So 2.0 has, on the whole, given major AI improvements, in as much as the AI is now much better at aggressively conquering and growing its state (we'll ignore the potential impact of the "revolt nerf" to the AI's performance here). But there are a number of issues which seem to be new or at least more prevalent and noticable now, which are badly holding the AI back in terms of performance (and again when I say this I mean in a "becoming powerful" sense rather than in the sense of providing a "historical" experience for the player).
The first one has already been quite widely reported, which is the AI's reluctance to properly fortify itself. The AI seems to very rarely construct and maintain what I would consider an appropriate number of forts. It doesn't seem to prioritise building forts in and near chokepoints, it doesn't attempt to shield its major cities from sacking, and it doesn't fortify borders with its powerful neighbours. The Seleucids give probably the best example of this in most game for geographical reasons; they make it extremely easy to raid much of their Babylonian and Persian heartland while they're at war on either their far Eastern or Western border. A nominal number of forts in key locations would provide a fantastic defense against such attacks but the AI doesn't do so.
A second recurring issue I've noticed seems to be a side effect of the AI's new aggression, which is that the AI regularly breaks alliances which are favourable towards them. For example in several of my recent games as various minor states in the Anatolia-Caspian-Cacasus region, I had AI Armenia decide to break our alliance because they decided that they wanted to conquer my lands instead (in all cases Armenia was slightly but not overwhelmingly larger than I was, and Armenia had other avenues for expansion other than directly into my territory). This sort of behaviour is fine under some circumstances, but in actuality this lead to Armenia having to face the Seleucids without my help (at which point I joined in carving them up of course). It feels like the AI is simply trying to grow its state as large as possible and ignoring the defensive value of a solid ally. The AI should have some sense of the fact that it's being threatened by a more powerful state and look for allies to help defend itself.
Related to the above, is that the AI almost never declares war on a more powerful state in an opportunistic way; it doesn't have a concept of being mortally threatened by the very existence of the neighbouring great power, and it just tries to grow as much as it can before it inevitably gets cut down. Minor states and regional powers should be intelligently positioning themselves towards the major and great powers, either aggressively, or submissively. And the major and great powers will almost never ally with a lesser state, even when it could be extremely useful to them (going back to Armenia again, they could easily be a major influencer in the outcome of the Diadochi wars but rarely seem to get involved because they just want to beat up minors instead)
The fourth is simply that the AI doesn't seem to do a particularly good job of converting its territory, which I'm assuming is down to not making very active use of the conversion / assimilation provincial policies, or perhaps due to choosing to use a large number of wrong-religion gods as part of its pantheon. This might explain why the roman AI is so much more effective at rapidly expanding and consolidating even when compared to other powerful states; it simply doesn't have to manage the religious conversion of most of its territory, wheras all the other major powers have very little same-religion territory as part of their natural sphere of influence. This seriously holds back the AI in terms of its tech and economic development.
There's plenty of other smaller issues but I feel that the above are the most relevant ones at the moment. The addition of integrated cultures and the levy system clearly help the AI to play more aggressively, and I feel that if the above points could be addressed somewhat, then the AI would be able to provide a truly decent challenge even if it will always be able to be outwitted in tactics and strategy by a competent player. The lack of forts, and issues with alliances, leave major powers with very obviously exploitable weak points, and the lack of conversion leads to a weak economy which amplifies its other shortcomings.
The first one has already been quite widely reported, which is the AI's reluctance to properly fortify itself. The AI seems to very rarely construct and maintain what I would consider an appropriate number of forts. It doesn't seem to prioritise building forts in and near chokepoints, it doesn't attempt to shield its major cities from sacking, and it doesn't fortify borders with its powerful neighbours. The Seleucids give probably the best example of this in most game for geographical reasons; they make it extremely easy to raid much of their Babylonian and Persian heartland while they're at war on either their far Eastern or Western border. A nominal number of forts in key locations would provide a fantastic defense against such attacks but the AI doesn't do so.
A second recurring issue I've noticed seems to be a side effect of the AI's new aggression, which is that the AI regularly breaks alliances which are favourable towards them. For example in several of my recent games as various minor states in the Anatolia-Caspian-Cacasus region, I had AI Armenia decide to break our alliance because they decided that they wanted to conquer my lands instead (in all cases Armenia was slightly but not overwhelmingly larger than I was, and Armenia had other avenues for expansion other than directly into my territory). This sort of behaviour is fine under some circumstances, but in actuality this lead to Armenia having to face the Seleucids without my help (at which point I joined in carving them up of course). It feels like the AI is simply trying to grow its state as large as possible and ignoring the defensive value of a solid ally. The AI should have some sense of the fact that it's being threatened by a more powerful state and look for allies to help defend itself.
Related to the above, is that the AI almost never declares war on a more powerful state in an opportunistic way; it doesn't have a concept of being mortally threatened by the very existence of the neighbouring great power, and it just tries to grow as much as it can before it inevitably gets cut down. Minor states and regional powers should be intelligently positioning themselves towards the major and great powers, either aggressively, or submissively. And the major and great powers will almost never ally with a lesser state, even when it could be extremely useful to them (going back to Armenia again, they could easily be a major influencer in the outcome of the Diadochi wars but rarely seem to get involved because they just want to beat up minors instead)
The fourth is simply that the AI doesn't seem to do a particularly good job of converting its territory, which I'm assuming is down to not making very active use of the conversion / assimilation provincial policies, or perhaps due to choosing to use a large number of wrong-religion gods as part of its pantheon. This might explain why the roman AI is so much more effective at rapidly expanding and consolidating even when compared to other powerful states; it simply doesn't have to manage the religious conversion of most of its territory, wheras all the other major powers have very little same-religion territory as part of their natural sphere of influence. This seriously holds back the AI in terms of its tech and economic development.
There's plenty of other smaller issues but I feel that the above are the most relevant ones at the moment. The addition of integrated cultures and the levy system clearly help the AI to play more aggressively, and I feel that if the above points could be addressed somewhat, then the AI would be able to provide a truly decent challenge even if it will always be able to be outwitted in tactics and strategy by a competent player. The lack of forts, and issues with alliances, leave major powers with very obviously exploitable weak points, and the lack of conversion leads to a weak economy which amplifies its other shortcomings.
- 1
- 1
