I think you wrote such a long reply just to prove that you’re right, but the problem is that in trying to prove yourself correct, you’ve mixed up a lot of things.
What you described sounds more like your own imagined version of the AI rather than what it actually is. In Age of Empires IV, the AI’s complexity and learning ability are nowhere near what Red Alert 3 achieved. The AI in AoE4 is based on static scripted logic — it has no learning or real-time adaptive reaction. It’s not self-adjusting; it just follows pre-set strategy scripts. It’s honestly not even as good as the AI in Company of Heroes 3.
So when you talk about the AI “changing units” or “adapting to counters,” that isn’t real dynamic learning.
And no matter how you phrase it, it doesn’t change the fact that the AI does not adjust its overall strategy based on map layout, resource distribution, or terrain conditions. Its positioning, expansion, and building placement all follow fixed patterns and predictable logic. Before boasting about how “smart” the AI is, I suggest you actually check with the developers — they could give you a more accurate answer.
If AoE4’s AI were truly as intelligent as you claim, and you and your friends have played so many PvE matches, yet you still can’t tell the difference between dynamic learning, real-time adaptation, and pre-scripted behavior, then you’ve basically been playing without observing. And please don’t confuse player-controlled AI behaviors with the actual non-player AI logic — the non-player AI in AoE4 doesn’t use stealth in forests, doesn’t hold chokepoints, and doesn’t defend river crossings.
That alone already proves your argument wrong — you simply can’t demonstrate its so-called “intelligence.”
As for saying the army formation in AoE4 is “more organized” than in AoE2 — seriously, is that even an argument?
I suggest you try to understand what AI design means before getting proud of such surface-level details. Even if you asked the devs, they wouldn’t tell you “better formation = smarter AI.” That logic makes no sense. Formation pathfinding and movement cohesion ≠ actual AI strategic intelligence.
If you want to talk about that, maybe explain why during large-scale battles, the AI’s target selection is so unbalanced — why do multiple units randomly focus on a single target instead of forming proper firing lines or pressure fronts, especially given that AoE4 was initially designed with formations similar to Total War?
And what does the game’s player count have to do with AI quality?
I genuinely don’t understand your logic there. It seems like you just wanted to mock me while dodging the actual issue.
You‘d better wait until the developers officially confirm that they’ve actually fixed the AI issues — and that the AI can properly take advantage of high-ground positions — before trying to convince me. Lol.
In fact, you’ve already lost the argument: the moment the developers themselves admit they’re working to fix and improve the AI, it already proves that the AI has problems.
=================================================
The real, proven AI problems I mentioned still stand:
- The villager allocation logic isn’t dynamic, leading to idle workers or resource overflow in late game.
- The pathfinding and micro behavior are inconsistent.
- You clearly don’t understand what “adaptive AI” means, nor the difference between scripted and intelligent systems.
Maybe the things you’re describing are just general engine behaviors — not actual proof of smarter AI.
Of course, you can’t prove me wrong either, and you certainly can’t prove yourself right.
When I mentioned Red Alert 3, you dismissed it without trying — so you can’t compare or disprove my point that AoE4’s AI is inferior.
And as of now, the issues I’ve pointed out in AoE4’s AI remain unsolved.
Can the AI actually distinguish between defensive and offensive situations dynamically?
Can it use terrain, chokepoints, or rivers as part of its tactical setup?
You can’t explain those things away, because they simply don’t exist.
If you really want to make your argument sound reasonable, you should focus on evidence, not blind praise or irrelevant side topics.
All you’ve proven is that you haven’t observed the AI carefully at all.
I didn’t even compare AoE4’s AI with AoE2’s AI. What I said was simply that I play AoE2 more often because it offers more game modes and greater variety.
I honestly have no idea what kind of logic makes you bring up AoE2’s AI as if that’s the issue here.
If you really want to make a comparison, why not take a look at Age of Mythology: Retold? I’m not saying its AI is particularly smart, but at least it improves the AI while offering different behavioral styles — defensive, aggressive, and so on.
So if AoE4’s AI is supposedly “smart,” then why doesn’t it hide in tall grass? Why doesn’t it take advantage of high ground?
That’s the whole point — those are actions only player-controlled units can perform under direct commands.
So why can’t the enemy AI do the same? You can’t explain that, because it simply can’t do it.
=================================================
If you’ve never experienced the refinement of Red Alert 3’s AI, you’ll naturally assume that AoE4’s AI is impressive. Since you brought up AoE2 for comparison, let me make it clear what RA3’s AI is capable of.
RA3’s AI adjusts its behavior dynamically and in real time. Yes, it starts with a general direction, but every behavior—construction, offense, defense, harassment, tech progression—changes and learns throughout the match according to how the player acts. That’s what adaptive AI truly means. Meanwhile, AoE4’s AI is still stuck at the scripted preset stage. I suggest you learn a bit more before calling it smart—don’t be a frog at the bottom of the well.
Moreover, RA3’s AI is intelligent enough to bait and lure the player into ambushes for encirclement, to kite units, and to fight guerrilla-style, striking without overcommitting and minimizing losses. It can also select and combine different tactical templates dynamically—offensive, defensive, harassment, etc.—depending on the map, faction, and game situation, switching between them instantly at higher difficulties. On the hardest level, the AI can perform multi-front operations, attacking from several directions or targeting your logistics to force you to split your army.
Its goals are clear and purposeful—it knows exactly what to do and where the player’s weak points are. Its tactics are threatening: it prioritizes destroying key structures, disrupting mining operations, and locking down resource zones, following short-, mid-, and long-term objectives to completely choke the player’s development.
Even on the highest difficulty, its resource income and production speed are identical to the player’s—no cheating. What makes it strong is its intelligence: faster reaction time, more precise scouting and targeting, dynamic unit composition, and real-time adaptation based on the player’s choices.
The AI also interacts with the map extremely well, using chokepoints, rivers, and bridges to ambush or defend, and lastly—it remembers. It records the player’s tactical habits within a single match: if you keep using the same strategy, you’ll quickly find yourself dead.
The reason I’m explaining all this is because I can tell you’ve likely never played RA3, since you’re convinced AoE4’s AI is great. And your reasoning—comparing AoE4 to AoE2—makes little sense. You say AoE4 has more players? You might want to check the average and long-term player counts of both AoE2 and AoE4 first, otherwise you’re just making yourself look ridiculous.
=================================================
If you really want to prove your point, the best thing you can do is ask the developers directly — ask the official team how the AI was designed, what their original ideas were, why certain things weren’t implemented, what improvements they’re planning, and what their overall vision is.
You should also ask them what they think of Red Alert 3’s AI, and maybe even contact Relic to find out why their own engine ended up producing such a limited AI system. Then, ask the World’s Edge and Relic teams what kind of technical or logical issues they’ve encountered in the AI programming and game code.
Finally, ask them why, despite being built on the same engine, Age of Empires IV and Company of Heroes 3 have such a huge difference in AI quality.
And perhaps Relic will tell you something like: “Sorry, we’ve always worked with squad-based unit health systems, not individual-unit models.”
If they say that—well, that would indirectly confirm that AoE4’s AI does indeed have problems ，At the end of the day, it really comes down to just one sentence: if AoE4’s AI were truly that good, smart, and problem-free, why would the developers need to fix and improve it in future updates ? You should try to explain this issue more thoroughly.
I believe I’ve pointed out the issues with AoE4’s AI from the very beginning, which already indicates problems on a technical level. I think you didn’t really pay attention to what I wrote and just reacted based on your own assumptions without thinking it through , i never denied that AoE4’s AI has strengths; I was only pointing out its problems. That doesn’t mean it has no merits, but your understanding clearly has some issues.