How is the AI in this game

[calmon]

Just bought the game + all expansions in one package via steam weekend deal.

Its still downloading and I just want to know who you find the AI in this game.

For me the TW AI is very stupid on strategy map as well on tactical.

Is King Arthur more difficult/AI better?

Thanks for answers.

 

[unmerged(85137)]

The gameplay of King Arthur is quite different than Total War in some ways, so AI flaws are actually less noticeable than in Total War I think (where the bad AI was very, very annoying).

That said, the AI is actually quite good as far as I can tell. The AI can pull off some very impressive shit in the battle mode...For example, it uses spells to bust holes in your lines to rush cavalry through and get at your archers. It will quickly respond to flanking attempts, keep pikemen back to protect archers when you have more cavalry, etc... You can't just utterly humiliate a strong AI army with no losses like you could in TW.

 

[calmon]

Thanks a lot!

Is there any trick to unlock "very hard" without playing through the whole campaign. I don't want waste time on "hard" if i could play v. hard.

Also makes "weaken archers" option the game more difficult (good thing) or easier ( which would be bad for me)?

 

[unmerged(85137)]

The game is plenty difficult as it is. You would fail horribly if you were to actually were to attempt to play very hard from the start... My guess is that you're vastly overestimating how good you are at a game you've never played...Or you think that this is a Total War game, which it is not.

As for weaker archers...That depends. It's a good thing when the enemy fields is fielding more/better archers, it's a bad thing when you are fielding archers. It doesn't really necessarily make it harder or easier. It's there because, to compensate for all the magic, weather and terrain that exists just to nullify archers, archers in the open during daytime are really, really powerful...too powerful in some peoples' views.

 

[calmon]

Well I always play on highest difficult levels and I play a lot so its really nothing special. I can't remember any game which was really difficult - and TA is not a game I played a lot - other than the very first samurai game.

Thanks a lot for the archer answer. I try to find out the unlock "feature" on the steam king arthur forum.

 

[unmerged(257014)]

The AI is very good, i agree with Demonic Spoon the AI responds fast an plays really good with the cavalry, in some battles they totally flank my archers. However this is a RPG game so the builds of your heroes change the difficult of the battles from very hard to very easy later in game (one hero can wipe most of the enemy army with the right build and spell combinations)

At the beginning of the campaign human archers can be a problem, but once you learn how to use Fog of Avalon and Curse of Shadows they will be a joke

 

[unmerged(242988)]

AI is exelent. Significantly better than in Total War games. Better AI than King Arthur one is only in Blizzard games.

 

[Neocore_Kate]

Hi calmon,

As Demonic Spoon just said, it's really different from the TW series and we got a lot of criticism that the game is way too hard even on the easier levels - and some experienced players were among them too. Although it might be possible that it's no problem for you. But, the game has a steep lurning curve - most players restarted their game after playing through Book 1 (which is more or less the built-in tutorial) - so I'd recommend that you try the game at first on Hard, and if you feel it's too easy for you after a couple of hours, ask for a saved game near the end of the campaign from any fans of the game and after completing the game once - Very Hard will unlock for you.

Hope this helped.

 

[Kjeld]

The AI is very good (cavalry will flank your archers or use curse of shadows agains them, for example ...), but with the scores and scores of options that magic gives you, you have to be warned that there are some "exploitable" tactics that can win you battle consistently once you have a good grasp of game mechanics. For exemple, if you play old faith, you can easily outplay the AI with travel magic spells.Your enjoyment of the game will vary depending on whether you'll exploit them or not That been said, if you "play fair", the AI will be a very good opponent, and give you a run for your money Leagues ahead of TW imho.

EDIT : And also keep in mind that the game is heavily story driven, which mean that what armies and which opponents you will face are as much determined by your progression in the storyline as by opponents playing by strictly "economical" rules and actual diplomacy. That is something that may take some time to adjust coming from a TW perspective (but I think it is very good once you understand that the game has some kind of RPG-style boss battles, like in *roleplaying* wargame).
The expansions (saxons and druids) will give you a more traditional (sandbox campaign) experience.

 

[Mythrell]

Weak archers would most likely make the game more difficult. At least I do have tendency to wipe out large portions of enemy forces with archers. Then again, AI does the same given the chance so it might weaken it a bit too.

Game seems to be challenging at Normal difficult, atleast for me. Then again, I do enjoy lazy gaming over hard core challenge.

 

[ch0pper]

I guess it would be redundant to add that AI is quite skilled in tactical battles. But it's true
On the strategic map is becomes more predictable but it's not doing stupid things.

I'd suggest you play the game with "weaker archers" ON. Reason being you will enjoy the usefulness of more unit types, i.e. light cavalry and light infantry. Archers are still deadly against them but they have at least a fleeing chance.

 

[Roghain]

I beg to differ on the AI handling battles once progressing into book 2.

Once the player understands magic and uses it to the fullest, the AI seems to be unable to counter proper use of magic. If you look ate the relative/comparative power gauge at the battle start screen that supposedly gives you an indication of how tough a battle should be. But it isn't because of magic. Look at the difference in outcomes between autoresolve and hands-on resolve. It goes to show that either the autoresolve is broken (I don't think so because when two equally powerful armies based on power gauge duke it out, is should be a close call which it usually turns out to be) or the battle AI is unable to cope with magic.

Yes, the AI uses decent enough tactics for its 'common' troops, but that is moot as magic will turn the tide of the battle always. When I started playing and didn't understand the potential of heroes and magic, I got defeated more than once and as such the AI is pretty good, but now I grasp the proper use of magic, the AI is just feeble.

Of course, it could just mean that magic is overpowered and might need to be toned down. Maybe a 'weaker magic' option like the 'weaker archers' option? I daresay that would make for more balanced, interesting and challenging battles.

 

[rk47]

I agree on magic needed to be toned down.
Dragon's breath is unfair.
Lightning Bolt.
Curse of shadows.

Turn magic into less of direct offense but more supporting roles.

 

[Kjeld]

Weaker magic option is only available in the expansions, it would be great if we could have the option in the main campaign too.

I still stand by the fact that the AI is good on the tactical level, and I feel it is quite competent with magic too (they will use curse of shadows on archers or clumped troops, they will reactively use defensive spells against your offensive abilities ...).

The big problem the AI has is that you can customize a strong, synergistic army with hand picked hero skills and artifacts, while the opponent use more or less random armies (or thematic armies, in case of quest battles), with often only 1-2 heroes with a "strange" assortment of skills. So, even if their army is potentially stronger (with higher level higher tier units), your deck is actually pretty much stacked in your favor, and a competent (for a computer) AI can only do so much to mitigate the advantage you have.

And if there is a spell that need to be toned down, it is Soul Mirror If you use it at the second after starting the battle, the enemy will be completely shutdown (if you built your hero around mana and mana regeneration).

 

[unmerged(242988)]

Some battles can be played on maps in areas where spells can not be used. Tactics really differs and seems to be more honest.

Agree that AI does not use some spells (Hold for ex) which must. But AI is significantly stronger from the beginning and making Blizzard games AI type may make things for most players not difficult but impassable.

Too many complains for high difficulty.

 

[unmerged(1133)]

Actually the AI has one extremely major fault. Without it the battles could be much more challenging (if you don't use the cheating tactics with the sidhe roads spell of course - the game actually is finished when you start to use it).
So - the fault - in TW there is a defender and an attacker. The attacker has limited time to win and the defender just have to - well - to defend itself. In this game the AI always try to attack. At the same time due to the starting locations the AI usually quickly grabs more VL then the player and now just have to use its advantage. But nah - they always start to attack - and as in the real battles the defenders always has the easier task. Very typical example is the attack of Lodres. The AI quickly grabs two VL against a single VL for the player. And just by sitting on the high ground will slaughter most of the players troops. But instead the AI sends an unit after unit in the narrow streets making it hard for the human player to lose even a single soldier.
As for the extreme difficulty which the players complain - this is due to the scripted difficulty. If you don't know what follows, when it follows and how to counter it you suddenly are in position to use musketeers against WWII tanks.

 

[Roghain]

Bloody hell, Handel... there's tanks inm there too? I sure hope the druids didn't sell them Pzkw Vs to the Seelie court.

That aside, I think the point of the AI being always on the attack is proven the best when attacking strongholds. In stead of sitting tight on the high position, waiting for the attacker to squeeze through the narrow winding streets (Curse of shadows anyone?) they rush out in two groups and get mauled in the same narrow streets they SHOULD be defending.

Obviously, we shouldn't be complaining. This so far is the best fantasy mass battle engine. Now all I need to live happily ever after is a Greyhawk Wars conversion.

 

[unmerged(1133)]

Bloody hell, Handel... there's tanks inm there too? I sure hope the druids didn't sell them Pzkw Vs to the Seelie court.

Most common question asked by the new players is "How the f*ck may I finish the Deepwood quest" in the beginning!!!" and "How the hell to fight against the ghost armies?!"

Edit: Probably the musketeers have much better chance against the WWII tanks. At least the tank crews can die from laugh

 

[unmerged(270113)]

The AI always goes for the closest Victory Locations at the start of any battle, but as the battles heats up, the AI seems to lose interest in trying to hold their Victory Locations. With the right amount of calvary units (4+) in your army, winning by Victory Locations becomes too easy. You just need the right amount of archers and foot soldiers to bring the enemy into melee battles. Using some offensive spells seem to draw the opposition into battle. I come accustomed to leaving my calvary on standby (hiding) and once the melee starts and all opposition are drawn in, I then send my calvary to eat up the Victoria locations. I think this is a shame because Victoria Location is a fantastic aspect of strategy for a game of this type. It would be nice to see the AI be more tough in holding key points. Make the player work for it because now it does not seem as rewarding with the above strategy. King Arthur is otherwise a phenomenal game and I have racked in over 60 hours and my interest is still very high due to all the different concepts packed into this game. I hope King Arthur 2 sticks to the roots and builds on the Victory location aspect of the game. It would be great to see even more specific objectives in winning battles. (i.e. Holding a building, protecting a princess or valuable unit, capture and surround a unit type, or obliterate a special unit type...etc...) I think the AI could benefit from more specific goals. I have been playing PC games for over 25 years and King Arthur sits in my top ten games of all time. The best AI to date is still held by Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

 

[Roghain]

Of course, this would be off topic, but when it comes to good AI I have never seen anything remotely like the AI in the first Dark Reign game (the sequel was horrible). Funny thing was that in the editor you could actually see how it 'decided' and that seemd rather straightforward.

Sorry to hijack!