tactics ai not fun to play

[Evi1o4ek]

all AI tactics come down to spamming shooters and cavalry. This is not a problem because you can always overspam with cavalry. But interest in such a game is lost at 0.
Even in games like total war, the Medival AI was smarter. What do you think about this? Why have the SA developers degenerated so much?

[Ashley]

AI recruits what they have the building to recruit. Once AI starts losing main regions they start making stupid stacks. Like Karl Franz and 19 archers.

[Ashardalon]

hasnt been a unit i didnt see in enemy armys at some point
either yea you reduced them to one town and the archery building is all thats left
or you have a mod breaking things somewhere

[Evi1o4ek]

Originally posted by Ashardalon:

hasnt been a unit i didnt see in enemy armys at some point
either yea you reduced them to one town and the archery building is all thats left
or you have a mod breaking things somewhere

There really is a mod, but it’s exclusively for ogres. Another mod is respec+rename legendary lord. I don't think they break anything.
fairy lord
3 paladins. 1-2 catapults. 8 shock cavalry units with silver and gold veterancy and 6 riflemen with rank 9 gold.
Before that, I fought against the light elves, there were just arrows there. It just infuriates me, I want to fight infantry against infantry.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Ashley:

AI recruits what they have the building to recruit. Once AI starts losing main regions they start making stupid stacks. Like Karl Franz and 19 archers.

But then the AI also likes to spam 19 archer armies when they have 20 settlements.

[Whatever100500]

Eh, as a player, 19 archers can be a viable stack. Checkerboard them, tank with Karl Franz and you'd do ok. I'd prefer having a few more melee units (still 2/3rds to 3/4th ranged) and ideally add a mage/other heroes, but I've seen simple all-ranged stacks do alright for streamers.

It's just how recruitment works in the game. For most factions hiring extremely homogeneous armies of 1-2 basic units makes A LOT of sense even for player. The real fail is in how AI uses said army.

For HE/WE specifically, not having most of your army as archers is just stupid, at least early on. They do have best archers by significant margin. Use that advantage!

[Triple G]

Imho HE archers aren´t really good. Except for the sisters of Avelorn. The WE archers are way better, but they aren´t good either. I heard Kislev has the best archers in the game. And i rate shades as really good.

And if anything fails one could always default back to a lord with healing, who can solo any army.

Originally posted by Evi1o4ek:

all AI tactics come down to spamming shooters and cavalry. This is not a problem because you can always overspam with cavalry. But interest in such a game is lost at 0.
Even in games like total war, the Medival AI was smarter. What do you think about this? Why have the SA developers degenerated so much?

In MTW2 the recruitment was different, as not all units were available. There were recruitment times and replenishment times - and the AI usually fields archers and basic units, as they would never upgrade their settlements after a certain point, because that AI couldn´t handle money, and there was no fix - so they went bankrupt. WIth like a million deficit, which means they would never again in the gametime recover from it, as they wouldn´t disband units also, which they don´t do here as well, but now it gets better money buffs, and i guess the budget is somehow split between buildings, army recruitment and upkeep.

And for AI stacks - it´s imho the reason i play on very hard usually, because them they have better stacks. Usually. On normal or hard they´re not good. Downside is the army spam which makes the game tedious after the mid-game. But then again the stacks are usually 4-8 single entities, the rest mixed, or all ror units which are available, against the same legendary lords all over again. Not repetitive at all...

[Chuckawookie]

People who say AI was better in the past haven't played games from the past. It's objectively false.

[Evi1o4ek]

I don't really care about the stack. I'm just annoyed by the "all in" with which the AI ​​plays. The ones that the computer does are shoot at the lord with arrows and try to kite with cavalry spam if it doesn’t work out and everything starts again. The game turns into some kind of nonsense where the AI ​​is trying to outsmart you at the eSports level. Well, that's not exactly what I expect from a single-player game. I want large-scale battles and not a game of hit and run.

It’s just that in no normal army anyone would form an army in this way. This is a purely game situation and it does not add cinematography to a single-player game.

[Whatever100500]

Originally posted by Triple G:

Imho HE archers aren´t really good. Except for the sisters of Avelorn. The WE archers are way better, but they aren´t good either. I heard Kislev has the best archers in the game. And i rate shades as really good.

HE/WE have best early archers. Best range and accuracy. Nothing you could afford to build and pay upkeep for in large amounts early game comes close. Shades/Akshinas can only be used in limited numbers in early armies due to high upkeep.

Sisters are the best stationary archers (as opposed to fire on the move waywatchers) in game. But it's still best to mix them with basic HE archers for cost efficiency and recruit time minimization (can't global recruit sisters quickly, HE don't have that many local recruit slots).

Shades are great, but you need a general with Shadowdart/Barbstorm + xbow upgrade tech to make them worth their price. Otherwise darkshards just beat them with sheer cost efficiency and reliability (Darkshards have more base ammo and more ways to improve it, Shades run dry quickly).

Akshinas are actually more important for early Kislev than Shades for early DE. Unlike Darkshards, Kossars are not AP so you NEED a mix of Akshinas and Kossars for early armies.
But Kislev has ♥♥♥♥ economy, so while mid-game DE can spam Shades, mid-game Kislev can't spam Akshinas.

Kislev kossars have too much of their power budget invested in melee. Their shooting performance is one of worst (very large calibration area, check on twwstats). And if you trigger their unbreakable passive, you've already taken too much damage. So it doesn't come into play most of the time. It's great on garrison reinforcements though.

[Triple G]

Originally posted by Whatever100500:

HE/WE have best early archers. Best range and accuracy.

HE archers have like no armor piercing. They are like goblin archers, but with longer range and better accuracy. Darkshards with shields are good early game archers. They shred. And the silver shields make up for the lack of range. WE archers also have like 5 times the armor piercing of HE archers, on top of having poison arrows. These two are perhaps the best early game archers. Besides Groms archers with buffs, or Sharsniks archers with direct damage buff, but night goblins aren´t really very early game and they have stalk, which means the range doesn´t matter too much...

But HE archers will have a hard time to bring down a melee lord with high armor, or dwarfs, or anything with decent armor. WE archers are good - and the T1 ones are their best archers, too. Poison, range and damage, with okay enough armor piercing.

And it´s somehow unfun if You have long range archers, but the whole army gets wiped by a single melee lord or hero.

[Whatever100500]

Yes, and what are you fighting in early campaign as HE? Other HE, Slaanesh and vampirates for the most part. None of whom have decent armor. Lack of AP on early archers is only an issue for Imrik who has to fight dwarves/chorfs. But then again, early chorfs are mostly labourers/hobgobbos and early dwarves usually lack artillery to be a real threat (just kite the slowpokes).

DE darkshards are great, no question about that. It's just AP isn't impactful vs low tier enemies and low range makes sieges quite a bit more tedious than what HE/WE deal with. But DE economy starts strong and grows fast, so there is that.

WE hagbane GG have 7 AP vs 3 on HE ones. That's a big improvement, but they are more expensive, and WE economy starts very slow (though it does become good eventually, unlike Kislev).

HE need to rush Sisters to solve AP ranged issue by midgame. Best done by playing Avelorn, since Alariel starts with 1 unit and can build them at tier 3. Harder for other HE, but then again other lords than Alariel are strong combatants themselves and can duel enemy lords just fine (especially Tyrion). Or just have OP initial army, in case of Alith Anar.

[Evi1o4ek]

Originally posted by Whatever100500:

Yes, and what are you fighting in early campaign as HE? Other HE, Slaanesh and vampirates for the most part. None of whom have decent armor. Lack of AP on early archers is only an issue for Imrik who has to fight dwarves/chorfs. But then again, early chorfs are mostly labourers/hobgobbos and early dwarves usually lack artillery to be a real threat (just kite the slowpokes).

DE darkshards are great, no question about that. It's just AP isn't impactful vs low tier enemies and low range makes sieges quite a bit more tedious than what HE/WE deal with. But DE economy starts strong and grows fast, so there is that.

WE hagbane GG have 7 AP vs 3 on HE ones. That's a big improvement, but they are more expensive, and WE economy starts very slow (though it does become good eventually, unlike Kislev).

HE need to rush Sisters to solve AP ranged issue by midgame. Best done by playing Avelorn, since Alariel starts with 1 unit and can build them at tier 3. Harder for other HE, but then again other lords than Alariel are strong combatants themselves and can duel enemy lords just fine (especially Tyrion). Or just have OP initial army, in case of Alith Anar.

it's actually simple. need to gather cavalry. 15-16 detachments of two armies and lead them side by side.

[Goose]

AI gets worse every total war game singe medieval 2