more stuff about the AI

[GenPatton]

In the features topic of the Thread where is presented version 0.8.3, its said:

“New defending behaviour, AI should be able to distribute it's forces pretty well even on multiple borders”

I don't see this happening at all... what I see is the AI roaming their troops towards one or more objectives but leaving all its settlements behind with almost no garrison. Basically the outskirts of every faction show no garrison overall. Even when I have a full stack right on the border, with just one turn left to reach and siege a settlement, even then I haven't seen any kind of reaction, I need to stand right on top of the settlement for the AI to send something back to defend it.
This is causing another problem, which is related to how often there are rebellions accross the map. I’m currently on turn 500+ on my campaign as the Franks and suddently I noticed that Seljuk faction has reemerged and taken several settlements from the byzantines because they were all practically defenceless. Byzentines were strong all game but now they got reduced to almost half of their regions because all their forces are fighting some venetian stacks. So Seljuks were destryoed but now they are almost as strong as the byzantines… this is dumb.
On the other hand, Venice could also lose several settlements if i wanted to, because I currenly control half north of Italy, which is to say, Milan and Genova. Venice controls Verona and Bologna next to their capital but all those have almost no garrison and yet I hold a full stack right at the border.
In conclusion I think the AI forces management is not better, I remember in SS or even in vanilla the AI would reinforce a region when an enemy army would be getting close and when a settlement was next to another controlled by the enemy with a considerably amount of forces they wouldn’t leave the nearby settlements defenceless.

“new invading behaviour, Invasions should happen with large forces.”

Well during my campaign I got constantly sieged by low stacks when I’m defending with almost a full stack, it’s so annoying. I got invaded tons of times but a great deal of it wasn’t full stacks, was more like being sieged with medium size stacks again and again, without even having time between turns to retrain.

[jurcek1987]

I agree, it's far too easy to conquer enemy settlements (though holding them is another matter). I already made similar observations in the main thread awhile ago. In the next version I would like to see unrest toned down and garrison script implemented.

[Dekhatres]

In the features topic of the Thread where is presented version 0.8.3, its said:

“New defending behaviour, AI should be able to distribute it's forces pretty well even on multiple borders”

I don't see this happening at all... what I see is the AI roaming their troops towards one or more objectives but leaving all its settlements behind with almost no garrison. Basically the outskirts of every faction show no garrison overall. Even when I have a full stack right on the border, with just one turn left to reach and siege a settlement, even then I haven't seen any kind of reaction, I need to stand right on top of the settlement for the AI to send something back to defend it.
This is causing another problem, which is related to how often there are rebellions accross the map. I’m currently on turn 500+ on my campaign as the Franks and suddently I noticed that Seljuk faction has reemerged and taken several settlements from the byzantines because they were all practically defenceless. Byzentines were strong all game but now they got reduced to almost half of their regions because all their forces are fighting some venetian stacks. So Seljuks were destryoed but now they are almost as strong as the byzantines… this is dumb.
On the other hand, Venice could also lose several settlements if i wanted to, because I currenly control half north of Italy, which is to say, Milan and Genova. Venice controls Verona and Bologna next to their capital but all those have almost no garrison and yet I hold a full stack right at the border.
In conclusion I think the AI forces management is not better, I remember in SS or even in vanilla the AI would reinforce a region when an enemy army would be getting close and when a settlement was next to another controlled by the enemy with a considerably amount of forces they wouldn’t leave the nearby settlements defenceless.

“new invading behaviour, Invasions should happen with large forces.”

Well during my campaign I got constantly sieged by low stacks when I’m defending with almost a full stack, it’s so annoying. I got invaded tons of times but a great deal of it wasn’t full stacks, was more like being sieged with medium size stacks again and again, without even having time between turns to retrain.

you should stop calling dumb everything that dosent fit your point of view, realise that med 2 AI is not nor will it ever be some kind of skynet that can predict attacks or plan large scale invasions and match the player in cunning, about Rum wrecking ERE, rebelions and civil wars have always been the bane of most empires and they disbanded some of the greatest ever built, i think the ultimate challenge in the game (as Genghis Khan also said) should not be that of being able to conquer but that of being able to manage and keep your empire together, the game is also a lot less boring because of this, since there's always a chance that you can lose huge chunks of territories if you screw up

you are expecting too much guys, "Invasions should happen with large forces" it says it SHOULD happen, not that it will happen 100% of the time, if the AI is fighting more than 1 enemy it's reasonable not to expect him to throw everything he has only at you, honestly i havent noticed any big diference from SS 6.4 AI

EDIT: no big diferences except that AI is more agressive and dosent give a fk about alliances

[Dekhatres]

I agree, it's far too easy to conquer enemy settlements (though holding them is another matter). I already made similar observations in the main thread awhile ago. In the next version I would like to see unrest toned down and garrison script implemented.

if you make conquering harder with garrison script but increase public order at the same time then the dificuly wont change, therefore if dificulty remains same then there's no need for those changes, imo

[jurcek1987]

if you make conquering harder with garrison script but increase public order at the same time then the dificuly wont change, therefore if dificulty remains same then there's no need for those changes, imo

Well yes and no. To me it's no fun when you're able to destroy or cripple a faction with minimal resistance. Garrison script would be a great feature, because the AI is unable to adequately protect it's cities. I don't want the unrest removed or anything, it's a fine and challenging addition, but it needs balancing. As it stands, it is impossible to hold larger cities that are quite far from your capital even with a full stack and a good governor. You can just barely contain the added unrest, but with a large distance to capital penalty it becomes untenable. So if anything, distance to capital penalty should be severely nerfed.

[MWY]

As dekhatres said. I can't force the AI to only attack with a fullstack, and I can't force them to always rally their troops together.

Concerning the defencive behaviour, the AI is more likely to have a full stack around your border when they have it available. I highly doubt that this was better in vanilla or SS6.4.

But anyways, i've fixed and improved several things for the new version, concerning:

naval invasions
AI siege calculation and defense values of settlements (autocalc)
invade decisions and reputation are adjusted a slight bit
rebellions are more unlikely to happen (revised unrest/distance to capital a bit)

As I think I kind of fixed the civil war feature, I introduced a new function to the game. Once civil war happens, your most rebellious settlements (if there are any) will join the rebels. How many settlements are affected by this is depending on the size of your empire, as well as on the happiness of the population. That creates really nice scenarios where smaller factions can capitalize on civil war of a bigger empire and it makes the whole civil war system have a bigger impact on the game.

[GenPatton]

you should stop calling dumb everything that dosent fit your point of view

You are right and I feel sorry, but english is not my first language so maybe I don't understand that word might sound harsh and rude in most times I've used it. I guess it was my way of being able to point out what is wrong and why is it, literally because I don't think it makes sence for a destroyed faction to reemerge and conquer a bunch of settlements because they faced no resistance, all due to how unrest is at the moment and how the AI is moving it's forces. At the end I guess I was also just being expressive, I felt the need to be.

you are expecting too much guys

I figured someone would say that eventually. Well the fact is I am ignorant about modding/customizing games, I have no idea what is possible or not, but I do feel the need to share my thoughts just to contribute with something here. Oh and I wouldn't want the AI to be like skynet, that would take the fun out of the game because noone would win i think XD

[Dekhatres]

You are right and I feel sorry, but english is not my first language so maybe I don't understand that word might sound harsh and rude in most times I've used it. I guess it was my way of being able to point out what is wrong and why is it, literally because I don't think it makes sence for a destroyed faction to reemerge and conquer a bunch of settlements because they faced no resistance, all due to how unrest is at the moment and how the AI is moving it's forces. At the end I guess I was also just being expressive, I felt the need to be.



I figured someone would say that eventually. Well the fact is I am ignorant about modding/customizing games, I have no idea what is possible or not, but I do feel the need to share my thoughts just to contribute with something here. Oh and I wouldn't want the AI to be like skynet, that would take the fun out of the game because noone would win i think XD

good that you cleared that out, english isnt my 1st language too, when i moved from eastern Europe to western i too had to do with this so i can definetly understand you, experience will solve everything

[Boogie Knight]

I guess it was my way of being able to point out what is wrong and why is it, literally because I don't think it makes sence for a destroyed faction to reemerge and conquer a bunch of settlements because they faced no resistance, all due to how unrest is at the moment and how the AI is moving it's forces.

This happened in real life, in Britain in the early 15th century. Pretty much exactly what you described is what occurred during the Glyn Dwr rebellion: Destroyed faction (Wales, conquered almost two-hundred years prior) re-emerged and conquered a bunch of settlements (most, if not all, of Wales and a small portion of England) because they faced no resistance (castles and towns fell in quick succession to the Welsh rebels after only being able to field local resistance), all due to how unrest was at the time (the Welsh lived in pretty awful conditions and got a very raw deal from the courts) and how the English were moving their forces (they were focussed on the Hundred Years War at the time).

So yeah, it actually makes quite a lot of sense.

[jurcek1987]

I agree. For me the re-emergent factions is one of the best features in this mod, or any mod for that matter. In vanilla SS after about 200 turns most of the smaller factions were wiped out and the map was dominated by 3 or 4 superpowers fighting for world conquest.

[Dekhatres]

^ agreed, the world feels so empty once the small factions are wiped

[GenPatton]

true, but this seems to be a vicious cycle really.