RoN's Single Player Experience: Promising!

[yin26]

Well, I finally reached into my Age of Empires/Kings bag of tricks and rushed the AI last night (still on Moderate). Made the game too easy, though the AI did the best job I've seen of trying to boom back after being rushed.

But it's almost as if there was little or no programming to help handle the rush. For instance, villies won't relocate! They'll garrison for a while then come right back to the spot where 3 of them just got killed...didn't see any towers go up, either. Oh, and if I'm rushing with archers (easiest to do since they don't cost any food), why did it take the AI sooo long to produce a few cav.? Perhaps on 'Tough' this changes?

To be honest, though, I'd be happy not rushing the AI. From what I've seen, when I try a non-rush game, the AI is pretty darn good, though taking out his supply wagons and cannons often effectively ruins his plans, so I keep cav on-hand for quick strikes on his forces, garrison them to heal, etc. The AI then repeats this to great detriment to his own ability to win, etc.

Of course it's not surprising that we're finding weaknesses. What *is* surprising is how good the AI is overall.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, I finally reached into my Age of Empires/Kings bag of tricks and rushed the AI last night (still on Moderate). Made the game too easy, though the AI did the best job I've seen of trying to boom back after being rushed.

But it's almost as if there was little or no programming to help handle the rush. For instance, villies won't relocate! They'll garrison for a while then come right back to the spot where 3 of them just got killed...didn't see any towers go up, either. Oh, and if I'm rushing with archers (easiest to do since they don't cost any food), why did it take the AI sooo long to produce a few cav.? Perhaps on 'Tough' this changes?

To be honest, though, I'd be happy not rushing the AI. From what I've seen, when I try a non-rush game, the AI is pretty darn good, though taking out his supply wagons and cannons often effectively ruins his plans, so I keep cav on-hand for quick strikes on his forces, garrison them to heal, etc. The AI then repeats this to great detriment to his own ability to win, etc.

Of course it's not surprising that we're finding weaknesses. What *is* surprising is how good the AI is overall.

Yin26,

Thanks for all these posts and comments..

I have also seen similiar and I am not the rushing type, but more so enjoy a challenge of building up a massive military combat...which fits into the alley-way of the ai.

You say you slowed them down somewhat attacking supply wagons helped?

I am gonna try to win by tageting them as well as caravans and oil/natural resource supplies...

Just wondering how well ai adapts when its economy is interrupted..maybe same way USA did, wait a little then bomb me to Hades

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[yin26]

Troll:

You're welcome! Yes, the AI is great about bringing in supply wagons so it won't suffer attrition. If you take those out, though, the AI has a very hard time in battle because it comes onto *your* territory and sits there a while...this a good reason not to forward build so far that its arty can hit you while on his own territory! If you then also take out his arty (which is also nicely brought along), he can't really hurt you ... assuming you've got some garrison towers and so forth to help lay cover fire for your own troops.

The AI also seems to limit the size of its 'troop packets' -- and while they are wonderfully varied (never really seen that before) and sometimes even crafty as to where they attack (also never seen that), once you size up that packet of troops, you get a good sense of what to have and in what numbers on-hand to respond. Call this predictability, I suppose, but until we see truly adaptive AI that learns game to game, I can't fault the comp. much here.

My biggest complaint is still that the AI doesn't raid enough! Most human players simply freak out when even a small contingent of cav, let's say, pops up in your undefended resource gathering zones slaughtering villies. I think that since the computer's multitasking abilities are clearly superior to a human being's (this is not to say it's used effectively, of course), that the more things it can keep the player busy with the better.

Its attacks on undefended cities is an excellent move toward that goal. And maybe raids are more effective on a higher AI level?

The AI also needs (as I wrote above) to know how to handle a raid on its on turf as well. Still, I think most of the builder-type TBSers among us are not so interested in rushing and will meet the AI on its own terms, so to speak, after a period of build up. It's at that point after unmolested booming that the computer comes into its own. Fair enough.

[MxM]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, I finally reached into my Age of Empires/Kings bag of tricks and rushed the AI last night (still on Moderate). Made the game too easy, though the AI did the best job I've seen of trying to boom back after being rushed.

But it's almost as if there was little or no programming to help handle the rush. For instance, villies won't relocate! They'll garrison for a while then come right back to the spot where 3 of them just got killed...didn't see any towers go up, either. Oh, and if I'm rushing with archers (easiest to do since they don't cost any food), why did it take the AI sooo long to produce a few cav.? Perhaps on 'Tough' this changes?

To be honest, though, I'd be happy not rushing the AI. From what I've seen, when I try a non-rush game, the AI is pretty darn good, though taking out his supply wagons and cannons often effectively ruins his plans, so I keep cav on-hand for quick strikes on his forces, garrison them to heal, etc. The AI then repeats this to great detriment to his own ability to win, etc.

Of course it's not surprising that we're finding weaknesses. What *is* surprising is how good the AI is overall.

Try to do the rush couple more times. It is my observation, that AI reacts differently. You probably got lucky with "booming" AI.

[yin26]

You probably got lucky with "booming" AI.

Not sure what you mean?

[dearmad]

Also, Moderate isn't with everything in the AI turned on I think... It's still not using all it's best ideas at that level, and still ahs a resource handicap.

What he meant by BOOM AI is that you may have encoutnered the AI that goes for econ. build-up, not the AI that goes for rush. There are two types. If you want to see the diff. select them instead of the basic COMPUTER opponent (which randomizes between them I think).

[yin26]

Ah, excellent! Would be nice, though, for the booming AI to 'know' not to send villies to certain death!

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
The AI briefly uses one of several "scripts" in the Ancient Age to get itself started on the right foot (which script depends on its boom/rush preference), then by early Classical switches to an unscripted strategic AI that responds to (a) the map situation, (b) the "personality" of the AI and (c) what the player does. Of course on the easy level it "responds" by trying to do the wrong thing :-) (e.g. "look he's got an army of archers, let me get started on some pikemen!")

Perhaps some rushes are hitting the AI before it comes out of it's scripting and is capable of reacting? It was also stated earlier that the AI uses no cheats as far as 'seeing' your units. Perhaps if they are back under a fog of war, it assumes the danger has left since it no longer 'sees' your units, it assumes the area is safe?

Also, I wonder if it could be made that if the AI is hit with a rush it could switch 'personalities' to become more aggressive...?

[yin26]

Again, I'm happy not to rush if it will ruin the game, and I'm sure making an AI capable of handling a rush is a difficult process -- but I think you're right about the early script issue.

On the fog of war, though, I kept my archer right next to his wood pile...was firing arrows at it, in fact. So he knew I was there but had no mechanism, it seems, to redirect villies, put up a tower, get a cav out quickly, etc.

So, indeed, I think the AI needs to have a little more adaptive scripting in this regard...

[albiedamned]

Regarding resource handicaps, BR has posted elsewhere that there is no resource handicap at moderate and tough levels. On easy and easiest, the player receives an advantage, while on tougher and toughest the AI receives an advantage. BR also posted that the AI does pull its punches a little bit on moderate, but that tough is the absolute best the AI has to offer without a resource handicap.

[aesopguy]

RoN AI is smart

I concurr with all your comments. My experience with AI on Moderate was consistent ... all the way. It has an unsual ability to suprise ... not only hitting on one front, but on multiple fronts - simultaneously. It also launches well coordinated attacks and seems to use generals quite a bit for army control.

It also does not spend time attacking non-critical buildings (remember how you could distract the AI in Age of Empires and EE) but tries to get to your city centers.

Only after about 3 tries did I fair very well only to run out of time when the AI achieved a Wonder victory.

I did survive some pretty radical Nuke attacks which suprisingly did not take out my cities ... just damaged the city center and demolished a few of the secondary buildings.

Another thing I would say about this game is that you should not neccessarily give up and quit as soon as you loose a battle against the AI. I have been successful in retreating when I clearly will be loosing a battle, letting my city in dispute go, regroup and rebuild in another city, and then regain the lost city.

(This was on the trial version where you don't have the option to turn Wonder victories off - my tablet PC does not have a CD drive so I can't run the full version with out the disk --- wih there was a NO CD version out there!)

It is a great game and makes up for weariness one soon encounters in CIV 3 (where you can only really win through diplomacy), and the lack of depth and strategic realism in Age of Empires and Empire Earth.

Ensemble Studios made a major mistake doing Age of Mythology ... this was the natural next step for them. The next version of RoN should address some of the graphical limitations that are becoming the norm these days.

If I have to choose though, I would choose gameplay and depth over graphics. Well done Big Huge!!

[kainzero]

man, you guys make it seem like the AI is godly, but for me, games against moderate AI are a breeze, and I'm not exactly a good RTS player (Win < 50% @ WC3)

first, their micro is a joke. I tend to mass light infantry-archers-light cavalry, and then later, light infantry-heavy infantry-light cavalry, and finally MGs-ATs-Tanks. I can usually get by with my Cavalry rushing the supply wagons, then cleaning up the remaining units. if i am losing the battle, i run my troops back to town to garrison, then run them back out when they're suitably healed.

second, generals make a huge difference. I was having a hard time beating the AI on moderate, and then I started using generals. +2 armor makes a huge difference, same with entrench. If spies harass during battle, bring a commando and they die almost instantly.

you talk about how the cpu attacks on multiple fronts with 2 armies, but I don't see it that way. I see it as a split army attacking in two places. My army can usually mop up one while the other holds, then the army finishes them off.

the thing is, when you counter their army, they have to rebuild their army. since they don't store resources, they don't tech. you can tech. more or less, this is a big advantage that lets you roll over them. in the last game against Tough AI on a sea map, I completely dominated the CPU. Once I eliminated their navy, they couldn't recover. Soon I had Info Age subs pounding on galleons.

the mixed army is nothing special because it's too small. My force is at least 1.5x bigger than theirs. You'll never see anything too overwhelming. Plus, I play Chinese, so it's easy for me to expand and pull together and econ. If an undefended border city is attacked, I usually garrison it with citizens and have enough time to reinforce it.

I must admit, moderate diff caught me off guard the first time, but after a couple games, it was cake, simply because I got used to the flow of the game. And yes, I do agree that RoN is one of the most well-crafted games I have ever played. But the AI isn't godly, and is no substitute for a decent human player.

[alva]

man, you guys make it seem like the AI is godly, but for me, games against moderate AI are a breeze, and I'm not exactly a good RTS player (Win < 50% @ WC3)

Go up a level or 2, just to amuse me.
I don't think I have ever been beaten against one AI, RON did it .
No, I'm not a good RTS player by any means, but this surely surprised me.
On moderate I could take on 2 or 3 of them without any problem, but 'tough' is a different story altogether. (especially coupled with few iron nearby.)

and is no substitute for a decent human player.

Nope, but there isn't one yet..anywhere, so this is hardly worth the discussion.

[RKJanus]

I just finished my first tough game. 8 Civs, big huge Great Lakes. I had 1 AI ally, with 3 others forming one competing alliance and the remaining 3 forming the other.

I overextended myself quite horribly thinking that the AI would just be cannon bait. I had 9 cities to my opponents 6 or 7 each.

Anyhow I declared war on a zulu opponent, laughing as I quickly overtook two of his border cities within the first minute of my advance. His ally hadn't bothered declaring war on me in response so I had free reign.

However I was quickly chagrined to find my advance bogged down in a stalemate on the frontier, neither of us advancing adequately as we were in general completely equal in both military and technological means.

Until of course I invented nuclear weapons before he did.

Imagine my glee as 2 or 3 nukes at a time decimated his cities.

Imagine my horror as every other AI in the game, excluding my ally, declared war on me and the other 4 civs that bordered me invaded my territory. The 5th civ attacked my ally and kept him busy while I was being crushed.

The end didn't come quickly, as I'd placed castles and towers along the entire length of my borders. All my major cities were well protected by them.


At first I took the challenge with a bring it on sort of attitude. But that soon changed as I was attacked on 4 fronts.

Depsite my defenses, I knew I was in trouble when a successful enemy attack by 2 AI allies working together divided my empire in two. (told you I was overextended)

My capital was way back in my rear, but one AI when he found it's location launched everything he had at it. With bombers from his allies joining the attack, and the fact that I hadn't even bothered to build rear defences, meant that my vunerable rear cities were crushed quickly. Like the French I had built my Maginot Line of castles, and thinking they were invincible, ignored my rear.


And when my capital finally fell, I couldn't help but feel that I had NEVER been beaten before by an AI on such even terms as this before in an RTS game. (we all know the AI in many games cheats or a SP scenario is set up so that its incredible difficult to win.)

[MxM]

Originally posted by kainzero
man, you guys make it seem like the AI is godly, but for me, games against moderate AI are a breeze, and I'm not exactly a good RTS player (Win < 50% @ WC3)

I found the same IF I PAUSE as much as I want. But without pausing, the moderate level is quite tough for me. I would say I can win only 50% of the time without pausing for 1vs1 type of games.