Diplomacy AI Bad

Currently viewing this thread:

Arkyll

Recruit
Battania is just refusing to make decent decisions, and its infuriating the hell out of me.

Vlandia has been just utterly battered into a corner. It is so damn weak it cannot muster a single army that threatens us in any capacity.

It has only 2 towns left and as I am typing this we have 2 gigantic armies seiging them.
What is Battanias course of action? Declare peace for literal pocket change.

This already sounds dumb but what it will really result in is just more and more war over and over and tax and tax. We declare peace, another faction attacks us and then Vlandia attacks us, forcing us to fight on two fronts.

Battania is then forced to pay said attacking faction for peace and in the long term we end up paying insane amounts of money to neighboring factions because something keeps telling Battania not to finish off Vlandia when every logical outcome I can think of is to do it.

This has happened about 5 times now. This is repetition on another scale and the AI is not able to see a pattern going on.

I am forced to save scum (and that only delays it) because everyone except Caladog are suing for peace (love paying taxes to other factions, basically).

There is forcefully preventing snowballs and then there is just the definition of insanity. This is getting boring.
 

D0c1

Knight
you can attack someone from vlandia to start a war then snipe a fief before peace is declared.

starting a war without a vote costs 300 influence btw.

this is just a workaround. AI and many other things need to be fixed.
 

Dansemacabre

Recruit
Letting Vlandia 2 towns is actually a good AI move: if you let a faction without towns it won't disappear, instead it starts to raze and raid every single village of your faction endlessly no matter what you do and it's frustrating trust me :smile:
 
Letting Vlandia 2 towns is actually a good AI move: if you let a faction without towns it won't disappear, instead it starts to raze and raid every single village of your faction endlessly no matter what you do and it's frustrating trust me :smile:

Seems like a bug or unintended consequence rather than a feature...
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Letting Vlandia 2 towns is actually a good AI move: if you let a faction without towns it won't disappear, instead it starts to raze and raid every single village of your faction endlessly no matter what you do and it's frustrating trust me :smile:
This might be what happened to me. On one of my play throughs, The Wester Empire was also down to like 2 cities yet despite this, they had 20 flippen clans including I think every merc faction in the game. The had literally 60 individual lord parties raiding every village they came across. I had to quit that playthrough because it got so frustrating.

I think the conclusion some people have came to is that the AI intentionally starts making dumb decisions in order to counter any success the player or AI faction makes. Basically the reason your faction is hell bend on being in 3 wars despite there being know way it can win against 3 factions is a balancing mechanism. The wars are created to ensure the overly successful faction loses both prosperity and territory and gets taken down a notch thus ensuring parity between all factions. The problem with this in my opinion is that at the end of the day this game is about the player conquering the known world yet they end up getting punished if the start to be successful at actually achieving this goal. It also does this at the expense of immersion because we all know, it doesn't make sense to declare another war, much less two, when you have finally got the enemy on his back heel and are about to win.
 
It seems so weird that they would make the AI kneecap itself to prevent the snowballing problem which, to me anyway, seems entirely to rest on the Khuzaits having a speed bonus. Like. That's it. Take away their fricken speed bonus. It doesn't even make sense, honestly. Did the Mongols actually have faster horses than other cultures? Didn't they ride squat little pony type horses? Just give them a bones to mounted archer accuracy or something. That would seem a lot more realistic. It would make them daunting to fight, but it wouldn't let them take over the whole map, and we could finally cut the crap with all this AI tweaking that is really just causing 2 problems for every 1 it fixes.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
It seems so weird that they would make the AI kneecap itself to prevent the snowballing problem which, to me anyway, seems entirely to rest on the Khuzaits having a speed bonus. Like. That's it. Take away their fricken speed bonus. It doesn't even make sense, honestly. Did the Mongols actually have faster horses than other cultures? Didn't they ride squat little pony type horses? Just give them a bones to mounted archer accuracy or something. That would seem a lot more realistic. It would make them daunting to fight, but it wouldn't let them take over the whole map, and we could finally cut the crap with all this AI tweaking that is really just causing 2 problems for every 1 it fixes.

Yeah I tend to agree with you, at least on why the Khuzaits have tended to be the snowballers most of the time. That speed bonus + the fact that their army makeups are so cavalry heavy makes it so they can always escape or catch whatever army they want to depending on the situation. Unlike other factions where the smaller army always tends to move faster and can escape engagement, the Khuzaits speed bonus means that very often the smaller armies can't actually outrun them, this is huge. Statistically this just means they are going to always have a higher percentage of battles that go their way.

Personally I think your army speed so be dependent on two things. Your Scouting and your Steward skills. At the end of the day while cavalry cold move faster than infantry this is only true for a short sprint. What I mean is, be it Infantry OR Cavalry, your army is only going to move at the pace of your supply train. Cavalrymen still have to eat and so do their horses which means your going to have wagons trailing them to keep the feed and supplied not to mention that cavalry would likely have to have even more support than infantry since you would have to keep tack repaired and maintain the horses like keeping them shoed, etc. Also when resting, horses have to actually be taken care of with things such as removing and storing tack, grooming, feeding and picketing plus taking care of themselves as well. Your average infantryman just has to take care of himself. Anyway, the point is, cavalry is only faster in the sprint. They are actually potentially slower on the march.

As for those two skills, Scouting determines how good you are at finding a path your army can cross effectively and efficiently so the better you can scout the terrain ahead the faster you can move. Steward goes back to that baggage train that needs to accompany any army. The more efficient your baggage train and logistics are, the faster your army can move.

Other than this, all armies would move at the same speed. Problem solved.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Exactly. And replace their speed bonus with mounted archer accuracy. I don't know why this wasn't TaleWorld's first choice.
Yeah maybe give them a 3% bonus to mounted archer accuracy or something instead of speed though I have to admit I would miss the speed boost since I almost always pick Khuziat as my starting culture even if I plan on playing Vlandia or Sturgia or whatever.
 
Yeah maybe give them a 3% bonus to mounted archer accuracy or something instead of speed though I have to admit I would miss the speed boost since I almost always pick Khuziat as my starting culture even if I plan on playing Vlandia or Sturgia or whatever.
I always pick Vlandia. The troop XP is awesome, you get high tier troops in a couple days. And I've never had trouble catching or running from engagements, using one third cavalry and two thirds crossbows. However with only about 135 hours in the game, my experience is limited.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I always pick Vlandia. The troop XP is awesome, you get high tier troops in a couple days. And I've never had trouble catching or running from engagements, using one third cavalry and two thirds crossbows. However with only about 135 hours in the game, my experience is limited.
Yeah Vlandia is a good choice, well except for their vanilla roster lacking horse archers that. Also I am not talking about the player having issues with speed, I am talking about the AI having issues. The AI typically doesn't use the same ratio of cavalry as a player and also the player will typically have a crapton more horses in inventory to take advantage of the "mounted infantry" bonus you get.

Most AI, other than the Khuzaits, have a cavalry ratio of only about 15-18% while the Khuzaits have about a 35% ratio of mounted troops. Then tack on the cultural bonus on top of that and you have the Khuzaits probably being at least 15-20% faster than other factions AI control armies on average for a given army size. This means an AI controlled force of 200 Khuzaits can outrun a force of 150 Vlandians or Imperials or whatever and because of this they can catch these smaller armies which at a pretty significant advantage in numbers with in turn gives them a huge advantage in auto-calc battles. They can basically catch and wipe out these parties while the reverse isn't true and this is why the Khuzaits have a huge advantage on the campaign map. They just are able to engage in many more advantageous battles than the other faction can.
 
It seems so weird that they would make the AI kneecap itself to prevent the snowballing problem which, to me anyway, seems entirely to rest on the Khuzaits having a speed bonus. Like. That's it. Take away their fricken speed bonus. It doesn't even make sense, honestly. Did the Mongols actually have faster horses than other cultures? Didn't they ride squat little pony type horses? Just give them a bones to mounted archer accuracy or something. That would seem a lot more realistic. It would make them daunting to fight, but it wouldn't let them take over the whole map, and we could finally cut the crap with all this AI tweaking that is really just causing 2 problems for every 1 it fixes.

Woah woah woah. Do you have a licence for that (critical thinking)?

Jokes aside, I agree. Their bandaid solutions are not helping. I don't mind giving them a speed bonus though if snow makes everyone but sturgia suffer attrition and speed penalties.

I think every faction should be a master of their own terrain with the exception of empire which ought to have the most comprehensive troop tree instead of the kuzaits. The rationale for this is that the empire would have auxiliaries already firmly established in their order of battle.

The other factions would need to supplement with mercs to fill in the gaps.

Mercs ought to cost more and have a morale cap (say 75%?).
 

Arkyll

Recruit
'Unlike other factions where the smaller army always tends to move faster and can escape engagement, the Khuzaits speed bonus means that very often the smaller armies can't actually outrun them, this is huge. Statistically this just means they are going to always have a higher percentage of battles that go their way.'

'What I mean is, be it Infantry OR Cavalry, your army is only going to move at the pace of your supply train. Cavalrymen still have to eat and so do their horses which means your going to have wagons trailing them to keep the feed and supplied not to mention that cavalry would likely have to have even more support than infantry since you would have to keep tack repaired and maintain the horses like keeping them shoed, etc. Also when resting, horses have to actually be taken care of with things such as removing and storing tack, grooming, feeding and picketing plus taking care of themselves as well. Your average infantryman just has to take care of himself. Anyway, the point is, cavalry is only faster in the sprint. They are actually potentially slower on the march.'

'The more efficient your baggage train and logistics are, the faster your army can move.'

These are some serious bars.
 
I think every faction should be a master of their own terrain with the exception of empire which ought to have the most comprehensive troop tree instead of the kuzaits. The rationale for this is that the empire would have auxiliaries already firmly established in their order of battle.
Interesting thought. Although, if Battania already have a bonus for moving in woods (if I'm not mistaken) and Sturgia for moving in snow (again, if I'm not mistaken) then you'd have to give them an extra bonus if you're giving everyone else movement bonuses. But yes, it would be a very immersive improvement. It would also, it seems to me, be a natural deterrent to any faction quickly steamrolling any other. Then you could get rid of all the changes they've made to the AI that have them making stupid decisions about when to make peace (like when the enemy only has 2 towns left). It would be a natural difficulty in conquering as opposed to a manufactured one.

For pete's sake, I really hope the devs read these boards when they world on MandB 3.
 
Yeah Vlandia is a good choice, well except for their vanilla roster lacking horse archers that. Also I am not talking about the player having issues with speed, I am talking about the AI having issues. The AI typically doesn't use the same ratio of cavalry as a player and also the player will typically have a crapton more horses in inventory to take advantage of the "mounted infantry" bonus you get.

Most AI, other than the Khuzaits, have a cavalry ratio of only about 15-18% while the Khuzaits have about a 35% ratio of mounted troops. Then tack on the cultural bonus on top of that and you have the Khuzaits probably being at least 15-20% faster than other factions AI control armies on average for a given army size. This means an AI controlled force of 200 Khuzaits can outrun a force of 150 Vlandians or Imperials or whatever and because of this they can catch these smaller armies which at a pretty significant advantage in numbers with in turn gives them a huge advantage in auto-calc battles. They can basically catch and wipe out these parties while the reverse isn't true and this is why the Khuzaits have a huge advantage on the campaign map. They just are able to engage in many more advantageous battles than the other faction can.
Ok I get you. Preference-wise I feel like crossbowmen to a fine job instead of mounted archers, but I've actually only played as Vlandia so far so what do I know (only been playing for a couple months now).

As for the Khuzaits having more cavalry, I just think that goes along with their culture and isn't something that should be changed (besides taking away their cav speed bonus). It's just one of those things that, historically, gave the Mongols such a big edge. I think of it like the end-boss of the game. Especially since I'm Vlandia, and they're on the other side of the map.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Ok I get you. Preference-wise I feel like crossbowmen to a fine job instead of mounted archers, but I've actually only played as Vlandia so far so what do I know (only been playing for a couple months now).

As for the Khuzaits having more cavalry, I just think that goes along with their culture and isn't something that should be changed (besides taking away their cav speed bonus). It's just one of those things that, historically, gave the Mongols such a big edge. I think of it like the end-boss of the game. Especially since I'm Vlandia, and they're on the other side of the map.

There is nothing at all wrong with foot crossbowmen or foot archers, it is just that in game Horse Archers are better on all levels. They are faster and more mobile and generally don't have to deal with line of sight issues because they are on a horse, I mean you can just line up your horse archers BEHIND your shield wall and they will be able to fire at your enemies right up until the two infantry lines meet. Foot crossbows or archers have to be positioned in front or to the side of the infantry line where they are vulnerable and will often have to completely stop firing, if you actually more then behind the shield wall to protect them. Horse Archers also function just as well as cavalry in melee combat especially since many of the horse archers of the Khuzaits also carry a polearm. Also in a siege they tend to be able to use arrows to soften up the infantry while being just as effective as infantry at taking the walls if you have to send the archers in. There just isn't a down side to having horse archers.

As far as the Kuzaits, I do expect them to always have more horse mounted troops because that is their thing. However, I don't think they should always have the advantage on the campaign map. The need to remove the cavalry speed bonus from the game entirely on the grounds that matching speed is limited by the speed of the baggage train. Then remove the Khuzait cultural bonus to speed. This keeps ALL the factions on even ground when it comes to the campaign map. Then you just adjust the value of each factions troops so that on a bases of equal numbers and equal tier level of troops, each side has a 50/50 shot at winning despite if one faction having more cavalry than they other. Once you have this, then you have the AI side of things balanced. The only thing left, from a campaign map and auto-calc perspective anyway, would be geographical advantages.
 
There is nothing at all wrong with foot crossbowmen or foot archers, it is just that in game Horse Archers are better on all levels. They are faster and more mobile and generally don't have to deal with line of sight issues because they are on a horse, I mean you can just line up your horse archers BEHIND your shield wall and they will be able to fire at your enemies right up until the two infantry lines meet. Foot crossbows or archers have to be positioned in front or to the side of the infantry line where they are vulnerable and will often have to completely stop firing, if you actually more then behind the shield wall to protect them. Horse Archers also function just as well as cavalry in melee combat especially since many of the horse archers of the Khuzaits also carry a polearm. Also in a siege they tend to be able to use arrows to soften up the infantry while being just as effective as infantry at taking the walls if you have to send the archers in. There just isn't a down side to having horse archers.
Yeah, the line of sight thing can be annoying. I actually got a mod called "let me see the battle" that gets rid of a lot of the less flat battle maps, and I just place my dudes on the high ground. I don't even bother with a shield wall though. 120 crossbows take out as many oppossing infantry pretty quick, and my 50 knights mop up the rest. I will definitely enjoy trying the Khuzaits at some point though.
As far as the Kuzaits, I do expect them to always have more horse mounted troops because that is their thing. However, I don't think they should always have the advantage on the campaign map. The need to remove the cavalry speed bonus from the game entirely on the grounds that matching speed is limited by the speed of the baggage train. Then remove the Khuzait cultural bonus to speed. This keeps ALL the factions on even ground when it comes to the campaign map. Then you just adjust the value of each factions troops so that on a bases of equal numbers and equal tier level of troops, each side has a 50/50 shot at winning despite if one faction having more cavalry than they other. Once you have this, then you have the AI side of things balanced. The only thing left, from a campaign map and auto-calc perspective anyway, would be geographical advantages.
Good points
 
Interesting thought. Although, if Battania already have a bonus for moving in woods (if I'm not mistaken) and Sturgia for moving in snow (again, if I'm not mistaken) then you'd have to give them an extra bonus if you're giving everyone else movement bonuses. But yes, it would be a very immersive improvement. It would also, it seems to me, be a natural deterrent to any faction quickly steamrolling any other. Then you could get rid of all the changes they've made to the AI that have them making stupid decisions about when to make peace (like when the enemy only has 2 towns left). It would be a natural difficulty in conquering as opposed to a manufactured one.

For pete's sake, I really hope the devs read these boards when they world on MandB 3.

Exactly. Their solutions are as you say, manufactured (and imo cheap fixes) and thus result in unrealistic outcomes.

It doesn't have to be bonuses. For example, the autocalc could give a negative modifier to cavalry in wooded terrain which would equalise Fians and Banner Knights in Battanian territory.

It's a strange situation. They've clearly invested alot of time and energy to creating a dynamic economy but in nearly every other system, it's just hardcoded outcomes.

Maybe they'll get around to it at some point. I certainly hope so.
 
Foot crossbows or archers have to be positioned in front or to the side of the infantry line where they are vulnerable and will often have to completely stop firing, if you actually more then behind the shield wall to protect them.

It would be nice if loose formation meant that archers would flex the line abit say a +/- variance in search of higher ground or better position.
 
It would be nice if loose formation meant that archers would flex the line abit say a +/- variance in search of higher ground or better position.
I also don't see the point of loose formation for archers if only the first two rows can fire. They should spread out enough so every row can fire.
 
Top Bottom