Early reviews saying AI disappoints

#1 Posted by JustBeYourself (681 posts) -
Sigh, Creative Assembly just can't do AI, reviews say the campaign AI leaves a lot to be desired.
#2 Posted by Legolose (536 posts) -
Well I don't know what you read but its wrong, it is by far the best AI ever in the series...
#3 Posted by LastMatic (48 posts) -

Wait...are you even playing the game?

#4 Posted by strategyfn (379 posts) -

I thought Empire's AI was fairly decent and I enjoyed it. Even though the enemy would walk into cannons and musket fire. Occasionally I had a challenge.

If Rome's AI is along those lines I really will not mind it. I do not have great expectations. I will be playing Rome II later today.

#5 Posted by GONtheSKYLORD (3029 posts) -
Sigh, Creative Assembly just can't do AI, reviews say the campaign AI leaves a lot to be desired.JustBeYourself
I doubt reviewers are reviewing the game on highest difficulty though. So I wouldnt put much stock into what they have to say about AI. Default difficulty has never been that challenging.
#6 Posted by Legolose (536 posts) -

Wait...are you even playing the game?

LastMatic

Yes I am playing the game...

#7 Posted by davidsworld3 (3038 posts) -

Ai is no better than before.  I had ranged units not very far from rear on enemy and they never even turned around.

#8 Posted by coldfusion25 (67 posts) -

The AI has certainly improved.

CPU is now aware that he's commanding an army instead of randomly moving a heap of cards around the battlefield. The AI would flank, attack straggling units, try to encircle, keep generals alot safer,... most importantly it has become much better at attacking as a group. 

Despite this the old problems are not gone, I've seen things such as the CPU not attacking during a siege or indecisive units running in circles. 

#9 Posted by strategyfn (379 posts) -

I actually had the AI out smart me on my second or third battle.

I took over a small settlement and my army was weakened from that battle. So next turn someone attacks me. I figure I will take them on head-on so I move everyone to the front leaving my victory point unguarded. Anyway the AI outflanks me with his cavalry unit and heads straight to my victory point. Nobody on my side could catch him and they win.

#10 Posted by Mickeyminime (1149 posts) -
i'm watching a lot of video's about Rome 2 and people say the AI in this game is broken, even certain commands are broken. I've noticed that since Empire came out, the command structure has been awful unlike Medieval 2 and Rome 1. I even see people say that even with the best up to date computer, some people are still having problems. So far, the reviews are mixed, but there are many negative reviews over the ok and good ones at the moment
#11 Posted by Stesilaus (3481 posts) -

Does anybody know whether the campaign AI cheats, as in previous Total War games?

Unless I'm mistaken, in all previous games (right up to Shogun 2), the AI players have been exempted from having to pay for the maintenance of their armies.

Campaign AI that played by the same rules as the player and put up a decent challenge would be a major step forward for the series.

#12 Posted by UmaSama (89 posts) -

My post from another thread:

 

As a long time TW fan (since the first Rome) I am utterly dissapointed, the game oozes with potential, but that's it.

The AI is even worse than the first Rome.

The minimalistic UI is detrimental to the game.

Random CTD's on state of the art PCs.

The political system and Cvrsvs Honorvm is so shallow, underdeveloped and inconsecuential to the game that it could've been left out.

Awful textures, and graphics glitches on Ultra settings.

One year per turn, making it impossible to expand historically with Roma.

Victory points that you must defend or capture on OPEN FIELD BATTLES, battles that seldom occur since the AI insists on sending 1 to 3 unit stacks to siege your towns.

Important cities missing, the most blatant example being Capva!

And there are plenty more, but I'm going to stop now since I'm pretty pissed.

So yeah, if you can get past all those issues, the game is actually fun, and as I said it has a lot of potential.

I'm sure they'll sort it out eventually, but I didn't pay 60 bucks to be a Beta tester.

I've been waiting for this game for about 6-8 years, and I'm totally dissapointed.

#13 Posted by strategyfn (379 posts) -

Does anybody know whether the campaign AI cheats, as in previous Total War games?

Unless I'm mistaken, in all previous games (right up to Shogun 2), the AI players have been exempted from having to pay for the maintenance of their armies.

Stesilaus

I wasn't aware the AI in TW: Empire cheated and I played that game alot. Too early for me tell if Rome2 cheats. The armies I've fought against in Rome2 weren't huge and the enemy had several mob (crap) troops instead of better troops. I"m too early in to make a judgment though. Come to think of it one settlement I took on had like 6 I"m guessing low level ships though, and a smaller army. Their ships had troops on them though. I kinda wondered how they have so many ships, like I said though they were cheap ships.

The game has a unit menu/enclycopedia where all the potential upkeep costs for each unit is listed like past TW games. I haven't looked at it too much though. You also have a balance sheet for yourself where upkeep costs are listed if I'm correct.

#14 Posted by Stesilaus (3481 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

Does anybody know whether the campaign AI cheats, as in previous Total War games?

Unless I'm mistaken, in all previous games (right up to Shogun 2), the AI players have been exempted from having to pay for the maintenance of their armies.

strategyfn

I wasn't aware the AI in TW: Empire cheated and I played that game alot. Too early for me tell if Rome2 cheats. The armies I've fought against in Rome2 weren't huge and the enemy had several mob (crap) troops instead of better troops. I"m too early in to make a judgment though. Come to think of it one settlement I took on had like 6 I"m guessing low level ships though, and a smaller army. Their ships had troops on them though. I kinda wondered how they have so many ships, like I said though they were cheap ships.

The game has a unit menu/enclycopedia where all the potential upkeep costs for each unit is listed like past TW games. I haven't looked at it too much though. You also have a balance sheet for yourself where upkeep costs are listed if I'm correct.

Thanks for your response, strategyfn.  I guess it can be difficult to tell whether the AI is playing by the same rules, esp. if the program is trying to make the AI player's armies seem reasonable.

I first noticed the cheating way back when the first Medieval Total War came out: I found out, the hard way, that trying to reduce the AI player's armies by hitting their economies simply never worked.

I remember reducing an enemy's territory to one impoverished province, cornering him in that province and waiting turn after turn to see his large army (which should have required about 4 provinces just to maintain) reduced by defection.  It never happened.  On the contrary, the AI army actually grew instead.

From what I've read, every TW game released since has cheated in the same way, but I've never verified that myself.

#15 Posted by peddicrack2004 (3 posts) -

I have an MSI GE40 Laptop with intel I7-4702, Nvidia GTX760M, 8gigs of RAM, and for some reason, the game cannot detect my graphics card. Is this happening to anyone else??? I have my graphics card turned on in the Nvidia graphics settings. I can play other TW games like Shogun 2 and Empire 2 on ultra except for Rome 2. Any ideas of whats wrong??

As a total war fan, I also have to admit that this was a huge disappointed on CA's part. With so much complaints on alot of other forums, I wonder why they couldn't just prospone the release date and fix all these issues the fans

#16 Posted by hvypetals (412 posts) -

the AI stinks! the game stinks!

CA got high on their laurels and decided, for the rest of us, that it was best to drop staple features of the game for magic abilities. Its clear they spent the 40% extra budget on polishing this turd. Rather than building the game they falsely advertised. The rumors of a port to xbox1 may explain the dumbing down of this once intense strategy title. Or perhaps their move to the warhammer "fantasy" universe.

  • They took out the four seasons is that grand strategy?
  • They took out guard mode so you units can no longer DEFEND. Instead units zerg rush now.
  • Roman legions can no longer throw their pila while standing still. And on the attack will shoot them into their own units.
  • There are now cap flags on open battlefields. Negating the gorgeous terrain features and obvious defensive positions.
  • the UI is horrible and unwieldy
  • time between turns in SP and MP take up to 4 minutes. an hours worth of game play results in a half hour of you actually playing.

this game is one arrogant FU to long time TW gamers and an insult to the intelligence of grognards the world over.

#17 Posted by hvypetals (412 posts) -

Check this out. Its an interview from the "Battle AI" programmer at CA. Read the responses and tell me what you think customers feel about the quality of the AI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWwr1D84VEM

#18 Posted by 8bitg33k (7 posts) -

As for AI, here is what I have observed:

When outnumbered by the enemy and besieged (the enemy attacking one of my controlled towns) and fighting the battle on the battle map, here is a trick I learned within the first battle.

I keep one or two units within the walls and move the rest outside through the gate to meet the enemy. My outnumbered units fight, loose and route. Now all I have left are the one or two units in within the city walls. Well, guess what happens next? After the enemy defeats the troops I sent out, the enemy units simply stand there in the same spot where I was defeated until the battle timer runs out without ever entering the city and a Close or Pyrrhic Victory is mine.

 

How's that for improved AI?

#19 Posted by strategyfn (379 posts) -

[QUOTE="strategyfn"]

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

Does anybody know whether the campaign AI cheats, as in previous Total War games?

Unless I'm mistaken, in all previous games (right up to Shogun 2), the AI players have been exempted from having to pay for the maintenance of their armies.

Stesilaus

I wasn't aware the AI in TW: Empire cheated and I played that game alot. Too early for me tell if Rome2 cheats. The armies I've fought against in Rome2 weren't huge and the enemy had several mob (crap) troops instead of better troops. I"m too early in to make a judgment though. Come to think of it one settlement I took on had like 6 I"m guessing low level ships though, and a smaller army. Their ships had troops on them though. I kinda wondered how they have so many ships, like I said though they were cheap ships.

The game has a unit menu/enclycopedia where all the potential upkeep costs for each unit is listed like past TW games. I haven't looked at it too much though. You also have a balance sheet for yourself where upkeep costs are listed if I'm correct.

Thanks for your response, strategyfn. I guess it can be difficult to tell whether the AI is playing by the same rules, esp. if the program is trying to make the AI player's armies seem reasonable.

I first noticed the cheating way back when the first Medieval Total War came out: I found out, the hard way, that trying to reduce the AI player's armies by hitting their economies simply never worked.

I remember reducing an enemy's territory to one impoverished province, cornering him in that province and waiting turn after turn to see his large army (which should have required about 4 provinces just to maintain) reduced by defection. It never happened. On the contrary, the AI army actually grew instead.

From what I've read, every TW game released since has cheated in the same way, but I've never verified that myself.

10 hours and 18 battles later, I can't seem to notice the A.I. cheating. It would take a keen eye to notice and I don't have one. For example I am taking on Athens with Sparta. It seems like when you take a factions' last region they will send the rest of their army to take the region you just took. I don't think Athens has any regions left, but they still had like 4 Javelin ships (crap ships) and a small army with which to attack me with. Even if Athens has a region left I didn't spot, it happened to me in a previous case. I took a last region from somebody, they had the chance to counterattack with what they had left over a few turns (navy, army), and when their army and navy was finally wiped out a faction killed event message happened.

This actually may be kind-off realistic though that the enemy's army in the field would make one last ditch effort to attack you. Maybe the enemy troops even lose morale/men if they don't have any more regions. I know attacking units can lose men through attrition when holding a siege. I think sometimes you can even lose men through attrition in enemy territory, not sure.

You can poison wells with agents and if it works the enemy lose some men: garrison and I think army.

I haven't had any problems with the A.I. on normal difficulty yet. It helps to set the battle mode to its slowest setting so you have the time to apply the best formations and work out a strategy. My last defensive battle lasted 27 minutes. The game also has a full-realism mode where you can only see your enemy if they are witin 600 meters; I haven't tried that mode.

The battles I fought at the start were fairly small. After 10 Hrs. the armies are still low-end medium size. I haven't seen a totally large enemy army yet. This could be because generals are limited for everyone and you get around 20 units per general. Then there are also garrison troops.

Supporting your land troops, with naval troops that take to land is pretty badass

#20 Posted by strategyfn (379 posts) -

[QUOTE="strategyfn"]

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

Does anybody know whether the campaign AI cheats, as in previous Total War games?

Unless I'm mistaken, in all previous games (right up to Shogun 2), the AI players have been exempted from having to pay for the maintenance of their armies.

Stesilaus

I wasn't aware the AI in TW: Empire cheated and I played that game alot. Too early for me tell if Rome2 cheats. The armies I've fought against in Rome2 weren't huge and the enemy had several mob (crap) troops instead of better troops. I"m too early in to make a judgment though. Come to think of it one settlement I took on had like 6 I"m guessing low level ships though, and a smaller army. Their ships had troops on them though. I kinda wondered how they have so many ships, like I said though they were cheap ships.

The game has a unit menu/enclycopedia where all the potential upkeep costs for each unit is listed like past TW games. I haven't looked at it too much though. You also have a balance sheet for yourself where upkeep costs are listed if I'm correct.

Thanks for your response, strategyfn. I guess it can be difficult to tell whether the AI is playing by the same rules, esp. if the program is trying to make the AI player's armies seem reasonable.

I first noticed the cheating way back when the first Medieval Total War came out: I found out, the hard way, that trying to reduce the AI player's armies by hitting their economies simply never worked.

I remember reducing an enemy's territory to one impoverished province, cornering him in that province and waiting turn after turn to see his large army (which should have required about 4 provinces just to maintain) reduced by defection. It never happened. On the contrary, the AI army actually grew instead.

From what I've read, every TW game released since has cheated in the same way, but I've never verified that myself.

Oh yeah almost forgot your agents can incite riots (decreasing public order) in cities and arson buildings. I don't know if these actually have any effect though. Poison wells had an effect I am pretty sure. If you hover your mouse over a city, you can see the public order. I'm still early in the game so I do not know all the details.

Rome II has a bunch of ways you can mess with the enemy. Raid land trade routes (not sure about sea), blockade city ports, siege a city, etc. I am not sure how effective some of these are. I did a combined siege with a ship port blockade once; I am not sure about the result. I eventually won the city by siege after losing some men to attrition. Attrition is neatly explained: Small pre-battle skirmishes, and disease or something.

#21 Posted by Crush_Project (593 posts) -

the only thing ive wanted out of new total war games has been upgraded ai for a long time.

Sounds like i can wait till this is on sale for a fraction of the cost at least.

#22 Posted by strategyfn (379 posts) -

^ Yes it isn't must have now, play immediately great. Deep down it is just another strategy game--If you have played a couple before you get the idea. Not to say the battles are not fun.

If you can get the game for 39.99 or 29.99 on Steam in a few months more power to you: I'm kinda biased though because I really like the game. I barely by new games, so it was worth it for me to play early. I don't even know what to say or think about the idea of having to pay 7.99 for the Greeks faction DLC; I preorderd Rome II so I got it free.

#23 Posted by InquisitorCrox (616 posts) -
Most of the complains come from two reasons, one is that gamers have a weak rig, or a good rig with an Nvidia video card. CA is not at fault at any of this, the Rome 2 core engine is here to stay, it must become the vessel of future expansions and by products, good enough to appeal next gen gamers. 2 years from now after watching so many next gen games, you will understand why they had to sacrifice some of the current gamer base, to survive in the long run. So the game was optimised to be future bullet proof and not remain under development forever. As for the lower performance with Nvidia cards, unfortunately this is how things work these days, the competition between those two companies have gone too far, they now fund some of the games and make sure that those games perfrom better at heir platform, it works both ways, this just happens to be a game that favors AMD, for the moment.
#24 Posted by davidsworld3 (3038 posts) -

You are full of it dude, you just made that up lol.  There is a larg list of reasons why people are not happy with this game, not just because of the video card, the game works mostly fine, iI have a gaming computer, but even I notice a lot of frame rate issues, and a lot of graphic problems with textures even with extreme settings.  This game is not a must own at all, I wish I never bought it.  Come to think of it I dont think I've ever payed medeval total war 2, I might check that out.

#25 Posted by Stag_Lee (13 posts) -

  Yes the AI disappointed me in the same way it has for all Total War games.

  But I had some fun playing as Egypt: On hard, I had an elephant-general alone with no army, sitting out in the field. He was attacked by an 8-stack army, I figured he'd get smoked but I wanted to test elephants so I fought it out... My elephant-general trampled them all. He didn't take a single loss. I proceeded to take the entire province west of Egypt with him and him *alone*. It was fun for all the wrong reasons.

  So if you're playing as Egypt, know that your elephant-generals are invincible for at least 20 turns and you can just trample everyone. It would be cool if people would try this and report back how it went. It was very funny for me.