Aggressive/Expansionist AIs

[Sp4]

Um...I know I'm going to betray my ignorance here...but, there's a time limit?

I'm at 220ish turns right now (roughly 50BC) and still have like 50 settlements to go for a Mil Victory. Just never felt a time pressure to expand. Am I in trouble?

I think the game 'lasts' until 0AD or 10AD or something.

Im not sure wetther the AI will eventually win the game, with what i have seen it will grow strong, run out of foon and die.Its totaly incapable to manage the economy, the bildings or even to present armies with advance unit types later in the game.

And yes, this really is unfortunate. There is no reason to tech any higher than cohort organisation as Romans because there is just no military any other faction can put up that's going to beat Legionaries, Auxiliary Cav, Auxiliary Infantry, some random assortment of Auxiliary missile infantry and 1-2 Ballistas in any of your 20 unit stacks.

I've had battles where I was surrounded on some little overgrown hilltop and 'dug in' enough for my 1600 men collection of all of the above to successfully fend off 4000 Iberian melee and skirmishing infantry with 'acceptable losses' and I'm playing on hard cause the game is so damn easy. I'm going to try playing very hard next although the potential agent spam is putting me off a little since right now, the only way the AI can really 'beat' the player is by being an annoying pain in the ass.

[nearchos]

I think the game 'lasts' until 0AD or 10AD or something.



And yes, this really is unfortunate. There is no reason to tech any higher than cohort organisation as Romans because there is just no military any other faction can put up that's going to beat Legionaries, Auxiliary Cav, Auxiliary Infantry, some random assortment of Auxiliary missile infantry and 1-2 Ballistas in any of your 20 unit stacks.

I've had battles where I was surrounded on some little overgrown hilltop and 'dug in' enough for my 1600 men collection of all of the above to successfully fend off 4000 Iberian melee and skirmishing infantry with 'acceptable losses' and I'm playing on hard cause the game is so damn easy. I'm going to try playing very hard next although the potential agent spam is putting me off a little since right now, the only way the AI can really 'beat' the player is by being an annoying pain in the ass.

I play in very hard and its the same.

The AI cant manage any aspect of the game, economy, bilding, recruitment etc and moreover the tactics in battle are awful, especialy during city attaks, ( all units ranged, meele, pike, cavalry), racing against the entrances were a couple of pikemen units can hold for ever...

In STW2 very hard, was very hard, but again there were one province factions with full stacks of prime units, but it was hard.

[Sp4]

I play in very hard and its the same.

The AI cant manage any aspect of the game, economy, bilding, recruitment etc and moreover the tactics in battle are awful, especialy during city attaks, ( all units ranged, meele, pike, cavalry), racing against the entrances were a couple of pikemen units can hold for ever...

In STW2 very hard, was very hard, but again there were one province factions with full stacks of prime units, but it was hard.

I believe one of the main differences between Shogun 2 and Rome 2 in terms of AI toughness was that harder AI in Shogun actually got bonuses in battle as well, like morale bonuses and such. I'm kind of glad that is not the case anymore. Now if only the AI in Rome 2 actually went and recruited some of those Oathsworn warriors once in a while...

Yesterday, I lost a battle against the AI which I thought was going to be an easy victory and it surprised me a little.. positively. I was outnumbered, as always but through mutliple enemy armies reinforcing and me assuming that a little block of houses in the center of the map would make one of my flanks unflankable, the AI actually managed to do what I would expect it to do when it has the advantage in numbers... it surrounded my army and killed it. They still lost most of their men but their armies were of considerably worse quality than mine.

The battle started out with me sending my cav around to go and pick off the enemy ballistas, so they don't murder my infantry, which they are very good at. Luckily for me the AI never guards those things, so two units of Equites or Aux Cav, can't remember, went and destroyed all enemy artillery, then harassed some slingers and came back to tell the tale/join my army in the defense of its position. All was going well, until a unit of Oathsworn, perhaps a general bodyguard, came running through this block of buildings I was using to protect on of my flanks and they smashed straight into the side of my veteran Legionaries who were already holding off 200 or 300 tribesmen and spear warriors.

At first I thought huh, well played.. didn't know that was possible and told my other flank to go and collapse on their army so it became trapped between both 'wings' but before that manouver was completed, the Oathsworn had managed to kill enough of the Legion vets to make them pack up and leave and at that point everything sort of fell apart.

It was a little exciting to see my army composition that would beat everything I have encountered up to that point get taken apart so quickly and relatively easily and I wasn't exactly letting it unfold. I thought I was actually playing rather well and I'm not the kind of person to zoom in and watch the action. I have replays for that.

But yeah, it was refreshing and kind of cool to see that this is actually possible.

[nearchos]

I believe one of the main differences between Shogun 2 and Rome 2 in terms of AI toughness was that harder AI in Shogun actually got bonuses in battle as well, like morale bonuses and such. I'm kind of glad that is not the case anymore. Now if only the AI in Rome 2 actually went and recruited some of those Oathsworn warriors once in a while...

Yesterday, I lost a battle against the AI which I thought was going to be an easy victory and it surprised me a little.. positively. I was outnumbered, as always but through mutliple enemy armies reinforcing and me assuming that a little block of houses in the center of the map would make one of my flanks unflankable, the AI actually managed to do what I would expect it to do when it has the advantage in numbers... it surrounded my army and killed it. They still lost most of their men but their armies were of considerably worse quality than mine.

The battle started out with me sending my cav around to go and pick off the enemy ballistas, so they don't murder my infantry, which they are very good at. Luckily for me the AI never guards those things, so two units of Equites or Aux Cav, can't remember, went and destroyed all enemy artillery, then harassed some slingers and came back to tell the tale/join my army in the defense of its position. All was going well, until a unit of Oathsworn, perhaps a general bodyguard, came running through this block of buildings I was using to protect on of my flanks and they smashed straight into the side of my veteran Legionaries who were already holding off 200 or 300 tribesmen and spear warriors.

At first I thought huh, well played.. didn't know that was possible and told my other flank to go and collapse on their army so it became trapped between both 'wings' but before that manouver was completed, the Oathsworn had managed to kill enough of the Legion vets to make them pack up and leave and at that point everything sort of fell apart.

It was a little exciting to see my army composition that would beat everything I have encountered up to that point get taken apart so quickly and relatively easily and I wasn't exactly letting it unfold. I thought I was actually playing rather well and I'm not the kind of person to zoom in and watch the action. I have replays for that.

But yeah, it was refreshing and kind of cool to see that this is actually possible.

Well that sure is refreshing, may be has to do with the latest patch, a smart AI in battles with better handling of the army composition would be grate.
Nevertheles, yesterday night, a full stack army of ERAVICKIsomthing, came surprising me and asaulted a provice capital without a standing army, only with the garrison, about 2800 celtic wariors, celtic spearmen, slingers, scirmishers, cav against 1700, militia levy pikemen and mob, with 2 sling and 1 archers.
And what they did? they just stared at the walls standing still, so the time passes and i achive a victory.
Then within the same turn an other full stack apears, attacks the city and doing the same think, second victory.
The city didnt have balistae or scorpions towers yet, and the ballance of power was like 1:8 or 9.
Anyway, in my turn i moved for suport 4 of the Macedonian armies around the area and i autoresolved a battle in my favour ( it was very late), 1:5, withot any survivors.
So i dont know, it doesnd make sence!!

[Sp4]

Well that sure is refreshing, may be has to do with the latest patch, a smart AI in battles with better handling of the army composition would be grate.
Nevertheles, yesterday night, a full stack army of ERAVICKIsomthing, came surprising me and asaulted a provice capital without a standing army, only with the garrison, about 2800 celtic wariors, celtic spearmen, slingers, scirmishers, cav against 1700, militia levy pikemen and mob, with 2 sling and 1 archers.
And what they did? they just stared at the walls standing still, so the time passes and i achive a victory.
Then within the same turn an other full stack apears, attacks the city and doing the same think, second victory.
The city didnt have balistae or scorpions towers yet, and the ballance of power was like 1:8 or 9.
Anyway, in my turn i moved for suport 4 of the Macedonian armies around the area and i autoresolved a battle in my favour ( it was very late), 1:5, withot any survivors.
So i dont know, it doesnd make sence!!

The auto resolve meter in the game is accurate in a lot of cases, very accurate. It just does not account for the silly AI, which I guess it never does. As far as I can tell, it also does not take into account unit strength (It will weigh a full, healthy unit as heavily as one with 10 guys remaining).
As for why sieges don't work... I have no idea but I wish I did. I think the AI is programmed to expect the player to defend the walls or at least the gate they have piled their army up in front of. If you don't do that, the AI has nothing to go by and just doesn't do anything. It sometimes really feels as if you have to 'lure' the AI into doing something by giving it someone to play with and then someone else... kind of how they always lure lions in cartoons, with steaks on the ground until they got them where they want them.
It's frustrating and stupid and I really hate the siege AI because I actually think it is not just unfinished, it simply is not there. Like there is no code for it. In naval siege assaults, they sometimes drop off their army and that's it, good game, where're just here to enjoy a day at the beach. In this case the army wont even move if you walk out to attack them. I really don't like sieges at the point, especially not as the defenders. As the attackers it is not quite as bad but still somewhat boring because even if the AI has the advantage in numbers (however huge it may be) it wont use it and the only way it achieves something is if you as the player screw up, which in my case happened because I had no idea how a certain part of the game worked, but now I learned it and I am not gonna do it again. It's really funny how on 'hard' difficulty, all of my 9 existing armies have had nothing but victories, except for one single case, which is the one I described above.

Even during my civil war, I was worried at first because finally someone actually is going to match my armies in quality... but the AI literally squandered them away in very pointless ways, like assaulting Karalis with a full legion on boats as the town was only defended by my fleet that had a bunch of ballista ships which sunk 80% of their glorious legion before they even got to the beach. Then the AI ran out of food (which I guess makes sense when a faction in a civil war takes over the capital and then locks itself inside but it makes for a not very threatening Senate Loyalist faction... If only they had done the obvious and taken over all of Italia and Magna Graecia..... I would still be fighting them now probably and the civil war would not have been over after three turns (it lasted a little longer than three turns but after three turns, it was obvious that their legions were going to starve away without us ever having waved a sword at each other.

[nearchos]

The auto resolve meter in the game is accurate in a lot of cases, very accurate. It just does not account for the silly AI, which I guess it never does. As far as I can tell, it also does not take into account unit strength (It will weigh a full, healthy unit as heavily as one with 10 guys remaining).
As for why sieges don't work... I have no idea but I wish I did. I think the AI is programmed to expect the player to defend the walls or at least the gate they have piled their army up in front of. If you don't do that, the AI has nothing to go by and just doesn't do anything. It sometimes really feels as if you have to 'lure' the AI into doing something by giving it someone to play with and then someone else... kind of how they always lure lions in cartoons, with steaks on the ground until they got them where they want them.
It's frustrating and stupid and I really hate the siege AI because I actually think it is not just unfinished, it simply is not there. Like there is no code for it. In naval siege assaults, they sometimes drop off their army and that's it, good game, where're just here to enjoy a day at the beach. In this case the army wont even move if you walk out to attack them. I really don't like sieges at the point, especially not as the defenders. As the attackers it is not quite as bad but still somewhat boring because even if the AI has the advantage in numbers (however huge it may be) it wont use it and the only way it achieves something is if you as the player screw up, which in my case happened because I had no idea how a certain part of the game worked, but now I learned it and I am not gonna do it again. It's really funny how on 'hard' difficulty, all of my 9 existing armies have had nothing but victories, except for one single case, which is the one I described above.

Even during my civil war, I was worried at first because finally someone actually is going to match my armies in quality... but the AI literally squandered them away in very pointless ways, like assaulting Karalis with a full legion on boats as the town was only defended by my fleet that had a bunch of ballista ships which sunk 80% of their glorious legion before they even got to the beach. Then the AI ran out of food (which I guess makes sense when a faction in a civil war takes over the capital and then locks itself inside but it makes for a not very threatening Senate Loyalist faction... If only they had done the obvious and taken over all of Italia and Magna Graecia..... I would still be fighting them now probably and the civil war would not have been over after three turns (it lasted a little longer than three turns but after three turns, it was obvious that their legions were going to starve away without us ever having waved a sword at each other.

Well in my macedon campaign, the rebel faction of Macedonian nobles emerged at the capitol of Pella, with 9 full stacks of prime units and 6 fleets same.

At the time i had a 11 units army in Athens and a full stack at Yllyria.
All my other armies were fighting at the east.
So the AI moves the 8 armies south capturing Larisa, and then closing to Athens, where i trained 4 more units and at the same time make a peace request to the Chorasmii in axchange of a lot of money so i can force marched my armies from the east.

Next turn 4 stacks asaulting Athens defended by a 15 unit army and the garisson force all 3700 men against 9500 of the rebels.
So the batle begins with an army from the east of the city closing a unit of balistae and breaking two sections of the wall while from the west an other army goes for the gates.

I move units of pikemen at the gap of the wall and on the other side of the city to hold the gate.
The eastern army stands there and watch without moving, while the western one after the destraktion of the gates becomes one body all together and assaults the pikewall.
So after a while and after a hard fighting at the broken gates where eventualy 3 units of my pikemen took part, the western army is actualy no more.
On the other side the eastern army continues to stare at the gap without moving.

Then an other full army takes the place of the one who left the battlefield.
They do not go for the open gates but they move a unit of balistae to the walls.

I have arange my units and wait.

So they start bombarding an arrow tower??????? until it is damaged 90% and then they stop doing anything.

Then, 12 minutes before the end of time limit we all stare each other an the time passes by so i win.

Next turn i have been reinforced with 4 more units that were in queue and 4 new stacks assault.

The same happens and then 3rd time the same.

So in 3 turns 3 out of the 9 stacks were wiped out and my armies arived to finish them of.....

Conclusions yours

[Kamakazi]

I haven't found any of the AI to be any sort or threat or power. Im well into my first campaign and I haven't lost a single territory and only once have I been mildly worried about maybe losing one. I rarely get attacked and own everyone I war. Im finding it rather bland tbh. Ohh and ive only lost 1 battle due to over confidence.

[Bramborough]

I think the game 'lasts' until 0AD or 10AD or something.

Uh oh. Feeling a bit of time pressure now. I'm at 40BC, so I've got 40 or 50 turns left, and 27 settlements left to go for Mil Vic. It can be done, not terribly worried about it. If push comes to shove and for some reason I get to like 10BC and I'm not going to make it for mil, I can downsize the armies to reduce upkeep and jack up taxes for an economic victory. I think I've met all the requirements for that one except for the 80K/turn income.

Where is this end-point documented? It's not mentioned in the Victory Condition descriptions, and I haven't found it stated in the Encyclopedia either.

I'm not terribly invested in "winning" the campaign, I'm somewhat tempted to just deliberately let it run without meeting a victory condition, to see if/when it ends.

[Sp4]

It doesn't say it anywhere but it's always been about Rome's way to becoming an empire, right? It became an empire after Cesar died, officially anyways, or he was the one who started it.

In my campaign, Rome is an empire by 190BC but that is because I have no idea how to internal politics. I do know how to war though apparently =X I don't like how the internet politics just 'turn off' after a civil war though.

[Bramborough]

It doesn't say it anywhere but it's always been about Rome's way to becoming an empire, right? It became an empire after Cesar died, officially anyways, or he was the one who started it.

In my campaign, Rome is an empire by 190BC but that is because I have no idea how to internal politics. I do know how to war though apparently =X I don't like how the internet politics just 'turn off' after a civil war though.

Well, I guess we have another "unknown". I'm going to continue this campaign without finishing off victory conditions and see if I reach a time expiration of some sort around AD 0. I'll take it to a point where I'm just a few clicks away from either mil or eco-victory and consider that the "win".

I agree about the discontinuance of politics after the CW. It might have to transform a bit under Empire, but should definitely remain a factor. I think I'd be okay with a CW not being possible any more, but at very least marriages/promotions/etc should continue. There should also be the possibility of an individual general rebelling (an occurrence to which the Empire was no stranger). Someone reported in another thread here that this can happen, but it's hard for me to see how, since influence & gravitas levels are frozen.

Technically it was Octavian (Augustus) who established the Empire, but that was the political culmination of a several-decades-long period of turmoil and civil wars. I'd agree that Caesar was the one who set these events in motion. Although if it hadn't been Caesar, it would've been someone else...the real cause was instability inherent in Rome's political & social systems. Going off on a bit of a tangent...the more I read about the Roman Republic, the more I think that ending it in favor of Empire was not necessarily a bad thing. Rome seems to have been at its most unstable during the mid and late Republic. My general impression is that it would have been far safer and more comfortable to have been a Roman citizen in 100 AD than in 100 BC. I'm no expert...I could be wrong.

[Quillan]

Currently working on testing that one. In my snail-paced game, it's currently 7 BC. The original Rome campaign ran until 14 AD, iirc (when Octavian died). But like you I haven't found anything written giving a definite end point. Since this first game was just a learning experience I don't really care if time runs out; I learned so much this time that the next one should go much more smoothly.

[nearchos]

Currently working on testing that one. In my snail-paced game, it's currently 7 BC. The original Rome campaign ran until 14 AD, iirc (when Octavian died). But like you I haven't found anything written giving a definite end point. Since this first game was just a learning experience I don't really care if time runs out; I learned so much this time that the next one should go much more smoothly.

I cant remember in wich preview i read that there will be 300 turns, if that number is corect then the game should end in 24 AD, SINCE IT STARTS IN 276bc.
We will see.