I do believe that nearly drove me mad lol.

Why bother with AI, when it's all about multiplayer and MOBAs now?

If the AI was really good, you'd also have to be very careful not to run the game whilst dialed in using your 2400 baud modem or it might decide the war is real and connect to the defense department.

Sure have. All of them also have the computer do these silly little suicidal "wave" attacks every few minutes, instead of building up superior forces and trying to overwhelm you all at once. I admit wave attacks do build tension, but after the first few you realize where they are coming from and just build defenses in those locations.

Edit: I'm currently playing C&C 3: Tiberium Wars and it's so obvious, there's this mission where you need to retake the White House, Nod keep throwing attacks against your base yet they aren't harvesting any tiberium (there's no fog of war in this mission so you can see). So how are they getting the money?

How about Warcraft 3? If memory serves, the AI mostly tries to build up a single powerful force instead of wasting wave after wave on you. Like you, the AI spend the early game creeping and leveling its heroes.
I'm talking about skirmish though. In the single player campaign the AI does send attack wave after attack wave, which gradually become stronger as the level progresses.

That was a fun level! I remember you didn't have enough power for all of your defenses, and you had to manually shut down and activate your turrets based on what side of the base was being attacked. Another rts level kind of like that, but a whole lot trickier is Hearth, where you have very little time to prepare for a full 360 degree assault on your base. Without a strong enough force to hold the base you have to rely heavily on spells and traps to survive.

AI War: Fleet Command, mayhap?
(I bought it on the cheap, but haven't dared to try it yet, since it looks like it requires a bit of a mental investment)

I agree most RTS games, in fact almost every type of game, the AI are not that intelligent.

Difficulty is increased by shifting factors to favour the AI, such as cheaper build costs, quicker build speed, more Hit points and so on.

A prime example of how stupid AI can be is C+C 4. On most missions, my son can walk away from the computer for hours at a time and return to find the AI has not wiped him out. And the AI knows where his base is.

Isn't Ultimate General Gettysburg suppose to have a really good AI? I remeber that being one of the main selling point of the game.

Edit: I always wondered why wasn't AI didn't evolved during these years (or at least big leaps), a few months ago i was watching a documentary on youtube about spiders and there was this fascinating spider that was able to hunt other spiders by tricking them, something like that in videogames would be amazing, you had this "hunter" after you that would analize how you played, the map, etc, and then it would strike. Dunno, i find that more scary than scripted events because there is no pattern of when the jump scare is going to happen.

That's what I think. This is like the FPS genre where there's been relatively little thought put into proper AI and quite a bit of thought put into multiplayer gaming.


There's been advancement in both cases, but mostly because it's unusual to have a computer that doesn't have a multi-core processor. Even most phones have them now. With multicore processors you can greatly improve the algorithms that you had just by not having to run all the calculations on the same core.

Personally, I have no interest in muliplayer gaming, so I haven't been terribly interested in any recent RTS or FPS games. There are probably some good ones out there, but they're definitely niche.

The OP is on crack.

One other reason you rarely see a good AI in the single player experiences for RTS games is that you very rarely start out even. If there were a mission that was "The enemy just landed a construction yard, we've just landed yours too, it's a race guys" then that would justify some heavier AI as you tend to be able to get in the skirmish versions of the games. However in most levels of RTS games I've played, the enemy is established and all factories and unit producing buildings are up. You couldn't apply an AI intent on just killing you as it would be massively one sided.

Just got to the Croatia mission, oh fuck this game, there's no way in hell Nod has enough money to throw massive attacks at my base with hordes of expensive stealth unit. Like every 5 minutes, a dozen stealth tanks/buggies/scorpion tanks attack my base. And that's just the right side, on the left they attack with hordes of infantry, stealth dudes, rockets and Black Hand. There's no possibility they have the money for all that when the tiberium fields near my base are depleted and all I can afford are defenses.

Fuck EA, Tiberium Sun cheated but never this bad.

Weak AI is one of the reasons I haven't played an RTS in a long time. I do seem to remember Rise of Nations AI was pretty darn good.

About the only RTS still in my wishlist at this time is Men of War Allied Assault as I have read, while path finding is horrible , the AI puts up a heck of a fight - not sure though. With that said, I also think part of the reason I remain interested is due to the action element that allows you to take control of any soldier.

While tedious (I played the developers old title Soliders At War) it can help with some AI issues of your own force.

All in all, I really don't know why the AI in RTS games have not progressed. When I have looked at some of the RTS competitions online it always seems (to me at least) that the players are using a set number of strategies with if commands in their head (if opponent does this, do this). This to me is just an advanced form of AI anyway :)
LOL.. You always seem to be doing a comedy set... Rodney Dangerfield incarnate "No respect I tell ya, no respect"