately. The unit acts as anvil, the general moves into flank position, but doesn't coordinate well and hits its own unit first (thus cancelling the charge).


AI defending: general and another unit.
Player attacking: general.
Idem.

When I 'cheat' and run the last yards, the AI general gets into flanking (almost).



AI attacking: general.
Player defending: general.
AI attacks after a few seconds.


AI defending: general.
Player attacking: general.
AI waits, launches attacks when the player marches closer to a distance of 3 tiles. I guess fatigue, however small, is the perceived opportunity.

[FactionHeir]

Custom battles in M2TW are no way to test the AI.
Even if the AI is defending and you have a grand advantage, it will "do something" and attack you. It will also not get stuck if its army consists partially of missiles/artillery.

In campaign battles, this is very different, with the AI holding its ground as defender when outnumbered and even as attacker often getting stalled if it has artillery.

[Didz]

@TosaInu
That sounds a lot more sensible, the AI seems to be using its General unit sensibly in every example, or at least trying to.

@FactionHeir
I think that was where I came in...the key point being that campaign battles are pretty much never going to be balanced and so the AI will be able to calculate a solution from 'Start Battle' and seems to have more control over what happens.

I think much of the problem with sally battles is that the AI has no options at the start of the battle because basically all the enemy units are beyond its reach inside a city wall. For some reason this seems to get the AI off to a bad start from which it rarely recovers fully and certainly this is the type of battle where it is most easy to play the computer for a sucker.

[Orda Khan]

Well I must say I've had a good laugh anyway

......Orda

[Noir]

Just for the record:

I've run 6 custom games in MTW/VI : i've chosen 1 unit type of each for me and the AI, and played like this 3 games in the offensive and 3 in the defensive in a flat & featureless (no forests etc) map.

All battles were very good (that is hard fighting on the line to the end), and quite varied in their development - the AI reacted promptly to my deploying, skirmishing and melee, created and took opportunities, skirmished with his missiles, avoided being shot, protected his shooters as well as the General that he deployed at crucial stages (in one case to take out my own outumbered general). He also held reserves amd used them appropriately. His match ups were well calculated and he went for flanking attacks in melee nuclei in order to win them.

There was no sign of a do-nothing routine nor of any puzzlement of the AI in any of the 6 battles, nor of a "passive" AI if being shot.

Many Thanks

Noir

*edit*=all units for both sides were 0 valour and all were from the same roster.