Why is the AI so inconsistent?

[Krosis Priest]

I've mostly been playing skirmish games against Hard AI recently, and some of the things I've noticed are... weird.

I quickly noticed that playing on land-only maps is significantly harder, as on mixed maps the AI tends to sink a lot of resources into ships (even when it makes no sense), and it seems to struggle with managing transports sometimes. But still, really weird things I've seen in recent days:
- I made myself a 2v2v2 skirmish. The map was land-only (lowlands I think), and "my team" got roflstomped because while my ally got invaded by a horde of fully upgraded paladins, he had basically no army. (My "neighbour" also started throwing legions with siege rams at me.) There was no reason for such a huge power difference.
- I just played a "free for all" kind of game on a Pacific Islands map - everyone starts on tiny islands, with two big islands full of resources in the middle. Two of the enemy AIs expanded quite effectively into the central island and put up a bit of a fight. I ended up building a wonder and I was confused where the other two are, so I started scouting and found them basically locked on their starting islands with an army and no transports. Villagers stood on the coast confused. (The other central island was UNTOUCHED.)

It does feel the AI is mostly better and smarter than in the classic editions, but it's really weird how sometimes it's surprisingly efficient, and sometimes utterly clueless in the same situation.

[Krosis Priest]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

- Scouts with 5 attack are a thing since forever. In Dark Age they have 3 attack whereas in Feudal, it increases to 5. You can look this up on the AoE wiki // Edit: I also double checked this with the old game, as I've got both Age of Kings and Conquerors installed. In Age of Kings, the attack indeed stays at 3, whereas in Conquerors 1.0c it gets an additional +2 in Feudal, so this is a thing for 22 years now.

Uuuuh. I need to check that. But I spent more time playing Conquerors than I have DE, and played DE quite a bit 1-2 years ago, and was very confused to see Scouts with 5 attack, ever. I am quite sure if that was a thing before, I would have noticed it... long ago.

This may apply to other games and yep, AoE 2 has its cheese as well with tower rushing but in general, this is just an untrue statement in case of Age 2 and just tells me that you're scared away because of said weird stories about ranked. I'd recommend checking out T90's Low Elo Legends series to see what I mean regarding ranked is not sweaty.

Your fear of ruining Age 2 for you is definitely understandable but not applicable. As said, I was in your situation, fearing that MP is all about stomping or getting stomped with OP stuff whereas in reality it's different and just fun.
Just try it out, it won't hurt you :) the first 10 games are the hardest as the matchmaking system needs to calibrate your rating but after that, you'll get a theoretic 50/50 win-chance which will be a much better experience than playing vs a too predictable and sometimes underwhelming AI :)

Maybe, one day. But to be honest, just the fact tower rushing is a thing puts me off more than anything, as I remember it as the single most cancerous, toxic thing in Warcraft 3 and I still cannot believe RTS games do not actively prevent it (like AoE3 does/did, which was a great move).

Edit: Finally had time to look at the replay you posted. Guess a factor that plays into messing up the AI is playing with a treaty, that's why all AIs are going for a Fast Castle, other than that, they just played as ever. I'd recommend:
- trying out the Art of War mission on "Early Economy" - no offense, but it was a bit painful to see that all of your villagers were going for the boars instad of just luring it with one villager :D
- Playing the "Land Battle" scenario also helps as you fought Green (Aztecs) with Pikemen, a cavalry counter unit.
- downloading "Interactive Build Order Guide" and trying out the first Build Order (Scout Rush) will also improve your early game and will eventually help you to take on the hardest AIs :)
- Changing the winning condition from "Standard" to "Conquest" will make the AI more aggresive

I basically forgot to turn off the treaty, I had it on 20 minutes before... to prevent the AI from sending hordes of archers my way already in Feudal Age. Which sometimes happens, when it plays at its best and isn't rushing Hussars or forgets how transports work. Fun.

The boars are basically laziness, I sometimes literally play Dark Age while eating with one hand :p I know it can be done much better. Pikemen were a total brain lag, all civs were set to random and I went with what felt like a safe composition, then literally went "...why the hell am I making pikemen against AZTECS". And switched to making cavalry, at which point my ally just crumbled and I realised it's pointless.

As for getting better... you know, that's also what I'm trying to accomplish with these games (besides just simple fun when I have a bit of time, not much to ask, I thought), and it's very difficult when the AI fails to be in any way consistent. Out of maybe 20-30 skirmishes played the last two months or so, I remember a few that were genuinely interesting and engaging, and way too many where I either gave up after the AI steamrolled me due to being suddenly 2x harder than the game before, or had to win by building a wonder and going to make tea in the meantime because it was doing nothing.

...that's also why I keep victory on Standard to have a way of preventing myself from dying of boredom at times. As well as hoping that some day the AI will try to build a wonder and make the game more interesting, but seeing that it doesn't even know how to point castles at the enemy, I think that was naive to expect.

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Krosis:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

- Scouts with 5 attack are a thing since forever. In Dark Age they have 3 attack whereas in Feudal, it increases to 5. You can look this up on the AoE wiki // Edit: I also double checked this with the old game, as I've got both Age of Kings and Conquerors installed. In Age of Kings, the attack indeed stays at 3, whereas in Conquerors 1.0c it gets an additional +2 in Feudal, so this is a thing for 22 years now.

Uuuuh. I need to check that. But I spent more time playing Conquerors than I have DE, and played DE quite a bit 1-2 years ago, and was very confused to see Scouts with 5 attack, ever. I am quite sure if that was a thing before, I would have noticed it... long ago.

Yep, once in Feudal Age, it's 3+2. I guess the devs wanted to encourage aggresive plays early on (which would make sense as with Sandy Petersen, they've got a former Doom dev behind the game), given that e.g. the Goths were the first civ to have to Unique Techs whereas every other civ only had one.

Originally posted by Krosis:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

This may apply to other games and yep, AoE 2 has its cheese as well with tower rushing but in general, this is just an untrue statement in case of Age 2 and just tells me that you're scared away because of said weird stories about ranked. I'd recommend checking out T90's Low Elo Legends series to see what I mean regarding ranked is not sweaty.

Your fear of ruining Age 2 for you is definitely understandable but not applicable. As said, I was in your situation, fearing that MP is all about stomping or getting stomped with OP stuff whereas in reality it's different and just fun.
Just try it out, it won't hurt you :) the first 10 games are the hardest as the matchmaking system needs to calibrate your rating but after that, you'll get a theoretic 50/50 win-chance which will be a much better experience than playing vs a too predictable and sometimes underwhelming AI :)

Maybe, one day. But to be honest, just the fact tower rushing is a thing puts me off more than anything, as I remember it as the single most cancerous, toxic thing in Warcraft 3 and I still cannot believe RTS games do not actively prevent it (like AoE3 does/did, which was a great move).

Tower Rushes used to be a problem in AoE 2, especially with Inca and Koreans, but they're not that common and severe anymore. Trushes can be countered by placing your own towers nearby + attacking the Towers with your villagers as the opponent doesn't have murder holes yet. And it's quite important to keep in mind that your opponent's eco must be bad if he rushes you early on, so you can punish that later.
What I'd consider more problematic (but not uncounterable) is the Persian Douche if you ever heard of it before.

Well I don't like the artificial limit of AoE 3 as I'm someone who loves to Castle Drop in later stages of a game. :D

Originally posted by Krosis:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Edit: Finally had time to look at the replay you posted. Guess a factor that plays into messing up the AI is playing with a treaty, that's why all AIs are going for a Fast Castle, other than that, they just played as ever. I'd recommend:
- trying out the Art of War mission on "Early Economy" - no offense, but it was a bit painful to see that all of your villagers were going for the boars instad of just luring it with one villager :D
- Playing the "Land Battle" scenario also helps as you fought Green (Aztecs) with Pikemen, a cavalry counter unit.
- downloading "Interactive Build Order Guide" and trying out the first Build Order (Scout Rush) will also improve your early game and will eventually help you to take on the hardest AIs :)
- Changing the winning condition from "Standard" to "Conquest" will make the AI more aggresive

I basically forgot to turn off the treaty, I had it on 20 minutes before... to prevent the AI from sending hordes of archers my way already in Feudal Age. Which sometimes happens, when it plays at its best and isn't rushing Hussars or forgets how transports work. Fun.

The boars are basically laziness, I sometimes literally play Dark Age while eating with one hand :p I know it can be done much better. Pikemen were a total brain lag, all civs were set to random and I went with what felt like a safe composition, then literally went "...why the hell am I making pikemen against AZTECS". And switched to making cavalry, at which point my ally just crumbled and I realised it's pointless.

As for getting better... you know, that's also what I'm trying to accomplish with these games (besides just simple fun when I have a bit of time, not much to ask, I thought), and it's very difficult when the AI fails to be in any way consistent. Out of maybe 20-30 skirmishes played the last two months or so, I remember a few that were genuinely interesting and engaging, and way too many where I either gave up after the AI steamrolled me due to being suddenly 2x harder than the game before, or had to win by building a wonder and going to make tea in the meantime because it was doing nothing.

...that's also why I keep victory on Standard to have a way of preventing myself from dying of boredom at times. As well as hoping that some day the AI will try to build a wonder and make the game more interesting, but seeing that it doesn't even know how to point castles at the enemy, I think that was naive to expect.

Yep, the AI on Hard loves Archer Rushes and mixes in Skirms..

Oh well 11

That's why I recommended downloading the Build Order guide. That's maybe the best source available alongside Art of War to really become better.

I noticed that the AI usually loves to go for a Relic victory when playing on Standard. In Conquerors they occasionally built Wonders but it's just rare as the investment is too high.

[Krosis Priest]

So, here's another example on the other end of the spectrum - I wanted to upload a replay, but it's corrupted due to another issue (the annoying cloud saving), yay.

2v2 game, no treaty, no special rules, Ghost Lake map which is one of the simplest, most caveman maps in existence.
- Poles (me, for the first time ever) and Bohemians vs. Portuguese and Incas
- Incas are basically my soft counter due to great spearmen and Portuguese should be basically an even match for Bohemians (same late game power).
- Incas tried a weird awkward archer rush in Feudal Age which failed. Then I just calmly built up an army of Cavaliers and Arbalests almost undisturbed, and crushed the Incas who kept spamming Eagle Warriors for some reason, with just a few halberdiers/kamayuks, no skirmishers and about two rams for siege weapons. He never switched to more spearmen or skirmishers, and his castles were again somewhere in the back. (My ally was the only one with 3 castles pointed at the enemies.)
- My ally destroyed the Portuguese with seemingly little effort or resistance late in the game, when also the Portuguese are at their best and have a lot of powerful units.

Are there some new excuses why the AI has zero consistency and randomly alternates between -2 and +2 difficulty levels, or will someone finally admit it's pathetically broken and needs tons of work?

[Xingui]

Originally posted by Krosis:

So, here's another example on the other end of the spectrum - I wanted to upload a replay, but it's corrupted due to another issue (the annoying cloud saving), yay.

2v2 game, no treaty, no special rules, Ghost Lake map which is one of the simplest, most caveman maps in existence.
- Poles (me, for the first time ever) and Bohemians vs. Portuguese and Incas
- Incas are basically my soft counter due to great spearmen and Portuguese should be basically an even match for Bohemians (same late game power).
- Incas tried a weird awkward archer rush in Feudal Age which failed. Then I just calmly built up an army of Cavaliers and Arbalests almost undisturbed, and crushed the Incas who kept spamming Eagle Warriors for some reason, with just a few halberdiers/kamayuks, no skirmishers and about two rams for siege weapons. He never switched to more spearmen or skirmishers, and his castles were again somewhere in the back. (My ally was the only one with 3 castles pointed at the enemies.)
- My ally destroyed the Portuguese with seemingly little effort or resistance late in the game, when also the Portuguese are at their best and have a lot of powerful units.

Are there some new excuses why the AI has zero consistency and randomly alternates between -2 and +2 difficulty levels, or will someone finally admit it's pathetically broken and needs tons of work?

Ai is broken yes, but it has come along way in 23 years since release, back then the only crutch AI had was cheats as it would build units for free, Any semblance of water in a map means Ai is bricked as it cannot judge importance of water, usualy it overrates importance of water and focuses resources on it. If you want semidecent fights against AI, play in land only maps with no walls, and pick civs for AI that has cheap trash units, like byzantines. On extreme dificulty it will build to 200 vils, so it will at least try, its still worse than 800 elo player however

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by DeJaVu:

Originally posted by Krosis:

So, here's another example on the other end of the spectrum - I wanted to upload a replay, but it's corrupted due to another issue (the annoying cloud saving), yay.

2v2 game, no treaty, no special rules, Ghost Lake map which is one of the simplest, most caveman maps in existence.
- Poles (me, for the first time ever) and Bohemians vs. Portuguese and Incas
- Incas are basically my soft counter due to great spearmen and Portuguese should be basically an even match for Bohemians (same late game power).
- Incas tried a weird awkward archer rush in Feudal Age which failed. Then I just calmly built up an army of Cavaliers and Arbalests almost undisturbed, and crushed the Incas who kept spamming Eagle Warriors for some reason, with just a few halberdiers/kamayuks, no skirmishers and about two rams for siege weapons. He never switched to more spearmen or skirmishers, and his castles were again somewhere in the back. (My ally was the only one with 3 castles pointed at the enemies.)
- My ally destroyed the Portuguese with seemingly little effort or resistance late in the game, when also the Portuguese are at their best and have a lot of powerful units.

Are there some new excuses why the AI has zero consistency and randomly alternates between -2 and +2 difficulty levels, or will someone finally admit it's pathetically broken and needs tons of work?

Ai is broken yes, but it has come along way in 23 years since release, back then the only crutch AI had was cheats as it would build units for free, Any semblance of water in a map means Ai is bricked as it cannot judge importance of water, usualy it overrates importance of water and focuses resources on it. If you want semidecent fights against AI, play in land only maps with no walls, and pick civs for AI that has cheap trash units, like byzantines. On extreme dificulty it will build to 200 vils, so it will at least try, its still worse than 800 elo player however

The Extreme AI will also use the full set of strategies and focus on the most effective strategy for the civ it plays. I observed Lithuanians and Franks e.g. going heavy on cavalry in Castle Age.

[Krosis Priest]

"Play Extreme to get the AI to work properly" does not exactly convince me the game is not being balanced solely around tryhards (except for campaigns).

If you want semidecent fights against AI, play in land only maps with no walls, and pick civs for AI that has cheap trash units, like byzantines. On extreme dificulty it will build to 200 vils, so it will at least try, its still worse than 800 elo player however

Most of my issues were on simple land maps. Sometimes it plays very well and very effectively. Sometimes it plays like I'm suddenly on Easy difficulty. There is no pattern or logic as to why, and that is the problem. I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ how much it plays like a pro player. I just want Hard difficulty to always mean the same difficulty and not either getting ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up in 20 mins by a fully upgraded horde of units, or getting bored to death while it does nothing. That's literally the only point of this thread.

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Krosis:

"Play Extreme to get the AI to work properly" does not exactly convince me the game is not being balanced solely around tryhards (except for campaigns).

If you want semidecent fights against AI, play in land only maps with no walls, and pick civs for AI that has cheap trash units, like byzantines. On extreme dificulty it will build to 200 vils, so it will at least try, its still worse than 800 elo player however

Most of my issues were on simple land maps. Sometimes it plays very well and very effectively. Sometimes it plays like I'm suddenly on Easy difficulty. There is no pattern or logic as to why, and that is the problem. I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ how much it plays like a pro player. I just want Hard difficulty to always mean the same difficulty and not either getting ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up in 20 mins by a fully upgraded horde of units, or getting bored to death while it does nothing. That's literally the only point of this thread.

Except it isn't balanced soley around "tryhards" but rather on general data on how they perform in MP - which includes casual players as well. It makes me so sad to see ppl having reservations of something because of strange stories.

800 elo is btw anything but pro. That's below average.

Well, as said, the AI will pick a random strategy it'll follow and the higher the difficulty, the more likely it is to play it more efficient. For some kind of reason, the Hard AI loves extensive Feudal fights with Archers whereas on Hardest and Extreme it tries other strats as well.

I also feel like Hard on DE is what Moderate on the old version was, considering the devs added a difficulty level on top. On DE, the Moderate AI is not really a threat.