Battle AI Challenge

[AussieGiant]

Why...because the level of complexity is not even comparable, in any sense.

You simply can't compare the level of diplomatic programming in ETW to STW. It's not even close.

Likewise, the Strategic AI or Battle AI are worlds apart now from what they were in STW or MTW.

Therefore to say that STW Strategic AI is the same as ETW Strategic AI and therefore now we can begin to compare is absolutely not possible.

Please note I'm never going to reference eye candy i.e. graphics in this discussion, even though battle mechanics are again technically poles apart when you compare STW as 2D sprites with 3D animation.

In relation to your comment I think it would be more accurate to say that the development and progression we have seen from STW to ETW in complexity has not been mirrored by an AI that has followed the same level of development.

What difficulty are you playing on?

[Lord of the Isles]

Why...because the level of complexity is not even comparable, in any sense.

You simply can't compare the level of diplomatic programming in ETW to STW. It's not even close.

Likewise, the Strategic AI or Battle AI are worlds apart now from what they were in STW or MTW.

Therefore to say that STW Strategic AI is the same as ETW Strategic AI and therefore now we can begin to compare is absolutely not possible.

Please note I'm never going to reference eye candy i.e. graphics in this discussion, even though battle mechanics are again technically poles apart when you compare STW as 2D sprites with 3D animation.

In relation to your comment I think it would be more accurate to say that the development and progression we have seen from STW to ETW in complexity has not been mirrored by an AI that has followed the same level of development.

What difficulty are you playing on?

The thread title is Battle AI Challenge - I think everyone else is talking about that, so I'm not sure where Diplomacy or Campaign map AI is relevant (though I'm happy to say that I agree that the change from 2D to 3D campaign maps really made the campaign AI much much harder to do).

But for the Battle AI, I cannot see how the move from Shogun -> ... -> ETW has introduced huge extra layers of complexity. We have units, we have a battlefield, we have an enemy. We can move, attempt to engage, fire projectiles, defend, support, flank. We have cavalry, artillery, infantry (some melee, some missile). Ok, the battlefields have got bigger and we have sieges now, but aside from that I'm struggling to identify what strange new things have made Battle AI such a different beast.

You'll need to do better than say it can't be compared. Why can't it be compared?

[BeeSting]

I have to admit, AI on the offensive is impressive compared to previous releases. It's the defensive AI that's really quirky and needs fixing. friendly fire issue still exists for the AI and if CA could just fix this then we would have that much harder time beating it.

[Shadow_Wolf33]

Did I buy a different game than the people complaining? I'm finding the battle AI to be absolutely FANTASTIC as far as intelligence goes. When the AI is attacking, they actually put forth a very good effort in attacking my lines and going after weak points. They FREQUENTLY try to flank my lines with cavalry forces (and have actually made me paranoid to the point that I've got one eye permanently glued to the mini-map to watch for flanking forces). I don't seem to run into that shuffle issue that other people are complaining about when they're on the offense, and I'd personally love it if they did that, as it would let my cannons rain havok on the battlefield a bit better.

Even on the defensive I find the ETW AI to be VASTLY superior to previous releases. I remember one of my old favorite tactics when on the assault would be to pummel the enemy forces with artillery as much as possible before the charge. If I try to do that now? They form up a battle line and come after me, and more or less go into attack mode. This is on freaking EASY difficulty no less, which I like to play on cause well...I'm a sore loser and I get more enjoyment out of being unstoppable.


As far as comparing campaign AI to the old MTW/STW days goes, that was a whole different beast. Moving armies around in that game was done with Risk style pieces on a fairly simplistic map, and programming AI for that is a LOT easier than programming AI for a campaign map as complex as the E:TW one. There is a LOT more logic involved in attacking E:TW provinces than there used to be for MTW/STW, as back then it was just "make armies, conquer weakly defended province" and there's your game. E:TW has all sorts of other variables to consider like economic warfare, siege battles, unit compositions, and advanced tactics that might be subtle to the point that they're hard to notice, like slowly whittling down your forces, and drawing them out for a sneak attack. I do admit the campaign aggressiveness could be turned up a little bit, and the lack of naval invasions is a bit wonky, but other than that I think they did a very good job.

Also someone mentioned the AI for Sins of a Solar Empire earlier? I played that game extensively when it was first released, and I found the AI in that game to be cowardly at best. At release, it was damn near impossible to get a decent fleet battle from them as if they lost 2 or 3 ships they would run like a whipped dog, and avoid conflict as much as possible unless they had your fleet WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY outgunned. I was able to conquer the map in that game more or less just from going planet to planet nuking them, getting more fight from their defensive emplacements than from their actual FLEETS. Now with the Entrenchment mini-expansion released, their AI has been beefed up a LOT and can actually put up a decent fight. That took quite a while to patch in and get up to par.

Maybe I should get back to work now...

[Reddington]

I really think that it wouldn't be hard for CA to give the AI, specific army designs and specific tactics to use when certain conditions of its armies were met.

As an example, when the AI makes an offensive army after going to war it should be able to make a plan on any terrain on how best to use that army. If it has an army of 5 infantry units, 3 cavalry units, and 2 artillery units it should place them on the best terrain it can find (the highest hill, hide behind a hill if the player's army has cannons and they don't, etc.) Then put their army into a set design, such as a line of infantry with cavalry on the flanks protecting the cannons' flanks and cannons behind the infantry lines.

What I've seen time and time again with this AI is just stupid desicion making when preparing their position on the battlefield. They ignore stone walls and defend open fields with less units. They also seem to abandon any defensive plans once my troops get near them. They will break up their lines, and move their army forward usually one unit at a time.

With the problems the Battle AI has I am at least happy that the AI no longer spends 10 minutes running from my larger army. So many times in MTW they would abandon the highest position on the battlefield when I approached and moved to a lower point in the map so I could attack them from above.

The AI has to be able to find a good (not necessarily best) position on the battlefield and dictate a coordinated defense/assualt based upon the composition of your army and their army. The AI just keep changing its minds when I move my troops.

[AussieGiant]

The thread title is Battle AI Challenge - I think everyone else is talking about that, so I'm not sure where Diplomacy or Campaign map AI is relevant (though I'm happy to say that I agree that the change from 2D to 3D campaign maps really made the campaign AI much much harder to do).

But for the Battle AI, I cannot see how the move from Shogun -> ... -> ETW has introduced huge extra layers of complexity. We have units, we have a battlefield, we have an enemy. We can move, attempt to engage, fire projectiles, defend, support, flank. We have cavalry, artillery, infantry (some melee, some missile). Ok, the battlefields have got bigger and we have sieges now, but aside from that I'm struggling to identify what strange new things have made Battle AI such a different beast.

You'll need to do better than say it can't be compared. Why can't it be compared?

Hi Lord of the Isles,

Ok if we isolate the discussion to Battle AI then again it is not comparable IMO.

The graphics engine must now be discussed as the move from 2D Sprites to 3D figures is important. Facing, physics and tactics have all changed from STW to ETW.

While in principle I see your point, the level of sophistication and development are miles apart. I certainly don't pretend to know all the details but I've seen a few detailed discussions from CA reps on the battle AI here on this site, and it's a real eye opener when you see the detail they have to take into account. This includes the fairly straight forward and well balanced STW battle AI and unit management.

Likewise, and from a macro perspective I always like to keep in mind, the following...if CA could actually develop an AI that is close to human levels of skill on a battle map, do you think they would be making a game?

It would be patented and be use in far more lucrative areas of the world economy...and that would happen in about the same time it would take to write this.

So, while it is nearly the most important part of the game, as far as I'm concerned, this is an area of coding that even multi national and military industries are trying to perfect and that should be considered when talking about this subject.