Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

AI cheats ruin this game

sqboy1sqboy1 Posts: 23Registered Users
AI CHEATS ruin any strategic gameplay this game has to offer. Over and over again, the AI cheats ruin any chance to play this game with strategy. Instead of actually calculating a strategic move, you are forced to play "trick the AI w/ ambush or lighting strike"

I'll describe my latest adventure. At war w/ lizardmen and norsca. Both have like 5 settlements. I beat mazda and instead of chasing him mindlessly across the map, I turn my attention to he fullstack norsca next to me and take him out. 4 turns later, lizardman pop up with 3 carnos and 4 feral stagadons plus a bunch of saurus. Its turn 35 BTW.... I get smashed. This is on normal BTW.

Instead of a fun/engaging strategy game, it is a slog of save scumming and cheesing the AI to win. How hard would it be to make a mode that doesnt give the AI 30 cheats to win?
«1

Comments

  • dreagondreagon Senior Member Posts: 1,910Registered Users
    It's called rites.
    "The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman." H.P. Lovecraft
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 801Registered Users
    Just a normal game mechanic, you can do it as LM as well.
  • sqboy1sqboy1 Posts: 23Registered Users
    Its not just that one example. It happens all the time.

    Let me explain my game before it. By turn 100 I am kemri, invading the HE, and for no reason at all, the WE and krog-gar declare war on me w/ + 20 relations. Despite non-aggression pacts

    The game before that, I was the vampires and the game is going fine. I am conquering the empire smaller provinces and am ready for the showdown with the empire.... they have 7 settlements and 5 **** DOOMSTACKS. I could easily cheese ambushes and win, but that is just cheap and lame.

    The game before that, I was Lyberas and the lizardman (Zlatan?), from across the ocean declare war on me for no reason and send 2 doomstacks directly toward me. BTW, they had 3 settlements

    I love the gameplay, but wow this game shoots itself in the foot with its **** cheating ai
  • RiskafishRiskafish Posts: 322Registered Users
    The player is smarter than the AI so the choices to balance the game are...
    • Buff the AI
    • Debuff the player
    Anyone who thinks that the AI can be as good as the player needs to have a crack at coding then they will understand why its not realistic. You can play head to head campaign if you want a fairer challenge tough
  • sqboy1sqboy1 Posts: 23Registered Users
    I get it, it is impossible to code an AI advanced, but jesus can we back this up a bit. It is like they arent playing the same game is we are.

    It is almost like if you were playing checkers and the other player pieces start multiplying randomly and they start moving multiple times etc. it throws strategy out the window.
  • RiskafishRiskafish Posts: 322Registered Users
    edited November 10
    I personally am a big fan of unit caps like in tabletop. 3 special units, 3 rare units and so on. Atleast this would stop spams of giant dinosaurs xD. Army caps might also be goods.
  • sqboy1sqboy1 Posts: 23Registered Users
    May have to try that
  • dreagondreagon Senior Member Posts: 1,910Registered Users
    sqboy1 said:

    Its not just that one example. It happens all the time.

    Let me explain my game before it. By turn 100 I am kemri, invading the HE, and for no reason at all, the WE and krog-gar declare war on me w/ + 20 relations. Despite non-aggression pacts

    The game before that, I was the vampires and the game is going fine. I am conquering the empire smaller provinces and am ready for the showdown with the empire.... they have 7 settlements and 5 **** DOOMSTACKS. I could easily cheese ambushes and win, but that is just cheap and lame.

    The game before that, I was Lyberas and the lizardman (Zlatan?), from across the ocean declare war on me for no reason and send 2 doomstacks directly toward me. BTW, they had 3 settlements

    I love the gameplay, but wow this game shoots itself in the foot with its **** cheating ai

    1: What was your reliability? That can cause a serious breakdown of relations in a short time. +20 Relations is pretty much nothing, it's a neutral relationship that isn't going to stop an AI from attacking you if they think you are vulnerable.
    2: They probably were larger and have the other forces still hanging around from that time.
    3: Basically a combination of 1 and 2.

    What do you call a doomstack? Because you can have quite a few armies if they are mostly cheap units.
    "The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman." H.P. Lovecraft
  • sqboy1sqboy1 Posts: 23Registered Users
    1. I always am very reliable.
    2. I was power rank 1
    3. ?
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,390Registered Users
    @dreagon
    The problem with having more armies is that super nice mechanic called “supply lines” the more armies you have the Higher the upkeep costs of your units get. So having 3 chaff armies costs you more than having one Elite.

    Doomstacks are armies with oBly elite units because that’s way more cost effective. These armies normally show up around turn 50. You basically have like 6 Necrofex Collossi, 8 Dragons or 15 Phoenix Guard units in such an army what is:

    1. Unlorefull
    2. Annoying
    3. Boring
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 786Registered Users
    if the AI is not at war with anyone, it will go after the player as it has a natural bias against them. 20 positive relations(pretty much neutral) and them being in an alliance together with combined strength rank above yours could have been the deciding factor why they declared war, or they could have been invited to join by the HE.
    Always try to keep the AI busy, as it will sooner turn against you than other AI. AI is very simplistic in this game and not as buggy as people say, you can influence it's decisions if you more or less know what to expect to it. Not saying it's any good, but a lot of people discredit it and overlook the simple thought process the AI has.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Posts: 1,600Registered Users
    If the Ai didn't cheat this game would be very boring.
  • dreagondreagon Senior Member Posts: 1,910Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    @dreagon
    The problem with having more armies is that super nice mechanic called “supply lines” the more armies you have the Higher the upkeep costs of your units get. So having 3 chaff armies costs you more than having one Elite.

    Doomstacks are armies with oBly elite units because that’s way more cost effective. These armies normally show up around turn 50. You basically have like 6 Necrofex Collossi, 8 Dragons or 15 Phoenix Guard units in such an army what is:

    1. Unlorefull
    2. Annoying
    3. Boring

    Yup, that's what I consider doomstacks. But considering what OP describes and vaguely remembering other things he posted his definition of a doomstack is a full stack, regardless of quality. So the things he's describing using that standard are easy to explain. I'm also not sure if the AI is affected by supply lines. I doubt it.
    "The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman." H.P. Lovecraft
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Posts: 7,023Registered Users
    Yeah that rite is kinda messed up.

    IMO it needs to cost more, have a much longer cooldown, or just not be that good or something.

    Probably the single most OP rite in the game. I had last defenders down to a similar position with Queek, weren't too far into the game so my units were mostly clan rats and a few rat ogres... they popped that and rolled me back all the way back up the coast into Arachnos area before I could kill it. It took like... I think 6 full stacks to stop it (sequentially, not including slave stacks)? Then I had to redo ALL of that... took the same amount of time. Really made me mad. Then they did it AGAIN. Only that time I had halberd storm vermin and it only took 3 stacks -_-.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,352Registered Users
    On normal there's no need for save scumming or cheese. Sounds like you simply got out played.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • SephlockSephlock Posts: 1,563Registered Users

    On normal there's no need for save scumming or cheese. Sounds like you simply got out played.

    What if you've started alt-tabbing or switching to Rome: Total War on an ipad between turns and just didn't notice something?
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Posts: 7,023Registered Users
    Who are you talking to vanilla? taggggggz needed.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,352Registered Users
    Sephlock said:

    On normal there's no need for save scumming or cheese. Sounds like you simply got out played.

    What if you've started alt-tabbing or switching to Rome: Total War on an ipad between turns and just didn't notice something?
    That's a valid explanation for being out played. I'd also accept partner being significantly irked.
    Itharus said:

    Who are you talking to vanilla? taggggggz needed.

    I figure it's not needed when responding to the OP.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 6,474Registered Users
    It doesn’t mean that strategy goes out the window. Unless of course you mean that another strategy then comes in the same window and replaces the first.

    The higher up in difficulty you get it becomes all about trying to keep public order stable whilst using ambush, lightning strike and garrisons to fend off the enemy’s more numerous armies and then nicking territory at opportune moments.

    That said, when you don’t play an Order race currently it is even more of an uphill struggle. But if you’re playing on anything below Very Hard the relative lack of upkeep increases should give you plenty of armies to do what you want and the way you want to do it.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,221Registered Users
    sqboy1 said:

    4 turns later, lizardman pop up with 3 carnos and 4 feral stagadons plus a bunch of saurus.

    Ah yes, the Rite of Ferocity. It's the reason why I hated Rites when I first heard of them, they really need to replace that Rite with another effect, like reducing monster upkeep or something.
    It's even buggy, as the Lord it spawns with has no traits, so you actually spawn with a Lemon Lord. The randomness of the units doesn't help.
    Given how replenishment works, it's much more practical for the player to just spam cheap units in a stack and conquer stuff; spawning this Rite means you lose more money, waste time from other Rites, you get a Lemon Lord, and the monsters die faster. The only really useful thing about this Rite is a quick spawn of a full stack in the face of an attack...which is like 1% of the time ever since it spawns at the capital.

    Just another first-gen game design, being vanilla race, Hexoatl/ Last Defenders get the lamest iterations of Rites.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • KalistratKalistrat Junior Member Ukraine/DnipropetrovskPosts: 53Registered Users
    This is a fantasy world. This is a Warhammer universe.

    AI uses teleporters, summon army from warp.
    You may be thankful that a mechanic has not been implemented in which your units become demonic units (chaos troops).
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Posts: 872Registered Users
    You're supposed to have a huge advantage because you have a brain. Every AI in every video game needs cheats to be a challenge for any semi-proficient player.

    And the cheats on Normal are actually very small. The AI does not even get upkeep reduction, they pay the same for their units per turn as you. They only get a 30% discount on recruiting units.

    There's also no anti-player bias on Normal, that only exists on VH and L.
  • BeardedragonBeardedragon Member Posts: 1,364Registered Users
    the only problem i have with the AI and their cheats is a point im not sure we can avoid.

    the whole: we have less upkeep and higher income or whatever" than the player. that ,means they field these large armies they shouldnt otherwise be able to. while that point in and out of itself isnt a problem, as the AI needs more armies to be dangerous to the player, it does mean that hampering economic builds with agents is **** useless as the player.


    why bother smashing up an economic building to stop them from building units? doesnt matter. they will still recruit them due to cheats.


    but again can we avoid this? probably not, because if we do, the AI would not have any armies what so ever.
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Posts: 872Registered Users
    While the AI could and should certainly be better in many ways, it is also deliberately holding back in some other ways. It could easily use some available tools with devastating impact against the player, without cheating.

    Example 1: Agent use. As the player, I often recruit a large number of agents on the campaign map, and unleash a steady torrent of agent actions every turn. Assassinate and block, hinder replenishment, damage walls, all the time. If the AI's did the same, we'd not get a foot on the ground, it would totally cripple the player, without any cheating. But the AI is very restrained in their use of agents, because obviously it would totally kill the fun if they did the same I do.

    Example 2: Dodging in battle. Elite human players are very adept at dodging hostile magic spells, charges and artillery fire. With the AI's unlimited ability to see every attack and react to any number of actions simultaneously, it could easily dodge most artillery fire and hostile magic even better than any human, but using the same 'legal' tools. I think it even did that for a while until they took it out because players hated it. Again, the AI is holding back there and is going easy on us.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 6,474Registered Users

    While the AI could and should certainly be better in many ways, it is also deliberately holding back in some other ways. It could easily use some available tools with devastating impact against the player, without cheating.

    Example 1: Agent use. As the player, I often recruit a large number of agents on the campaign map, and unleash a steady torrent of agent actions every turn. Assassinate and block, hinder replenishment, damage walls, all the time. If the AI's did the same, we'd not get a foot on the ground, it would totally cripple the player, without any cheating. But the AI is very restrained in their use of agents, because obviously it would totally kill the fun if they did the same I do.

    Example 2: Dodging in battle. Elite human players are very adept at dodging hostile magic spells, charges and artillery fire. With the AI's unlimited ability to see every attack and react to any number of actions simultaneously, it could easily dodge most artillery fire and hostile magic even better than any human, but using the same 'legal' tools. I think it even did that for a while until they took it out because players hated it. Again, the AI is holding back there and is going easy on us.

    This. But obviously in the context of the current AI buffs to economy this holds even more true.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,472Registered Users
    I don't understand why 'the AI isn't as smart as a human, therefore needs to cheat' is seen as good point regarding the need for the player to be challenged. We can however agree on a few important things:

    Even with the recent introduction of AI-enhancing architecture to consumer computing hardware, AI that can challenge humans properly on a level playing-field is propriety, developed with more investment than goes into a single game and would still hog so much system resources that actually running a game alongside it might not be possible on even the best PC.

    So AI is expensive to develop, to license and to run on consumer hardware. Does this necessarily mean though that bargain-basement AI needs to cheat? Well people are going to define cheating in different ways: I'd say the AI having access to information that no human player does is an obvious one, where even statistical and economic buffs are debateable, which is how the 'AI needs to cheat' gets leverage because of the vague and fuzzy reasoning of 'yeah its cheating, but in a good way'.

    Some of the buffs though completely rule-out entire fields of strategy, such as isolation/starvation plays. Had these rulesets applied in a World War 2 version of Total War, the Allies wouldn't have been able to progress towards winning by cutting off Germany's supply of fuel. The Axis would have had two Panzer divisions always even with just Berlin left. I've complained a lot of times before: it used to be the case that you could win in a TW game by role-playing what leaders actually did. The mechanics made intuitive sense and there was some attempt at realistic outcomes. You could not role-play in a hypothetical Total War: WW2 as the Allies and win the way they did if the game followed the ruleset and game design that modern TW uses, such has been the decent into arcade-sludge.

    I think it's possible to make the games challenging even with a simplistic AI that does mostly what it's told. The problem is the AI can only do what it's told; what goes in is what comes out. I don't like the way the AI players the game, I don't like that when I watch CA staff play they do so in that same frentic style where units are just thrown away and any unit not used in a battle has been effectively wasted and you should have brought something else.
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Posts: 872Registered Users

    Some of the buffs though completely rule-out entire fields of strategy, such as isolation/starvation plays. Had these rulesets applied in a World War 2 version of Total War, the Allies wouldn't have been able to progress towards winning by cutting off Germany's supply of fuel.

    Is that so? The AI can only recruit units it has the buildings for. And they can only recruit a unit if they can pay for it. At a discounted rate, but they still have to pay.

    Every faction has a base income (I think like 2500 gold), including the player, which is always enough for one decent army. For the AI with upkeep reduction on higher difficulties, it's enough for two armies. But that's about all the AI can field if you reduce it to just one city. Unless they have lots of cash saved. Even then, they are limited by that they can only add a limited number of units per turn if they only have one region to recruit from.

    So, cutting off the AI's supplies works. If you take their best settlements, they can only recruit crappy new units. And if you cut off their income base, they do have trouble replacing their lost armies.
  • ron1404nlron1404nl Junior Member Posts: 191Registered Users
    If you don't want the ai to play with buffs, play on normal? I don't really see a problem here.

    Also tricking the ai, in battle the ai is easily outplayed unless on legendary & vh were the buffs are a lot bigger.

    You can always use exploits in the game if you like that (not sure why but it's an option).

    Also human tactics vs the ai is always a bit odd and almost impossible to perfectly code to make the ai act like a human.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,472Registered Users

    Some of the buffs though completely rule-out entire fields of strategy, such as isolation/starvation plays. Had these rulesets applied in a World War 2 version of Total War, the Allies wouldn't have been able to progress towards winning by cutting off Germany's supply of fuel.

    Is that so? The AI can only recruit units it has the buildings for. And they can only recruit a unit if they can pay for it. At a discounted rate, but they still have to pay.

    Every faction has a base income (I think like 2500 gold), including the player, which is always enough for one decent army. For the AI with upkeep reduction on higher difficulties, it's enough for two armies. But that's about all the AI can field if you reduce it to just one city. Unless they have lots of cash saved. Even then, they are limited by that they can only add a limited number of units per turn if they only have one region to recruit from.

    So, cutting off the AI's supplies works. If you take their best settlements, they can only recruit crappy new units. And if you cut off their income base, they do have trouble replacing their lost armies.
    If I run out of money, it has consequences that don't appear to affect the AI. I have yet to play a game where any signs that the AI is out of money appear. No matter what my economic and military advantage should be on-paper, the AI seems capable of extracting an undue cost in time and money in order to finish them off without resorting to cheese. Much of the challenge from modern TW as a result comes not from the AI trying to win with each individual faction for itself, but in trying to maximise the potential for the player to lose. We are not given any espionage options to see the AI treasury for the same reason unit cards do not show the Accuracy stat: it doesn't matter in the game as designed, so any strategic or tactical decisions that could relate to such information are excluded in favour of those the devs prefer.

    This is both an issue of the game balance in terms of giving the AI a chance, but also the way game design itself has focused more on helping the AI, resulting in the awful sieges we've had to put up with in Warhammer so far. It's at it's most absurd when you raze settlements; no AI faction ever seems to have any limits on how quickly they can set new ones up, even if they then sit on them undeveloped for ages.
  • dreagondreagon Senior Member Posts: 1,910Registered Users

    Some of the buffs though completely rule-out entire fields of strategy, such as isolation/starvation plays. Had these rulesets applied in a World War 2 version of Total War, the Allies wouldn't have been able to progress towards winning by cutting off Germany's supply of fuel.

    Is that so? The AI can only recruit units it has the buildings for. And they can only recruit a unit if they can pay for it. At a discounted rate, but they still have to pay.

    Every faction has a base income (I think like 2500 gold), including the player, which is always enough for one decent army. For the AI with upkeep reduction on higher difficulties, it's enough for two armies. But that's about all the AI can field if you reduce it to just one city. Unless they have lots of cash saved. Even then, they are limited by that they can only add a limited number of units per turn if they only have one region to recruit from.

    So, cutting off the AI's supplies works. If you take their best settlements, they can only recruit crappy new units. And if you cut off their income base, they do have trouble replacing their lost armies.
    If I run out of money, it has consequences that don't appear to affect the AI. I have yet to play a game where any signs that the AI is out of money appear. No matter what my economic and military advantage should be on-paper, the AI seems capable of extracting an undue cost in time and money in order to finish them off without resorting to cheese. Much of the challenge from modern TW as a result comes not from the AI trying to win with each individual faction for itself, but in trying to maximise the potential for the player to lose. We are not given any espionage options to see the AI treasury for the same reason unit cards do not show the Accuracy stat: it doesn't matter in the game as designed, so any strategic or tactical decisions that could relate to such information are excluded in favour of those the devs prefer.

    This is both an issue of the game balance in terms of giving the AI a chance, but also the way game design itself has focused more on helping the AI, resulting in the awful sieges we've had to put up with in Warhammer so far. It's at it's most absurd when you raze settlements; no AI faction ever seems to have any limits on how quickly they can set new ones up, even if they then sit on them undeveloped for ages.
    The AI also runs out of money. It just doesn't happen very often and usually they solve the issue within a few turns.
    "The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman." H.P. Lovecraft
Sign In or Register to comment.