AI needs to improve their strategic game

[Seafoodking]

Currently, the NPCs have a very bad strategic game, when they are at war they would send raiding parties nonstop, and in most cases, it ruins the quality of battle. My suggestion is to allow NPCs to have different strategic behaviors and most of the time, a defensive one. This will allow both the NPCs and player to prepare higher tier units for the future big battle. This is how historical time worked too, they prepare and plan for one strategic clash, and the preparation time could be months or even years.

In this case, players will feel more worthy when their T6 units died, because it was for a big battle. Players will also feel more challenging against non-recruits units. Of course, we should have control over our own vassals, and clan parties too. I'm so tired of my parties going to the enemy border and gets captured.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

we should have control over our own vassals, and clan parties too.

This would be a huge improvement. I hope they keep working on AI strategy overall but even just having some player agency over your own guys would be a massive improvment.
As it is, there's basically no point in being a faction ruler. I guess the ability to veto extra wars can kinda help but it's would be 10X better if you could also command vassals to focus down on certain fiefs/regions. You can do this in a round about way by eliminating most of the garrison to make them soft targets, but at that point you could just take them yourself.

 

[Moton]

This would be a huge improvement. I hope they keep working on AI strategy overall but even just having some player agency over your own guys would be a massive improvment.
As it is, there's basically no point in being a faction ruler. I guess the ability to veto extra wars can kinda help but it's would be 10X better if you could also command vassals to focus down on certain fiefs/regions. You can do this in a round about way by eliminating most of the garrison to make them soft targets, but at that point you could just take them yourself.

I think the whole game is built around the fact that you're not supposed to have direct control of your vasals. That would also make the player controlled kingdom kind of OP I think. Your own clan members on the other hand is another thing, those people should be under your direct control.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I think the whole game is built around the fact that you're not supposed to have direct control of your vasals. That would also make the player controlled kingdom kind of OP I think. Your own clan members on the other hand is another thing, those people should be under your direct control.

What I would do is have you give orders but have the vassals react biased on relation, traits and other effects and have it be transparent so you could ascertain why/who is and isn't doing what you want.

As it is a faction is kinda useless aside from just removing parties from the enemy pool, which can be done via the chopping block much faster....

Ether I can competently siege fiefs myself while vassals run wild, or I can beat down enemy parties and hope my dum vassals actually complete some of the siege's they start.

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

The only way AI can do anything is by spam attacks of small armies and overwhelming numbers. The AI is not capable of matching the player on the battlefield, they would get easily decimated by archers on a hill or by a cheesy hammer and anvil. Then combine that with the ability to easily unite the clans under one army and you can kill one faction with 2 or 3 big battles.

I have said this a number of times but, here we go devs:

If the AI army is defending don't make then charge the player. GET THEM TO AN ADVANTAGED POSITION! THEY ARE DEFENDING NOT ATACKING!!!! Even if the AI has inferior ranged fire power get the player to move to them and then charge.
If the player has superior cav and archers then go for a tree line if possible.

The AI should not ATACK if they have low chance of winning, AI must consider the terrain, enemy troops, tier... If they can't win the battle retreat and/or wait/call for reinforcements. E.g.: If the AI is attacking, they should know the map they are going to fight and let's imagine it has a big hill and the player has many archers, then calculate the chances of winning again and don't attack.

In (defence) sieges, every archer should have a line of shot (put fixed positions for them on the walls and advantage points where they can shoot - e.g. behind the troops at the gate - and retreat or fight when needed.

Devs need to improve this. Either have a new more efficient way to collect the data needed to make an educated decision or use the data you already have available and make it work. The "basic" solution is to identify the patterns of each possible situation. You could narrow each situation by having fixed behaviors and positions the AI takes.
Again, more data with more quality is needed, imo.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

yes they need to be tweaked and there is always room for improvement, but they have for sure become better now. Now the bastards are even playing conservative suddenly at times waiting for the right timing. But i see them defending to so idk what counts for em to do that contra, makes em attacking like zergs

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

However never underestimate the power of the AI because they have most certainly surprised me many times by just watching them of which i love to do with some epic music in the background:

 

[black_bulldog]

The only way AI can do anything is by spam attacks of small armies and overwhelming numbers. The AI is not capable of matching the player on the battlefield, they would get easily decimated by archers on a hill or by a cheesy hammer and anvil. Then combine that with the ability to easily unite the clans under one army and you can kill one faction with 2 or 3 big battles.

I have said this a number of times but, here we go devs:

If the AI army is defending don't make then charge the player. GET THEM TO AN ADVANTAGED POSITION! THEY ARE DEFENDING NOT ATACKING!!!! Even if the AI has inferior ranged fire power get the player to move to them and then charge.
If the player has superior cav and archers then go for a tree line if possible.

The AI should not ATACK if they have low chance of winning, AI must consider the terrain, enemy troops, tier... If they can't win the battle retreat and/or wait/call for reinforcements. E.g.: If the AI is attacking, they should know the map they are going to fight and let's imagine it has a big hill and the player has many archers, then calculate the chances of winning again and don't attack.

In (defence) sieges, every archer should have a line of shot (put fixed positions for them on the walls and advantage points where they can shoot - e.g. behind the troops at the gate - and retreat or fight when needed.

Devs need to improve this. Either have a new more efficient way to collect the data needed to make an educated decision or use the data you already have available and make it work. The "basic" solution is to identify the patterns of each possible situation. You could narrow each situation by having fixed behaviors and positions the AI takes.
Again, more data with more quality is needed, imo.

When heavily outnumbered in a field battle ai won't charge your position unless provoked by either a rain of arrows or by cavalry or HA. Typically they won't move unless they start losing troops. I've tried it and they'll sit there happy as a clam and if there is a decent size hill they'll typically go towards that position unless it puts them too close to the opposing army.
I actually had a siege where the ai defenders rushed the gate as soon as the 2nd one went down and blocked the tunnel so no one could flank them till the walls were breached. At first I was kind of shocked and it actually worked till they got hit from behind by the troops from the walls.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

When heavily outnumbered in a field battle ai won't charge your position unless provoked by either a rain of arrows or by cavalry or HA. Typically they won't move unless they start losing troops. I've tried it and they'll sit there happy as a clam and if there is a decent size hill they'll typically go towards that position unless it puts them too close to the opposing army.
I actually had a siege where the ai defenders rushed the gate as soon as the 2nd one went down and blocked the tunnel so no one could flank them till the walls were breached. At first I was kind of shocked and it actually worked till they got hit from behind by the troops from the walls.

Those damn hills ^^ im getting ptsd just thinking about them xD

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

I actually had a siege where the ai defenders rushed the gate as soon as the 2nd one went down and blocked the tunnel so no one could flank them till the walls were breached. At first I was kind of shocked and it actually worked till they got hit from behind by the troops from the walls.

The flacking of the gate defenders is so cheesy it makes me cringe. Even if the they outnumber you, if one troop gets to the flank it's over, they don't act.
They just stay there and take it in the butt