I Actually think the Rome AI is pretty good....or the story of my Kingdom :D :: Jon Shafer's At the Gates General Discussions

Store Page

Jon Shafer's At the Gates

All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos News Guides Reviews

Jon Shafer's At the Gates > General Discussions > Topic Details

Jimib4158

26 Nov, 2019 @ 5:37am

I Actually think the Rome AI is pretty good....or the story of my Kingdom :D

As an avid war-gamer, face it....no AI is really that good versus a human. As a human you see the AI tendencies and adjust, the AI cant adjust. The best i have ever found is a game called unity of command, a pure war game,but even it can be fooled.
With that being said, ive found the rome AI to be as good as the one in Civ 5, which was decent, especially compared to the pathetic one in Civ 6
I dont have a lot of experience to compare this AI too, only my one campaign vs Rome, but the AI fought well against me. Clay, who posts here (which i do respect his opinion) said it was poor, I didnt expect much, but actually found it good. Maybe only because i dont have a lot to compare, but i can explain my war experience in 2 phases.

1 first phase- I havent tried to hide i used an exploit to get out of the mere survival phase of this game. I was repeatitly pillaging a close rivals camp for the 100 gold. Much to my shock,(about the end of my mere survival phase) a huge roman legion of 4 legions shows up. At this point im no match for the power of Rome. He could have crushed me like a fly had he attacked in full force. I did have 2 men-at-arms tho so i wasnt completely defenseless. I wasnt at war, at this point. He did a curious thing tho. He started pillaging the SAME camp i was, depriving me of my lucrative income. I couldnt have this, so in winter I declared war.
I won this first part of the campaign only by using the harsh weather rules to my advantage,I was close to my supply areas, he wasnt, and suffered those same harsh supply rules.

2, Second phase- I knew i had to get in a better position. A Roman fort just below me seemed the logical place to continue my war. I sent my 2 men at arms down to take the fort, while i built a hunter (easiest to build) to continue my 100 gold pillage income. The fort i took easily, however my first guess of not leaving it proved right. Hes sent 4 waves of multiple legions to retake his fort. using the same harsh supply rules (i was usually in supply,he wasnt) nd by the end of this campaign it was clear he failed.It was a valiant attempt tho and had it really happened many bard tales would have come from this event in history.

By the end tho it was clear i would win, i was now a full fledged kingdom, complete with my first two knights and the Kingdom of Jimdom was rising....the age of Rome was ending.

End of this tale :D

Last edited by Jimib4158; 26 Nov, 2019 @ 5:59am

< >

Showing 1-2 of 2 comments

clayffo

26 Nov, 2019 @ 9:27am

I have had a few skirmishes mostly with the Huns but sometimes the romans attack.

However it’s not good ai . You’ve just triggered an attack script. No tactics are used and you can bait them into a disadvantageous position.

The expectations and what occurs in civ 5 Is the computer is doing all the background work ( diplomacy, economy, infrastructure, expanding, and wonders. It will also build reinforcements to extend the fight)

This ai system is dead on arrival . None of the Civs ( including Rome) do anything other than move troops around. They are no more economically or strategically positioned at turn 400 than they were at turn 1.

This is one of the cornerstone problems with the game

Jimib4158

26 Nov, 2019 @ 10:48am

Originally posted by clayffo:
I have had a few skirmishes mostly with the Huns but sometimes the romans attack.

However it’s not good ai . You’ve just triggered an attack script. No tactics are used and you can bait them into a disadvantageous position. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes exactly what i did, baiting them into a trap, but i do the same in Civ 5. How is that different? so your saying the Civ 5 AI is cr@p too, many hard-core wargamers would agree, but i dont quite go that far as i explained earlier why in the first part of this post.
An attack script versus a full on combat AI?...Not following you there exactly, if your point is correct (which i dont have enough coding ability to know) then surely that is all that Civ 6 is using too because its the worst ive ever seen

The expectations and what occurs in civ 5 Is the computer is doing all the background work ( diplomacy, economy, infrastructure, expanding, and wonders. It will also build reinforcements to extend the fight)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and still its easy to bait the Civ 5 AI into obvious traps a human would see so I wonder where are you going with this? Yeah i did see that he didnt seem to build anymore units, But both Civ 5 and 6 fall into that same trap building wonders (under-defending itself) when i am in the middle of taking them down. Civ 6 being the worst at under defending himself.
Civ 5 being only slightly better really, but not as horrible as 6

This ai system is dead on arrival . None of the Civs ( including Rome) do anything other than move troops around. They are no more economically or strategically positioned at turn 400 than they were at turn 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm no ive seen them come after me and pillage my farm, perhaps its gotten an improvement since you saw last? But i agree their attack plan is lacking, but its never been that good in Civ like games since the doomstacks...........do you remember those. I liked them, because it covered up the computer AI's glaring combat weakness, and made things challenging.I liked them, but i seem to be in the very small minority as most were glad they were gone and demanded, instead, a better combat AI. Imagine that we never got one just as I predicted :/ Bring them back if you want a challenge i still say

This is one of the cornerstone problems with the game------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More like the weakness of all civ like games, jack-of-all-trades....Master of nothing
All civ like combat AI's seem to suck, versus a pure war-game like 'Battle of Waterloo'
Hey tho this is still a work in development right?....or am i wrong there and this is the finished product?