filtered

>>2464117
maybe don't use the cheat mod zoomer

most AI mods are placebo if they don't touch the engine
lol

The mod was not good enough.
Last time I played DAC AGO the ai protected the general.

>>2464117
Shit mod.
In well-designed mods the bodyguards are so OP they can charge headfirst into high quality spearmanii and still win.

>>2464263
>in well-designed mods generals become Warhammer like Übermenschen
the absolute state of old fags

>>2464117
are you implying total war AI has gotten any better since?

>>2464366
Yeah, I think that's a very common view about tw AI.

>>2464407
>Yeah, I think that's a very common view about tw AI
Certainly not here or anywhere else outside their curated reddit

>>2464615
In later tw games reinforcing AI armies will actually try to link up. That alone blows med2 out of the water.

>>2464407
>>2464740
Lol. No I don't think it is.

>>2464744
Then I don't know how to decide this. I could write a long list of things later games AI does better but I presume that would be reddit.

>>2464740
>In later tw games reinforcing AI armies will actually try to link up
and in doing so, completely breaks the first army's formation and exposes their backs
it's actually a feature that made the ai worst

File: 1785004226040618s.jpg (2 KB, 80x80)

2 KB JPG

You'd think that with all that AI progress and it being put in everything, we'd at least get some for vidya that can feasibly challenge a human player, but clearly i'm asking for too much.

>>2464777
Why is that globe wearing a thong?

>>2465282
AI is ass.

>>2464777
Sid was right and players DON'T want a good AI. They want to FEEL (not be) smart. It's basically an elaborate puzzle game about solving the enemy's predictable scripts.
If you want a challenge you play multiplayer.

>>2466526
Yep. There are very few strategy gamers who like losing imo. Even in Paradox games where losing can create an interesting story people still hate it.

Save scumming is also a huge ass problem. I bet 99% of the time when people hate a game it’s because they’ve save scummed so fucking much that the game is literally replaying the same moment over and over again. It’s why in paradox games whenever I start a war I create 1 save at the beginning of the war just in case the game crashes and turn off autosave until the war ends.

>>2464777
Have they made an AI able to finish a pokemon game yet?

>>2464777
AoE2 has like perfect micro AI scripts that are a challenge for pros and even the baseline one in DE plays in a fairly human-like manner without cheating well enough to be challenging to average players.
It can be done even without machine learning tools, most just don't bother. Probably because there's a pretty narrow use case for people who want a fair dynamic opponent but won't go online for whatever reason. Maybe for niche games where the player base is too small to reliably find opponents of appropriate skill level, but those are the least equipped to spend time on it either way.

>>2466526

I have thousands of hours across a few paradox games, some total war, and civ

I can tell you my personal gripe is when the AI doesn't seem to understand it's own role/objectives and just spams at the player/does unrelated nonsense

In Civ, this is most apparent in the way the AI has changed between III and VI (never played VII)

Even in SMAC, the AI had fairly visible personality, each their own quirks and playstyles

In Total War its usually just straight up all the same, massive free stacks and declare war on you if you are bordering and have more than X number of provinces with no diplo unless they have already clearly lost

In Paradox, the AI is a much more opaque series of decisions, but mission trees and event pop ups help keep it a bit socialized

Across all three the big immersion breaker/disappointment is when they break suspension of disbelief and start making every decision based around being a pain in your ass to the detriment of their supposed priority to govern and grow

For me at least, I want to see gameplay that carries a functionality akin to how real life decision making is made, and that constitutes good AI in my opinion

It should feel like there are responsive actions against existential threats, but "dumb" AI is just an automatic pitching machine soft pitching projectiles at you on +100% speed on the hardest difficulty instead of an experienced autocrat trying to maintain a balance of power

A good AI that can manage its long term prospects in such a way that is still a threat without +100% manpower recovery speed would be advanced beyond all capacity to budget for, so we won't get it but it's still something to strive for

when you accept a shit tier cheating AI higher difficulties become a sinkhole of degenerate strategies that involve cheesing base +modifiers, ignoring entire mechanical systems, and general playing a sad exercise in theorycrafting

>>2466526
I think they want good AI but they want the AI to have personalities and notable flaws they can exploit as well. They want to feel like they're playing against a character and not an unthinking machine.

>>2466526
nah. #1 issue with total war games is that it is completely trivial to beat any enemy army if you have a full army yourself, since the ai doesn't know how to play, and overworld domination is just a question of time and nothing else, since the ai doesn't know how to play. it feels tiresome and pointless. your only decisions are ways to trade effort for time. a threatening ai would truly breathe life into these games.

>>2468799
Shogun 2 improved battle AI somewhat at least for player defense battles. I couldn't enjoy Empire/Napoleon due to how retarded the battle AI was. In Shogun 2 they at least do a few bare minimums like if you want to flank, either the flanking force sit in the rear line or hide in trees and only come out once the enemy have committed, if your flanking force isn't hidden/behind your main line, AI will send what it believes to be enough force to take it out head on.

Then Rome 2 shatted the bed where the AI can't even comprehend attacking an unwalled settlement on multiple sides at once. AI don't even react if you have a force on the flanks a ways away even though they have the numbers to send off some units to prevent wrap arounds.

FotS AI seems retarded than base S2 or maybe AI weren't tuned to react to gunfire as they can be rather passive in some cases iirc even walking while being under fire.

>>2468860
but the vast majority of players DON'T want a threatening AI

>>2466526
It's part of the same issue. Yes, TW players don't want to play against a human where they could actually lose the whole game. They just want a better challenge to their campaigns. Like having to adapt different strategies instead of doing the same thing, or not being able to predict AI moves every single time. This requires a much more capable AI to achieve than TW games have to offer.

>>2468919
The game should have a babby mode for casual shitters.

>>2466526
That's retarded.
Players want good AI. They don't want perfect AI for every single battle. If they actually gave a shit about AI(they don't) the perfect setup is various AI levels depending on the enemies general. To make it easy lets say there are 4 tiers.
>1 No general/useless general.
what_are_tactics.mp3.exe.pdf.bat
>2. Average general
Current AI.
>3. Great general
Skilled AI that is capable of actually using a strategy that isn't just mass charge, flanks, protects from flanks, ect. Makes few mistakes. Difficult but fair. Don't expect to ever win with a weak army if they have a strong one.
>4, God among men
The Napoleon. Nothing but mistakeless completely optimal plays at all times. Nigh unbeatable unless severely outnumbered or attritioned to death.

By tying it to generals it creates a scenario where you can both encounter the do you have a brain AI and the don't fight Napoleon AI against the same nation. It would make it personalized, you would learn the names of the skilled generals and use spies to find and avoid them unless you're ready or hell even delay your entire campaign until they are dead in one way or another. Or maybe you're a bad enough dude to fight Napoleon. Want to risk it?
It would be an amazing idea, but it will never happen.

>>2478298
He's saying that "good AI" would mimic a human player who exploits the meta and actually tries wining the game. Whereas I just want an AI that better simulates the behavior of a historical kingdom managing its diplomacy and military and fighting battles. That would include anticipating the player's actions and using its armies and units in a much more intelligent way. But it does not include things a human player would do to win like cheesing exploits, stacks of Italian militia, and other shit that would take me out of the setting.

This is my first total war game, and I'm trying to win as HRE but I'm having trouble pushing other empires in after the initial few turns of stealing Rebel settlements. They all gang up on me at like turn 20 and fighting on literally every side is hard. I don't really know the best way to make macro movements around the map, should I have 1 really big 20/20 army that I use to take over settlements 1 at a time with the rest of my forces playing defense back home, or should I have multiple smaller armies (like 5-11) that push down multiple settlements at once? With 1 large doomstack it gets worn down after fighting again and again and again on the way to the enemy's settlements but the smaller armies feel like they would get attacked by the enemy's defending doomstack and won't be able to win

File: 1778932162941995.jpg (130 KB, 1024x916)

130 KB JPG

>>2466748
Yeah, it was kino

>>2464770
No the first army in TW:WH3 at least will just hold its ground if it feels like it doesn't need to attack as it waits for reinforcements.