What should be fixed first above alll others?

[Bob the Insane]

hmmm...

I have to disagree with the group here and say Battle AI...

I think it harks back to the roots of the game, and so much more would be forgiven if the battles where genuinely challenging more of the time... Sure decent campaign AI is necessary to ensure that the AI is chosing to fight at appropriate times and sending appropriate forces but the enjoyment of the battles are the key I think (IMO of course)...

To expand on the point, when I give up playing after a long session, it is not because I am in horror of the next silly thing the campaign AI mmight do, it is because I can't stand another large cookie cutter battle today. Build a solid defensive (or offensive it does nto really matter), trade missile fire, attack the main line, flank with cavalry, win... It is not a matter of worrying about losing, just about how bad your casulaties will be....

[trickydicky]

hmmm...

I have to disagree with the group here and say Battle AI...

I think it harks back to the roots of the game, and so much more would be forgiven if the battles where genuinely challenging more of the time... Sure decent campaign AI is necessary to ensure that the AI is chosing to fight at appropriate times and sending appropriate forces but the enjoyment of the battles are the key I think (IMO of course)...

To expand on the point, when I give up playing after a long session, it is not because I am in horror of the next silly thing the campaign AI mmight do, it is because I can't stand another large cookie cutter battle today. Build a solid defensive (or offensive it does nto really matter), trade missile fire, attack the main line, flank with cavalry, win... It is not a matter of worrying about losing, just about how bad your casulaties will be....

Good point Bob, but surely having a smarter campaign AI would automatically help improve the battles. The AI would field better armies, and would attack at much more appropriate times. This may not "fix" the battlefield AI, but it would at least improve the game, and I imagine it woul be easier to implement.

I agree however that the Battlefield AI does need some serious reworking, epecially on the VH setting. Very Hard is after all suppose to be hard

[Zenicetus]

Well, one thing the battles need very badly are different AI "personalities" for the enemy general, so we aren't facing the same cookie cutter battles BobtheInsane mentioned.

Imagine how nice it would be, if sometimes you'd face an enemy general who feinted and flanked, another time the general would pour all his resources into a wedge drive towards your center. Some generals would be cautious, others would be maniacs, constantly on the offensive. And the passive/aggresive thing wouldn't necessarily be tied to who had attacked whom on the campaign map, the way it works now (that's another thing that makes these battles too predictable). Ideally you wouldn't know which style and tactics you'd be facing with each battle, unless you had already fought that particular general before, and he had survived.

We do need better generic battle AI overall, but I don't think we'll ever avoid that "cookie cutter" feeling until there's some randomness and variation in combat styles for the enemy generals.

I voted for campaign AI first, mainly because I think it's probably an easier area to improve than the tactical side, being turn-based instead of realtime AI. But obviously we need better AI in both areas.

[Budwise]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well, one thing the battles need very badly are different AI "personalities" for the enemy general, so we aren't facing the same cookie cutter battles BobtheInsane mentioned.

Imagine how nice it would be, if sometimes you'd face an enemy general who feinted and flanked, another time the general would pour all his resources into a wedge drive towards your center. Some generals would be cautious, others would be maniacs, constantly on the offensive. And the passive/aggresive thing wouldn't necessarily be tied to who had attacked whom on the campaign map, the way it works now (that's another thing that makes these battles too predictable). Ideally you wouldn't know which style and tactics you'd be facing with each battle, unless you had already fought that particular general before, and he had survived.

We do need better generic battle AI overall, but I don't think we'll ever avoid that "cookie cutter" feeling until there's some randomness and variation in combat styles for the enemy generals.

I voted for campaign AI first, mainly because I think it's probably an easier area to improve than the tactical side, being turn-based instead of realtime AI. But obviously we need better AI in both areas.

Yes, I totally agree with that and that would be a top pick for me too. However, I couldn't have put every option possible to fix so I just kinda figured I would generalize it the way that I did.

[Freedom Onanist]

Although I am with Bob in seeing the battles as the core of the game I voted for better campaing AI. As someone mentioned, if the campaign AI was a bit better I wouldn't be fighting battles against hordes of peasants.

That whole post about

Why does the AI:

• send priests to my territories when his are on the verge of heresy
• send spies to my territories when his are virtually inopen rebellion
• keep moving insignificant armies back and forwards on the raod to nowhere
• send useless armies to invade. Either too small or ineffective troops.
• invade when clearly outnumbered
• not accept ceasefires when they have been consistently beaten and are now facing complete disaster
• bother to attack over bridges
• move from a tactically useful position (high ground / bridge) for no apparent reason when threatened

Things that are broke or don't really work:

Merchants get my goat. The AI obviously has the bandwidth to train every single one of his, I don't since I am playing total WAR, not total market.
Princesses - more micro management. I just kill all foreign ones I can see as they slow the game down during the AI turn (all that standing around and bowing...)
Diplomats - in that they rarely seem to achieve a coherent result
Diplomacy - when was the last time you saw an "ally" come to your aid?
Assassins - his work, yours don't. Just make them much, much, much more expensive but get hem to work

To be fair though I think a lot of the later are the result of the "community" requesting some of these features. The whole Campaign side of the game has got overblown and the elements now don't interact properly anymore in my view. Forget anbout half the campaign distractions and concentrate on getting it right so that we cna enjoy the battles. Less borked strategy and more sorted tactics.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Budwise]

The basic mechanics of combat (charge, hit, miss, pursue, etc), are the core of the game. If the fundamentals aren't working, there's no sense slapping lipstick on that bimbo and sending her onto the street with a fancy campaign map and a bejillion unit types.

I guess you could put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig. Would explain how I was conceived though.