Game analysis: You lose

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-02-2007, 22:16

I have been analyzing my games thus far, and I realize that without expansion, you will eventually lose to an expansionist who has infinitely more resources than you have, and without defense at home, you will lose to an invasion by a blitzer. Anything in the middle is not enough to hold off two or more factions attacking at the same time; so, in theory, if everyone on the board were allied against you from the start, all it would take is a blitz rush to finish you off. You wouldn't have the resources or the defensive capabilities to defend indefinitley, and you would make zero progress in expanding your empire if you played pure defense.

Therefore, the only reason why the game is winnable is because your opponents are incompetent. With perfect play by your opponents, any game is a forced loss. If there were a settings above "very hard", it might go up to "nightmare" which is simply an endless AI blitz rush of your faction. I think there is a happy medium between that and "very hard"; say, "expert".

I wonder which faction could hold out the longest if every single AI were programmed for instant-kill of the player's faction. My guess would be a corner faction, like the Scots. They might be able to build a navy and hold off any invasion except by land, and they could in theory defend indefinitley against (or even expand into) England. However, eventually their navies would lose, and other factions would finally be able to invade by sea, then it is all over.

Russia doesn't have the troops or finances to defend properly against a blitz rush from all factions.

The Moors lose to a Crusade. The Egyptians lose to a Crusade. The Turks lose to a Crusade. Every other faction is surrounded and loses to a simple rush. So, that's the end of all hope for any given faction to force a victory.

All victories in this game are from luck combined with strategy. But without luck, you have a forced loss as any faction. Unlike chess, this game is not winnable with perfect or even superhuman play, because you are relying on AI passivity to win. I wonder if the game designers knew that, and that is the reason why they made the AI so passive (read: terrible).

They had to break the game in order to make it playable. If the AI were perfect, all your neighbors would ally against you and insta-kill you.

I think there could be a happy medium though. Instead of ultra-passive AI or AI that attacks with bogus port blockades or single stack attacks, they could randomize it so that the AI factions will randomly either blitz, expand, or defend. This way you have to play slightly defensively to hold off the blitz which will come from a random faction, (kills my blitz strategy) and still play somewhat aggressively so that you don't lose to an expansionist who will slowly pick off turtles and blitzers until their empire is large enough to crush yours by force. And of course, make sure that the AI doesn't always align against you unless you play too aggressively.

So with some tweaks, the game could be made possible to win, yet not so easy. Hence, with some reprogramming of the AI, there could be an "expert" setting, which kills off "blitz" players due to AI aggressiveness, and a "nightmare" setting for everyone who wants to see how long they can survive. My two cents.

What's your analysis of the strategic component of the game? Too easy, too hard, just right, impossible to fix, fixable? Any other questions or comments on this general topic are welcome.

EDIT: I think it might be possible to exploit the fact that under the hypothetical "nightmare" mode, the AI would not be focused on defense. If you could spend 90% of your florins on defense, and send a small attacking force off somewhere to pillage undefended AI settlements, you MIGHT be able to hold out even under "nightmare" conditions as a faction like Scotland which can defend itself properly. I'd love such a challenge.

I'd welcome comments on improving the AI (not comments on other aspects of the game play) as an additional topic for discussion.

**Budwise** · 08-02-2007, 23:44

I think everyone is missing the point. The point of the AI is to not just to irraticate you. The AI treats you just like any other AI faction and if they all just rushed you then that would not be. Yes, a nightmare mode would be hella cool to play and if you could cheat (Which you can) for more money the battles would be absolutely stunning to see wave after wave attacking you and you holding off with superior troops.

But, CA went to great lenghts to make this game as realistic as possible, sometimes killing some of the fun factor. I thank them for that but the game should be easily modible via a complex option menu and not text documents to add features like you are saying. Remember though, the game is played out as a "what if" senario on an alternate historical basis and not a game of risk where your older brother wins EVERY game so you and your little buddies gang rape him from the start.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-03-2007, 01:01

Yeah, I agree that if every faction decided to give up on it's own home defense, economic development, and selfish ambitions, and united with their worst enemies to run off to some random nation and all slaughter that one nation together it would not be realistic, unless of course that nation has been conquering and backstabbing and exterminating for years.

However, from a pure fun perspective, "expert" and "nightmare" AI modes would be pretty sweet.

Like the smash brothers melee endless single player challenge. You fight off unlimited enemies until you die. Then you crank up the difficulty until it's nearly impossible to finish off a single opponent and see how long you survive.

Basically, if all you are doing is blocking, dodging, and taking hits, you're gonna die. Same principle applies to this game. Without significant offense, you will eventually die, IF the AI were aggressive. Seems however some people have posted threads where you can just sit back and bat away an occasional invader once in a while and make it to the end of the game with only 5 provinces. That would be a fine challenge IF the AI were a little more proactive in eradicating you.

**Budwise** · 08-03-2007, 01:12

The AI and possible fixes. I hope this is the FINAL conclusion because of all the feedback on this nobody has ever mentioned the following.

1. The most important thing is that under the option menu, you should be able to pick WHAT kind of AI you face. Do you face against an AI that just goes for a territory here and a territory there or what we all seem to want is an all out war for annialation. What I mean is that the AI (Under Current settings, will ceasefire and stop attacking once it reached its goals. Under a conquest mode, it would try EVERYTHING it can short of killing itself off to eliminate you from the game.)

2. Capital Mode - In M2TW, the ability to move your capital seems like a step back, can we just move our capital from Washington DC to, oh I dunno, Salem, Oregon on a whim. I believe that when you conquer a capital its game over for that faction. When that happens, the victor should get all the losers territories WITHOUT spawned garrisons to help. This would make it so you would have to do a mad dash with your CURRENT armies to protect them. This could also make it easier for the AI to have something to go for in your territory for conquest.

3. Allies should be more allied like - What I mean is that when one ally gets attacked or maybe attacks someone else, you are automatically at war with the non allied. This happened in both WWI and WWII and it seems that it could work out fine. Also, the computer and you will have a special diplomacy screen to set up COMBINED attacks on an enemy army. This is how it works in real life, why not here.

4. Speaking of allies in the field. By default, the AI should send their army to COMBINE with yours. Not that you would control them but their strenghts should complement yours. For instance, I am playing England and my allied is France, my strong longbowmen would deploy stakes and provide cover fire and when the enemy gets close, the FRENCH'S Horsemen would engage them while my archers continued firing on safer targets. But before the horsemen run, they are behind MY stakes because we combined on the field post battle.

5. Alliances should be more stable. If your reliability is high and so is your allied and you saved each other on a few occasions, then they should NEVER break the alliance and attack you. If you do, SEVERE consequences should result. However, if your a Hitler and just attack everyone, allied or not, then you should have the same done to you by ANYONE.

6. CA should realise that even know they created a strategy game, we don't see it as that and try to play it differently. What I mean is that even knowing the objectives for France is to take over England, France won't break my rule #5 just for the hell of it. Not all of us play to win but just to play. If we want to turtle in our "Starting 5 provinces" perhaps the AI should just leave us the hell alone. Then again, if we become a "Hitler" and learn to use Panzerphants for our "blitzkrieg" then ALL should turn on you and take rounds taking on the bully of the playground (you).

7. Gunpowder (This really doesn't fit here but what the hell) should be availible to all factions, regardless of history. If I was a ruler, I may chose to build something that my neighbors are building and WOULD AT LEAST KNOW HOW IT WORKS FOR MY "HOMELAND SECURITY"

8. This is debatible and people WILL HATE THIS OPTION. Perhaps it should be a toggle switch under options. I personally like it though.
I believe that Faction SPECIFIC units should ONLY be able to be built in the starting provinces of that faction BUT ARE AVAILIBLE FOR ALL FACTIONS TO BUILD. Sorry for the all caps on that one. For instance, if I was France and took over Englands soil, I should be able to build Longbowmen in that one territory I took over. Technology DOES NOT DISAPPEAR when the territories switch hands. On the other hand, units like Longbowmen take YEARS to train and to be able to just take over parts of Egypt and automatically be able to build a Longbowmen there just seems a little thin on the realism.

9. Asking factions to break alliances should be an option under the diplomacy screen. Also, when a faction dies out, you should be able to ally up with their old allies.

10. Is it just me or should ARCHERS INCREASE the attack value of a ship. I have 6 brigades of archers with flaming arrows but yet they are useless on a boat, I THINK NOT. This should maybe also work for seige engines because if I was transporting a cannon crew, I would be damn sure I could use that cannon in a hurry if I needed to.

Now Pizzaguy, what do you think?

**Rebellious Waffle** · 08-03-2007, 01:12

You might be able to get a mix of both options with a sort of "mob rule" provision in the AI, where all your neighboring factions ally and blitz you if you've gained X many provinces in the last Y turns (For example, 6+ provinces in the last 10 turns) or if your 'overall faction ranking' is comparable to that of all your neighbors' ratings put together. When the crisis is over (i.e. you hemhorrage power by the bucket) the AI settles down and goes back to business as usual. If you don't hemhorrage power by the bucket and you conquer your neighbors, you get a new crop of neighbors who pick up where your old foes left off.

It's been known to happen in the course of real history, so it could potentially be included for reasons above and beyond game balance. (I suspect CA had something like that in mind, but the AI's aggressive-mode isn't anything like savage enough to pull off the effect. That's the only way I can explain the flurry of port blockades and milita attacks that crop up as I crawl across the map.)

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-03-2007, 01:17

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Agreed.

I dont mind the AI's random aggression at all, but I do mind the fact that it is not co-ordinated or executed properly, and it looks like there is no planning involved.

I also wish alliances MEANT something. like if Scotland allies with France, they hatch a plot to kill England together, both work independently toward that goal, co-ordinate their attack and strike simultaneously.

If the AI knew how the heck to run a show, the game would be more fascinating. To tell the truth, I am a little tired of either "limiting" myself by playing with restraint or foolishness (turtling) or dominating the entire map, one generic seige battle after another.

I get excited when I actually have to face an army in the field. Oh goody, something other than a "seige that I am certain to win as long as my general doesn't die".

Once in a while I get an interesting seige battle, but after a while they all look the same.

**Rebellious Waffle** · 08-03-2007, 01:28

Running the world can be an interesting diversion, though. (In my Byzantine campaign I've controlled all provinces in the Old World since turn 86, and it's turn 152 now). Constructing networks of forts for rapid-response attacks against rebels, managing a hundred cities, planning for the plague, converting all the provinces to your religion, keeping down corruption and fostering the economy has a certain charm that isn't available during the early-game when you've still got foreign neighbors.

(Medieval 2: Total Peace. Surprisingly fun.)

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-03-2007, 01:31

Yeah I've played that way after I took all provinces by turn 58.

But there's no challenge and it's tedious. If it's detailed management I want, I'll play Simcity 4, which is fun. But I'm in it for strategy and combat.

Some management is fun when you have something to gain and something to lose. When you own the world, there's nothing to gain and nothing much threatening you with a loss.

**Budwise** · 08-03-2007, 02:01

Instead of editing yet again. I think that CA should make more options toggleable. For instance like I said in the last post or the one before about the AI being either this way or that. I also think stuff like Faction Starting Money, Ending Dates, Fatigue Levels, Unit Arrow Count, Possible AI Conquest/Suicidal settings and so on. I believe little things should be an addon without having to edit a text document.

**Budwise** · 08-03-2007, 02:08

Originally Posted by Rebellious Waffle

It's been known to happen in the course of real history, so it could potentially be included for reasons above and beyond game balance. (I suspect CA had something like that in mind, but the AI's aggressive-mode isn't anything like savage enough to pull off the effect. That's the only way I can explain the flurry of port blockades and milita attacks that crop up as I crawl across the map.)

Yes, I know but it has also been known in history to keep going until the "evil doers" are eliminated-IE WWII. We didn't quit on either Japan or Germany and in certain scenarios it should work like that here. If your a pure devil and AI is falling one faction after another and your slaughtering whole villages and your dread level is just atrocious, the world should unite against you (It should even be official and you get notice of it and they stop their petty wars on the side to take you on.) until you are no more. They shouldn't stop just because you are down to your starting provinces. BUT THEN AGAIN, if you are attacked and attack and you annialate faction after faction due to THEIR agression toward you, then the other factions should leave you the hell alone as long as your Reputation is high.

Hell, lets go one further, I remember once that a city was sieged and the people in the city hated the current administration so much they thrown out the ruler and his aids (Maybe even family, don't remember the name of the city either.) and welcomed the invaders in with open arms. Maybe if the AI had a very bad Dread level and your high in Chivary, they may do the same.

**Rebellious Waffle** · 08-03-2007, 02:13

Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy

Yeah I've played that way after I took all provinces by turn 58.

But there's no challenge and it's tedious. If it's detailed management I want, I'll play Simcity 4, which is fun. But I'm in it for strategy and combat.

Some management is fun when you have something to gain and something to lose. When you own the world, there's nothing to gain and nothing much threatening you with a loss.

That's so -- I'm probably going to stop the campaign after I take the New World, which is the object of the exercise. Before this campaign I'd never even made it to gunpowder, much less the Plague or the Timurids. This way, I lead Europe through a terrible crisis, fight off the remaining Mongols, deflect the Timurids when they come, mass a fleet to attack the hapless Aztecs, and conquer every bloody province. (What can I say, I'm keen on seeing the monk with the book again.)

So, there's still stuff to gain and stuff to lose, it just takes a long time. (Fun with turtles!)

**Hoplite7** · 08-03-2007, 04:57

I think the problem is the AI's decision making. Instead of intelligently deciding who to attack, they simply attack any weak targets. Even if you are the most dominate faction on earth, if your port isn't protected, you can expect the Moors or Russians to sail over and blockade it. This creates a strange world where the Turks are blockading Rome and nearly every faction is constantly excommunicated.

A cool system would be levels of aggressiveness based on factions, like Civilization III had.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-03-2007, 05:07

Originally Posted by Hoplite7

A cool system would be levels of aggressiveness based on factions, like Civilization III had.

Thief! Thief! You stole the same idea that I stole fair and square!

I posted the very same suggestion on my M3TW Thread.

**PapaNasty** · 08-03-2007, 07:50

Budwise, number 8 of your suggestions is exactly what i would LOVE to see. If not as "trainable" options then definately as mercs specific to the territories of conquered factions and available only to any faction other than the origional one.

The AI limitaions and possible "improvements" have been discussed to death around here, but i agree with pretty much all of them. The game could have potentially been made so much better with just a little more love.