AI a tad predictable.

jamespcrowley · Post by **jamespcrowley** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:10 pm

The impression that I am getting is that, in every case, the AI moves all of it's battlegroups the maximum movement range towards whatever enemy unit it is nearest. This may not be the case exactly but it seems like it. This would equate IMO to being aggressive behaviour.

Is there no way to perhaps randomise this behavior a bit so that, for instance, it doesn't always move the full allowance or even move every unit that it has, so that sometimes it gives the appearance of being less aggressive? Perhaps it could be made to distinguish between skirmishers and other units so that it doesn't always chase after the former with heavy or medium units that would be better staying put and maintaining a line?

I'm not a programmer so I don't know how hard/easy any of this would be to implement these sort of routines, but some variation (or more variation) in the AI respones would greatly enhance the single player experience. I am aware that this will not equate to human input in H to H but I would like as good a solo experience as possible. Some unpredictabilty in the AI would be good thing, I think.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:16 am

I agree, the Ai does come right at you. However, I have also noticed it appears to keep its cavalry units reasonbly in line with it main infanrty forces, and generally uses them quite well. I am used to games where the AI often cant wait to attack w its cavalry units and then squanders them more often than not and this is a nice change.

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:20 pm

With every update for this game the AI will improve.
Keith

jamespcrowley · Post by **jamespcrowley** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:12 pm

keithmartinsmith wrote:With every update for this game the AI will improve.
Keith

That's good to hear. I'm enjoying the game as-is but improvements are always welcome.

Is there a timeline for updates or is it on a 'when its ready' basis?

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:18 am

Internally yes but timelines are very hard to keep to so we wont announce thigns till we're sure

wulfen · Post by **wulfen** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:40 pm

iainmcneil wrote:Internally yes but timelines are very hard to keep to so we wont announce thigns till we're sure

Fair enough! Keep up the good work! Cheers!

CharlesRobinson · Post by **CharlesRobinson** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:51 pm

A good AI is always an issue and I think it will take a lot of tinkering around to get this one together. It is just that the rules covers such a wide time span and so many different types of armies that fought very diferently. You would almost have to write an AI for each army, and maybe even against each opponent - face it - a Gaul Army fights very different than the Parthians, and would fight different against Romans than against Iberians. Bring in terrain and this would affect tactics even more - do you defend higher ground or a river, or do you comit to an all out assault, attack heavily on one flank or what? These are all very difficult to simulate using an AI and very time consuming to put together. Not to mention that every piece of code make the program bigger and therefore takes up more space and it takes longer for computer opponents to make decisions. Finding a right balance is a real challenge. I to think that the AI is a little weak, but it is far better than some of the other games that I have seen. You all are doing a great job! Thank you for a fantastic product.

jomni · Post by **jomni** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:53 am

It's very easy to find a PBEM opponent in this game so I'm not bothered with the mediocre AI.

But any improvement would be very much appreciated.

AI a tad predictable.

AI a tad predictable.

Always a issue.