Detailed Combat AI Suggestions
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:03 am
As I have discussed elsewhere, after only a few days I am already able to routinely thrash the AI in detailed combat. Here are a few suggestions.
The single biggest issue I have with the AI is that it doesn't seem to understand the difference between offensive and defensive posturing. The game design itself is smart in that the attacker loses morale each and every turn - time isn't on their side. And therefore while a defender can afford to sit back and wait (and only improve their circumstances doing so) the attacker must take the initiative and strike. Great design, but the AI doesn't seem to understand that distinction. Whether on offense or defense, they throw themselves at their enemy. Unless we start within melee range at the onset, I can always find favorable terrain and establish a good defensive position knowing they will come at me.
The AI should know when it is the defender and should initially establish itself as such and force me to blunt my armies against their lines. I know that will elongate detailed battles a bit, but it makes a huge difference in their intelligence level. It also means they will have to be much more effective at responding to flank attacks and shifting their positions to compensate. That is a rather big addition to the AI, but it would make a huge difference. And then, once the attacker is disrupted beyond a certain threshold, they might maintain their defensive positions or they might pursue (which could then use the current offensive AI routines).
Beyond that big request, I would say that the artillery AI is actually decent. It manages range well and makes any charging attacker pay a huge price for getting too close. Even against the AI, I have a healthy does of respect for artillery. The cavalry is hit and miss. While they delight in finding lone units and make them pay a heavy price for being out of formation (as they should), at other times they are completely wasted charging lines where they will accomplish very little. Variety is good so that we don't know what to expect, but I would reduce the frequency that they just ride straight into fixed positions. Perhaps as importantly, I would delay them doing so until the infantry is a bit closer to take more advantage of the ensuing formation change.
The one area where the AI is overly aggressive in attacking detached units is in its attacks on garrisons. They waste a huge amount of effort charging towers that have literally no impact upon a battle. I suppose this is an attempt to provide a defensive bonus, but I believe the discussion above describes a far more effective manner for doing so. I'd have them bypass forts unless they are in close proximity to the main army or have visibility into an area where it is absolutely critical that it remain concealed (and that's a very, very short list of places).
The AI is also a bit too generous in simply charging the middle of my line. While they may want to engage the main line to hold a large number of forces in place, they should collect enough forces to try to overpower a flank at the same time rather than just all marching right into the killing zone. Those attacking the main line might also wish to abandon the column formation just a tad earlier - all too often they are parading into the range of my artillery despite the barrage that was just giving to the last 2 units to try the same thing. Which leads me to add that I get the impression that units don't learn from the experiences of their peers. If they outnumber me and are trying to overwhelm the lines, fine - it isn't my favorite plan but it is a plan. But running single file into the killing fields just isn't good generaling.
As I have stated repeatedly, the game is a lot of fun just as it is. Every battle is different and I do enjoy the detailed combat immensely. But I think continued evolution of the AI for this aspect of the game could make it even better.
The single biggest issue I have with the AI is that it doesn't seem to understand the difference between offensive and defensive posturing. The game design itself is smart in that the attacker loses morale each and every turn - time isn't on their side. And therefore while a defender can afford to sit back and wait (and only improve their circumstances doing so) the attacker must take the initiative and strike. Great design, but the AI doesn't seem to understand that distinction. Whether on offense or defense, they throw themselves at their enemy. Unless we start within melee range at the onset, I can always find favorable terrain and establish a good defensive position knowing they will come at me.
The AI should know when it is the defender and should initially establish itself as such and force me to blunt my armies against their lines. I know that will elongate detailed battles a bit, but it makes a huge difference in their intelligence level. It also means they will have to be much more effective at responding to flank attacks and shifting their positions to compensate. That is a rather big addition to the AI, but it would make a huge difference. And then, once the attacker is disrupted beyond a certain threshold, they might maintain their defensive positions or they might pursue (which could then use the current offensive AI routines).
Beyond that big request, I would say that the artillery AI is actually decent. It manages range well and makes any charging attacker pay a huge price for getting too close. Even against the AI, I have a healthy does of respect for artillery. The cavalry is hit and miss. While they delight in finding lone units and make them pay a heavy price for being out of formation (as they should), at other times they are completely wasted charging lines where they will accomplish very little. Variety is good so that we don't know what to expect, but I would reduce the frequency that they just ride straight into fixed positions. Perhaps as importantly, I would delay them doing so until the infantry is a bit closer to take more advantage of the ensuing formation change.
The one area where the AI is overly aggressive in attacking detached units is in its attacks on garrisons. They waste a huge amount of effort charging towers that have literally no impact upon a battle. I suppose this is an attempt to provide a defensive bonus, but I believe the discussion above describes a far more effective manner for doing so. I'd have them bypass forts unless they are in close proximity to the main army or have visibility into an area where it is absolutely critical that it remain concealed (and that's a very, very short list of places).
The AI is also a bit too generous in simply charging the middle of my line. While they may want to engage the main line to hold a large number of forces in place, they should collect enough forces to try to overpower a flank at the same time rather than just all marching right into the killing zone. Those attacking the main line might also wish to abandon the column formation just a tad earlier - all too often they are parading into the range of my artillery despite the barrage that was just giving to the last 2 units to try the same thing. Which leads me to add that I get the impression that units don't learn from the experiences of their peers. If they outnumber me and are trying to overwhelm the lines, fine - it isn't my favorite plan but it is a plan. But running single file into the killing fields just isn't good generaling.
As I have stated repeatedly, the game is a lot of fun just as it is. Every battle is different and I do enjoy the detailed combat immensely. But I think continued evolution of the AI for this aspect of the game could make it even better.