Underestimate the AI: Reap the consequences.

[Cheezeninja]

Well i was recently playing a little game as Arco, just for fun and to try out the Nataraja as a SC. I was at the point where i had accumulated a small but impressive army of about 35ish heart companions backed by a firing squad of about 8 astrologers mass casting soul slay http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So i rolled over the indeps for awhile and then pangea declared war on me with my funsquad right near their borders. Well i immediately made for their main army and smashed it. About 100 satyrs with centaur support. About now your probably what unit gave me my comeuppance... some pans maybe? Some Claymen? Maybe some Kithaironic lions? Nope, it was harpies. Harpies. I engaged a force substantially smaller than the one i had just smashed (without losses, though i didnt mention it) and was caught completely with my pants down when their harpies turned out to be on good old Dom1 'attack commander' orders. Or at least that what i believe they must have been on, because instead of making for my wonderfully resilient decoy damage sponge heart companions (who were there for that very purpose) they waited 2 turns and jumped right into my astrologers, killing them all in one turn and causing my companions to rout.

Whoops

anyone else have some fun stories of the same variety?

[Norfleet]

Well, either that's "Attack Rear" gone horribly right for a change, or the claims that the AI doesn't cheat are, in fact, false.

[Cheezeninja]

Oh i know for a fact the AI can use orders we cannot, because i've 'aquired' AI units with strange looking orders already programmed in before. I dont remember if it was enslave mind and then GoR, or the tien chi hero reincarnation bug, but i distinctly remember wondering what the heck i was looking at when it said some gibberish like "A 2 COM" in the orders. I actually have very little recollection of what the orders looked like, only that it was something I couldnt order.

[Norfleet]

So in other words, the AI does, in fact, cheat.

[Lex]

i think its more appropriate to say that Humans have a handicap by not getting access to those special orders. If the AI could talk, it would be saying Humans cheat because they are creative... or a much more likely explination is that the harpies wasted two turns on whatever and then attacked the rear (which is quite smart). You should have left bodyguards to surround your casters.

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Cheezeninja:
"A 2 COM"<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Attack to commanders"?

Of course, it's probably more likely to be a simple alphanumeric identifier with the COM standing for computer, but the coincidence is remarkable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ August 01, 2004, 05:17: Message edited by: Sindai ]

[Cheezeninja]

Originally posted by alexi:
i think its more appropriate to say that Humans have a handicap by not getting access to those special orders. If the AI could talk, it would be saying Humans cheat because they are creative... or a much more likely explination is that the harpies wasted two turns on whatever and then attacked the rear (which is quite smart). You should have left bodyguards to surround your casters. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Every time I have set MY units to attack rear they actually attack the rear section of the frontmost group of units. They dont actually jump back to commanders, except occasionally when there is a large body of troops there as well. And i have NEVER seen my troops actively seek out commanders fromt the start. Unlike Ashen Angels and other nasties, who invariably seem to attempt immediate evisceration of commanders.


It didnt actually say that.... i just dont remember what the exact order was. It was something strange and abbreviated like that, and i believe with numbers. I wish i could remember, but its been awhile and i didnt get too worked up about it at the time. It just seemed to me like something that someone had written as a reminder to themselves, but didnt bother to explain fully because they knew the consumer would never see it.

[Ryukenden]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
So in other words, the AI does, in fact, cheat. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you look at it with the idea of "equal share," then you could consider that the AI "cheats." However, look at it with this (or maybe these) idea(s):

A human can be "creative," while an AI can only run on what it is programmed with (common AI, atleast). A human learns new things every second of its life, while the AI is either unable to learn without additional programming, or learns slowly. So, doesn't it sound right that the scales be evened by giving the AI additional commands as a tradeoff for "creativity?"

Note: I'm not against yelling out "That's so ]f-bomb}ing cheap!" nor "The comp is ]f-bomb}ing cheating!" Just don't believe it when rage isn't clouding your judgement.

Another Note: In some games (barely any of which are strategy), the AI is kinda cheap.

[Edi]

Originally posted by Cheezeninja:
Every time I have set MY units to attack rear they actually attack the rear section of the frontmost group of units. They dont actually jump back to commanders, except occasionally when there is a large body of troops there as well. And i have NEVER seen my troops actively seek out commanders fromt the start. Unlike Ashen Angels and other nasties, who invariably seem to attempt immediate evisceration of commanders. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC, units with "attack rear" orders must make a morale check or something like that every time they pass a stack, and if they fail, they will attack the rearmost units of that stack. On a battlefield with e.g. 7 stacks of AI units, they need to pass all of those checks if they are to attack the very rearmost units (typically the commanders). Failure to pass the check causes the units to attack the rear of the closest enemy stack. Every unit in a stack must make the check separately, so this is why you sometimes see some cavalry units breaking ranks from their squad and go after something they should leave alone.

Looks like the AI got very lucky with the harpies. Of course, if you had all of your HCs in a single stack and had just them and the Nataraja, the harpies only needed to succeed once to get at your astrologers. Having several squads mitigates the problem with flyers that attack rear.

Edi

[Kristoffer O]

There was an 'attack commander' order in Dom1. It was removed as it was far too powerful. It seems likely that the AI order selection wasn't fully updatded.

If it isn't just a lucky 'attack rear' do you want it gone or do you think it is OK if the AI comes up with this kind of stunts from time to time?

I think it has been reported that Fang, the troll archer hero, shoots at commanders as well. In this case I'm not for a change, but in normal battles it might be a bit unfair, at least unless you expect it.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There was an 'attack commander' order in Dom1. It was removed as it was far too powerful. It seems likely that the AI order selection wasn't fully updatded.

If it isn't just a lucky 'attack rear' do you want it gone or do you think it is OK if the AI comes up with this kind of stunts from time to time?

I think it has been reported that Fang, the troll archer hero, shoots at commanders as well. In this case I'm not for a change, but in normal battles it might be a bit unfair, at least unless you expect it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would say please leave it as it is, even if this is the case of AI doing (rarely) something that humans can't. I mean, we all are looking for challenge, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Whatever give AI a little advantage is good in my book.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There was an 'attack commander' order in Dom1. It was removed as it was far too powerful. It seems likely that the AI order selection wasn't fully updatded.

If it isn't just a lucky 'attack rear' do you want it gone or do you think it is OK if the AI comes up with this kind of stunts from time to time?

I think it has been reported that Fang, the troll archer hero, shoots at commanders as well. In this case I'm not for a change, but in normal battles it might be a bit unfair, at least unless you expect it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would say please leave it as it is, even if this is the case of AI doing (rarely) something that humans can't. I mean, we all are looking for challenge, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Whatever give AI a little advantage is good in my book. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yeah if it is true let the ai "cheat" .

could it be possible that they had attack archers oder ?

Cheezeninja you haven't mentioned archers but mages have "ranged" attacks so perhaps if you command attack archers if there are none then mages are targeted ?

[Vicious Love]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There was an 'attack commander' order in Dom1. It was removed as it was far too powerful. It seems likely that the AI order selection wasn't fully updatded.

If it isn't just a lucky 'attack rear' do you want it gone or do you think it is OK if the AI comes up with this kind of stunts from time to time?

I think it has been reported that Fang, the troll archer hero, shoots at commanders as well. In this case I'm not for a change, but in normal battles it might be a bit unfair, at least unless you expect it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You work too hard.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Vicious Love:
You work too hard. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I do ?

[Norfleet]

I think that it's a bad thing for regular battles. The Troll Archer is fine, as he's not a player, but the AI shouldn't have special cheats in normal play: He already gets to pick what spells to cast in battle without having to script them, which is enough of an advantage as it is.

[Vynd]

In my experience flying units set to attack rearmost actually will attack rearmost a fair amount of the time. With any other kind of unit it seems like it hardly ever succeeds. So it could just be that the harpies were set to attack rearmost.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Vynd:
In my experience flying units set to attack rearmost actually will attack rearmost a fair amount of the time. With any other kind of unit it seems like it hardly ever succeeds. So it could just be that the harpies were set to attack rearmost. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">hm pangenea gets free harpies once you have the harpy national hero .
so perhaps a good use of the harpies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
and they are excellent patrollers .

hm standard pangenea is really like a living ermor . lots of harpies and hordes of maenads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PDF]

You should always ground the flyers with a Storm Staff when enemy has flyers and you don't have any ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif This holds true vs anything, AI or human .. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Lex]

"He already gets to pick what spells to cast in battle without having to script them, which is enough of an advantage as it is."

umm, if you don't script your casters, they use the same combat AI as the player AI.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I do ? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't listen to the crazy man! Now where's the next patch!? be sure to include lots of UI improvements! And a new combat engine with 3D units! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Alexi:
"He already gets to pick what spells to cast in battle without having to script them, which is enough of an advantage as it is."

umm, if you don't script your casters, they use the same combat AI as the player AI.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, the computer AI's spellcasting is slightly different: You have to pick what spells you want to cast, or they won't get cast: The AI doesn't, he can decide dynamically during the combat what to cast.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Alexi:
"He already gets to pick what spells to cast in battle without having to script them, which is enough of an advantage as it is."

umm, if you don't script your casters, they use the same combat AI as the player AI.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, the computer AI's spellcasting is slightly different: You have to pick what spells you want to cast, or they won't get cast: The AI doesn't, he can decide dynamically during the combat what to cast. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ROFL! And you consider that to be an advantage??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Unless you are newbie or very stupid, your scripted spells should be much more efficint than whatever AI will come up with dynamically. Also if you set your mages to general "spells", the same "dynamic" AI will work for you, so you have exactly the same option as AI. Next time try to think, for a change, before you post something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Alexi:
"He already gets to pick what spells to cast in battle without having to script them, which is enough of an advantage as it is."

umm, if you don't script your casters, they use the same combat AI as the player AI.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think so. Look at what happens when you attack a stack of holy mages with an army that contains undead. Badda bing! Lots and lots of banishments going off.

A human-played army would have to first go through its pre-scripted spells, regardless of the fact that many of them would be near-useless (certainly by comparison with Banishment), before finally settling down to kick some undead butt.

This seems to me to indicate that the AI has "more dynamic" AI, and it certainly isn't always a hindrance.

[Lex]

if you blindly send your casters into combat without knowing what you're fighting, and plannig ahead for it by setting custom script, then its your fault that they didn't cast banishment or whatever would have been better. That's the purpose of scripts: to react in a strategic way to what you're facing. But don't complain that you don't have access to dynamic AI, cos you do: just get rid of your scripts.

Its a question of micromanaging your casters so they always do the right thing for the right opponents (if you didn't know that you where facing an army of undead, your combat scripts are the least of your problems), or putting your faith in the combat AI to chose the right spells and forgetting about strategic combat spells.

Maybe the third option is for Dom3 to have the option to SAVE scripts. That way you could load different scripts prior to entering a battle/war without having to redo them individually each time for each caster (which can be very tedious)

Edit: I think it's quite funny that the AI actually "corrects" your scripts dynamically during battle to stop your casters from doing really stupid things (like casting a spell that is already in effect, or that simply wouldn't have any effect, or that would have too big an effect and would simply waste gems). This same dynamic AI also decides for you when to use gems to bring down your fatigue and keep you conscious when your scripts where a bit too much for the caster's level. All-in-all, I think the AI is alot smarter then most players. But its a bit much when you expect it to override your "strategic" orders when it thinks your combat strategy stinks against a particular opponent. Next thing you'll be asking for the AI to write you strategy guides as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 02, 2004, 05:50: Message edited by: Alexi ]

[Lex]

role play for two seconds: you are god, and your generals just prayed to you before marching into enemy province for battle. They ask you for guidance. You can either give them scripted orders that they should follow, or you leave them to decided themselves what to do. Trust your generals, or use your awesome power to give them divine orders. Now, what kind of God would you be if you told your generals to follow the same orders over and over again, reguardless of what they're facing? And if you don't know what they'll be facing, then you aren't doing a very good job at being omniscient! In which case they'll be better off reacting on their own then following your generic orders. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Alexi:
"He already gets to pick what spells to cast in battle without having to script them, which is enough of an advantage as it is."

umm, if you don't script your casters, they use the same combat AI as the player AI.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think so. Look at what happens when you attack a stack of holy mages with an army that contains undead. Badda bing! Lots and lots of banishments going off.

A human-played army would have to first go through its pre-scripted spells, regardless of the fact that many of them would be near-useless (certainly by comparison with Banishment), before finally settling down to kick some undead butt.

This seems to me to indicate that the AI has "more dynamic" AI, and it certainly isn't always a hindrance. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but your army would do the excatly the same if you scripted you mages to "cast spells". Or leave than at "none", which would be the same. So you have an option of archiveing the same result, if you choose to.

[ August 02, 2004, 06:21: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Yes, but your army would do the excatly the same if you scripted you mages to "cast spells". Or leave than at "none", which would be the same. So you have an option of archiveing the same result, if you choose to. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not quite: Also, there's one key difference: YOU, the person who actually runs the army, don't get to pick the spells, where the AI, which also happens to be the player, DOES.

[Lex]

Commander: "Hey Mage-Priest, your combat script orders you to be casting Thunder Strike right about now."

Mage-Priest: "But there's a hundred or so undead out there. I should be casting Banishment instead!"

Commander: "Listen you ungrateful AI, who dropped out of the game and made YOU God?! Just follow the orders!"

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ahh.. you know you're a geek when you're making bad game jokes at 3am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Yossar]

A bit off topic but another case of underestimating the AI. Playing Multiplayer with independent strength 7 and very difficult research, and BE Ermor goes AI on turn 2 or 3. By turn 14 Ermor hasn't left his castle. His army is slowly growing but I figured it might just be someone stuck summoning spectral velites. I figured the AI had given up and so I attack his capital. But to my surprise he has troops patrolling the province and I lose. He then counterattacks on the next two turns. I guess I should have expected that but how can you go thirteen turns without taking a single province, even on independent strength 7??? None of them had anything too powerful in them.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Yes, but your army would do the excatly the same if you scripted you mages to "cast spells". Or leave than at "none", which would be the same. So you have an option of archiveing the same result, if you choose to. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not quite: Also, there's one key difference: YOU, the person who actually runs the army, don't get to pick the spells, where the AI, which also happens to be the player, DOES. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Norfleet, you are really dumb. There is only *one* tactical dinamic AI in Dom2 program. You are confusuing it with strategic AI (your opponent).

You, as a player, have an option to use this dynamic tactical AI routine at any time, by scripting you mages to "spells". Your computer opponent *always* use the same tactical AI routine that you have access to. So if you script mages to spell, the *same* dynamic AI alhoritms will control *both* sides, with possible very rare exception that is the topic of this thread. But in any case the spell selection will use the same dinamic AI routine for both you and your opponent. Got it?

[ August 02, 2004, 09:08: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[pinko commie]

Sounds like advantages for AI that humans dont have is a Good Thing.

I think Stormbinder got it right, too, in pointing out the difference between "AI" in the sense of dynamic tactical battle control and "AI" in the sense of "strategic player ersatz" -- but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by pinko commie:
but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stormy and Norfy have a 'history' of mutual ... antagonism. I'm afraid that any calls for reason, calm, and restraint will fall upon deaf ears.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by pinko commie:
Sounds like advantages for AI that humans dont have is a Good Thing.

I think Stormbinder got it right, too, in pointing out the difference between "AI" in the sense of dynamic tactical battle control and "AI" in the sense of "strategic player ersatz" -- but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In general - I would agree with you Pinko. But Norfleet is a special case. I strongly despite cheaters and think that they deserve to be flamed. And besides Norfleet is indeed dumb, I had to explain three times thing that is pretty obvious, as you can see yourslef. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 02, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Arryn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by pinko commie:
but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stormy and Norfy have a 'history' of mutual ... antagonism. I'm afraid that any calls for reason, calm, and restraint will fall upon deaf ears. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">However they should be aware that they endanger the thread everytime they do it. Any thread which degenerates into name calling with no discussion beneficial to the board.. well.. just doesnt need to be on the board. Why store a thread which only gives bad impressions of the forum.

[ August 02, 2004, 14:33: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Arryn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by pinko commie:
but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stormy and Norfy have a 'history' of mutual ... antagonism. I'm afraid that any calls for reason, calm, and restraint will fall upon deaf ears. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stormy has a history of hypocrisy as well, demanding as a condition of my joining his game that I swear to stop flaming him, while obviously never passing up any opportunity to nail Norf.

On topic : Am I the only one who wishes that the phantom AI wouldn't decide that unscripted B1 sages should ... charge the attacking barbarian horde?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
However they should be aware that they endanger the thread everytime they do it. Any thread which degenerates into name calling with no discussion beneficial to the board.. well.. just doesnt need to be on the board. Why store a thread which only gives bad impressions of the forum. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, prune the offending Posts. You've done such things in the past ...

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Stormy and Norfy have a 'history' of mutual ... antagonism. I'm afraid that any calls for reason, calm, and restraint will fall upon deaf ears. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Looks to me like Norfleet has shown restraint. Only one pair of ears are deaf in this thread.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
There is only *one* tactical dinamic AI in Dom2 program. You are confusuing it with strategic AI (your opponent).<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is the same in nearly every game. In all such games, however, any effect that causes control of your unit to pass over to the AI is always disastrous for you, whereas it has absolutely no effect on the AI, since it doesn't change the fact that the AI controls its own units.

You, as a player, have an option to use this dynamic tactical AI routine at any time, by scripting you mages to "spells". Your computer opponent *always* use the same tactical AI routine that you have access to.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a supremely counterproductive exercise, not to mention a conflict of interest: Since the objective is to DEFEAT the AI, by playing better than it does, it's very much counterproductive to play exactly the same as it does.

So if you script mages to spell, the *same* dynamic AI alhoritms will control *both* sides, with possible very rare exception that is the topic of this thread. But in any case the spell selection will use the same dinamic AI routine for both you and your opponent. Got it? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You're missing the point that in this case, the AI still controls its own units. You don't.

[sachmo]

There is no need for namecalling.

And yes, calling someone "stupid" is namecalling, as well as immature.

[Cheezeninja]

well in any event, be it a lucky attack rear that laid me low, or an actual Dom1 order, i think it should stay. Its good to be surprised by the AI every now and then and i dont mind that at all.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Arryn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by pinko commie:
[qb]but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stormy and Norfy have a 'history' of mutual ... antagonism. I'm afraid that any calls for reason, calm, and restraint will fall upon deaf ears. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stormy has a history of hypocrisy as well, demanding as a condition of my joining his game that I swear to stop flaming him, while obviously never passing up any opportunity to nail Norf. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not entirely correct, as we both know. The first condition I requested was that you would not start any flame wars in our game thread agaist any fellow players, incuding Cohen, whom you never pass opportunity to flame, just like I do with Norfleet. So I would be carefull in your place with accusations of hypocricy. As I said, I have no desire to see another game thread with you in it to desintigrate into nasty flamewar. I think you understand my position.




On topic : Am I the only one who wishes that the phantom AI wouldn't decide that unscripted B1 sages should ... charge the attacking barbarian horde? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Just change them "holdx5"+"stay behind" or "retreat", while positioning them far int he back. Or give them blood+1 item so they would have *something* to cast, even when they don't have any bloodslaves.

But yes, perhaps it would be nice if any mages who don't have any efficient spells to cast, would just hold thier spot, instead of switihing to "stay behind" routine. Or maybe if devs would add "stay in your position" order to the script commands. I hate seeing my archers charging after they run out of arrows as well and geting slaugtered.

[ August 02, 2004, 21:08: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Alright, I've had enough of the Storm/Norf jabs. It seems with my recent allowance of people to express their opinion, that certain parties feel they need to get back on their very tired and dead horse.

Don't make me lock a thread just because two of you can't take your bluster and brawl to the playground and have to bring it here.

Hint taken?

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cheezeninja:
well in any event, be it a lucky attack rear that laid me low, or an actual Dom1 order, i think it should stay. Its good to be surprised by the AI every now and then and i dont mind that at all. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
You're missing the point that in this case, the AI still controls its own units. You don't. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL. And he is still not geting it. Oh well, since I wouldn't want to continue what some people feel is namecalling, all I can say is: No future comments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ August 02, 2004, 21:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Boron]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Norfleet:
You're missing the point that in this case, the AI still controls its own units. You don't. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL. And he is still not geting it. Oh well, since I wouldn't want to continue what some people feel is namecalling, all I can say is: No future comments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i think here you don't get norfleets point :
i understand it that norfleet means :

the ai can give orders to each unit the whole battle while you can only give indirect orders for the first 5 actions .

under this viewpoint norfleets statement is quite true and even wisely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

so the ai has full control of every unit while you have only really little control for the first few turns if you give orders yourself .

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zen:
Don't make me lock a thread<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Locking a thread would punish everyone EXCEPT the guilty party (or parties), who will just take their shenanigans to another thread (assuming they hadn't already). Analogy to your solution: a teacher finds two students in a class of thirty throwing things at each other. The teacher locks the door to the room and puts everyone in the class on detention. Not exactly fair to the other twenty-eight kids.

The proper solution is removal of offending Posts, and if that doesn't get the message across, removal of the offenders themselves. Please don't do something heavy-handed (and senseless) like throwing the baby (the thread) out with the dirty bath water (the miscreants).


Respectfully,

Arryn

[Boron]

Originally posted by Arryn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Zen:
Don't make me lock a thread<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Locking a thread would punish everyone EXCEPT the guilty party (or parties), who will just take their shenanigans to another thread (assuming they hadn't already). Analogy to your solution: a teacher finds two students in a class of thirty throwing things at each other. The teacher locks the door to the room and puts everyone in the class on detention. Not exactly fair to the other twenty-eight kids.

The proper solution is removal of offending Posts, and if that doesn't get the message across, removal of the offenders themselves. Please don't do something heavy-handed (and senseless) like throwing the baby (the thread) out with the dirty bath water (the miscreants).


Respectfully,

Arryn </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">good points and good examples to further strengthen them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A heavy handed approach would be to ban the offending parties Arryn. I am not going to spend my time in moderation of this Board selectiely pruning away certain Posts of certain people (who consistantly post the same things). Maybe with your constant suggestions that I could do things for this board, (such as take extremely poorly worded and antogonistical 'wish lists' and clean them up for developers to take an look at regardless of how they are approached) and community I don't have the time or desire to take it to that personal level.

This is not kindergarden, but if people wish to approach it like kindergarden they will be treated like children. If people can act like mature adults who simply have a difference of opinion (which is most of those who choose to read the Boards) then there would never be a reason to lock a thread based on personal insults and attacks.

But since I don't want to be seen as targeting single individuals particular Posts (Cainehill, Storm, Norfleet, yours) as some sort of vendetta I will allow the poorly worded Posts to stay (until there is a forum software change) and lock threads that people feel the need to taint with their personal venom.

While I respect your opinion of how you think things should be done, I don't have the time to prune, then send PM's, then delete the 'replacement Posts' then the prune the flame Posts for 'singling out' people and other such things. Perhaps if you feel that way, you could try talking to those who constantly barrage us with their immature behavior and get them to treat each other with at least enough respect that they don't feel they need to insult each other at every concievable opportunity.

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally written by Boron:
[Roll Eyes]

i think here you don't get norfleets point :
i understand it that norfleet means :

the ai can give orders to each unit the whole battle while you can only give indirect orders for the first 5 actions .

under this viewpoint norfleets statement is quite true and even wisely [Big Grin]

so the ai has full control of every unit while you have only really little control for the first few turns if you give orders yourself . <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry Boron, but I think Stormbinder is correct.
If no orders are given, Both your units as well as those of your AI enemy will use the same Algorythms to determin what to do. But you can override this for the first five turns which can give you an advantage. The AI obviously can't override itself.

[NTJedi]

Cheezeninja... of course what could have happened is if you placed guards around a few of your commanders in the back. Then when the harpies were set for hold and attack rear the harpies attacked the rear most which were the few guards standing near the commanders.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
If no orders are given, Both your units as well as those of your AI enemy will use the same Algorythms to determin what to do. But you can override this for the first five turns which can give you an advantage. The AI obviously can't override itself. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unfortunately, this works entirely in his favor, because now the AI is controlling BOTH of your units. Thus, the AI always has full control, and can do whatever it wishes, whereas you can't.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Boron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Stormbinder:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Norfleet:
You're missing the point that in this case, the AI still controls its own units. You don't. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL. And he is still not geting it. Oh well, since I wouldn't want to continue what some people feel is namecalling, all I can say is: No future comments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i think here you don't get norfleets point :
i understand it that norfleet means :

the ai can give orders to each unit the whole battle while you can only give indirect orders for the first 5 actions .

under this viewpoint norfleets statement is quite true and even wisely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

so the ai has full control of every unit while you have only really little control for the first few turns if you give orders yourself . </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, I understand what Norfleet means very well Boron. It is he who is not able to grasp my explanations.

Norfleet is simply confused by his own terminology. He thinks that because both tactical AI, which is more precisely just an automatic battlefield spell selection algoritm, and Strategic AI - who is your real computer opponent , are both programs and can be both roughly called "AI", that means that they are somehow part of the same evil "computer opponent", who is out there to get him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As a senior software engineer with background in AI programming, I can tell you that tactical AI and Strategic AI have absolutely nothing to do with each other. "Tactical AI" is just a simple tool, which works exactly the same for all human and computer players, and which can be used by both your and Strategic AI - who is your real opponent.

Botton line is - the tactical battlefield AI do not give any unfair advantage to computer opponents. It works exactly the same for human and computer opponents, and humans have an option to using it from the begining, by switiching mages to "spells", if they choose to. Unlike computer-controlled players though, humans can also scrip first 5 spells manualy, if they choose to. Strategic AI obviosly lack this option, by being, duh, AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 02, 2004, 23:37: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Unfortunately, this works entirely in his favor, because now the AI is controlling BOTH of your units. Thus, the AI always has full control, and can do whatever it wishes, whereas you can't. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Either you are making a joke here or you have a wrong understanding on what tha AI actually is.

You make it sound as if the AI tried to make you lose by giving your troops bad commands. That's wrong. The AI is not some kind of entity inside your PC that is out there to beat you. Your troops will be given those commands that the AI assumes is best suited for your success. She does this for both sites, so there is really no advantage for anyone. Lets say that both armies are equally skillfully lead. If you script your own command chain, you will propably make a script that is supperior compared to those the AI does, giving you an advantage.

[Boron]

don't want to quote again stormbinder this would fill the half page http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
hm i really thought that perhaps really the computer opponent tactical ai is another a bit cleverer than your own tactical ai if you either don't script or if 5 turns have passed .

because i think that would be fair if the ai has a slightly better battlefield ai then the player battlefield ai so that there are 2 slightly different battlefield ais .

so i thought perhaps norfleet has discovered this . in the starting of the post too the guess was made the computer ai may perhaps still use dominion 1 battle orders .

so it was basically wish thinking by me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
ai's just need some advantages to be really competetive for expierienced players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Lex]

it wouldn't make sense to program two seperate combat algorythms for the human players and the AI controlled players. Dominions is all about role playing accuracy. And as far as I can see, there's no sense in one army behaving differently then another simply because it's controlled by the computer.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
You make it sound as if the AI tried to make you lose by giving your troops bad commands.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It does. Witness "The AI makes your pretender uselessly cast junk spells until it passes out and dies".

That's wrong. The AI is not some kind of entity inside your PC that is out there to beat you.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes it is. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point to playing against it, would you? Who wants to play an opponent that doesn't try to beat you? This is boring.

Your troops will be given those commands that the AI assumes is best suited for your success.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, the AI gives commands that are best suited for *ITS* success....not yours. If you leave a unit simply on "no orders", the unit will NOT behave like it does when the AI is controlling it.

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Strategic AI obviosly lack this option, by being, duh, AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The strategic AI doesn't NEED this option, because he already has full control of his tactics. The tactical AI *IS* an extension of the strategic AI. It does exactly what he wants it to do. The same cannot be said for you, as the tactical AI never does what you want it to do beyond the level you can force it to do so.

Originally posted by Boron:
don't want to quote again stormbinder this would because i think that would be fair if the ai has a slightly better battlefield ai then the player battlefield ai so that there are 2 slightly different battlefield ais .

so i thought perhaps norfleet has discovered this . in the starting of the post too the guess was made the computer ai may perhaps still use dominion 1 battle orders .
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The AI definitely does different things that you cannot possibly do, as evidence from the original poster shows, and is far more reactive. This is because the AI is able to "script orders", as it were, on the fly, right before the battle starts, rather than having to guess. Notice how you will never, ever, catch the AI having been scripted to fight someone else, and his mages never charge you with a spoon for no comprehensible reason. Note also how, if left up to the AI, your pretender will be allowed to cast spells until it faints from exhaustion....but the AI's pretender won't do this: You can easily witness the AI's pretender casting its spells, and then ATTACKING YOU.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Alexi:
it wouldn't make sense to program two seperate combat algorythms for the human players and the AI controlled players. Dominions is all about role playing accuracy. And as far as I can see, there's no sense in one army behaving differently then another simply because it's controlled by the computer. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, this is untrue. It makes perfect sense: The AI's combat algorithms are often more sophisticated specifically because it has to oppose you, whereas the "friendly force" algorithms are simplistic and designed to, at best, make a feeble attempt to prod the player, who's supposed to be playing the game, in the right direction. If the AI did everything for you, you wouldn't need to play the game. In Soviet Russia, the game plays you!

[ August 03, 2004, 00:46: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
A human-played army would have to first go through its pre-scripted spells, regardless of the fact that many of them would be near-useless (certainly by comparison with Banishment), before finally settling down to kick some undead butt.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You could achieve exactly the same thing by placing all your commanders on "stay behind troops" or "cast spells".

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
[QB]Note also how, if left up to the AI, your pretender will be allowed to cast spells until it faints from exhaustion....but the AI's pretender won't do this: You can easily witness the AI's pretender casting its spells, and then ATTACKING YOU.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I assume that you can actually provide an example of this, since anybody who isn't trying to mislead new players won't have seen this behaviour.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I assume that you can actually provide an example of this, since anybody who isn't trying to mislead new players won't have seen this behaviour. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You mean other than the fact that I've seen it happen before? I don't exactly play a lot of SP anymore, you know, but you can definitely see it happen, which clearly indicates the AI isn't just set on default orders, and *IS* actually making decisions. What exactly do you want as an example? A screenshot? Because I can hardly go around posting my MP turns anywhere, since they'd be passworded and unreadable.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:42: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Alexi:
it wouldn't make sense to program two seperate combat algorythms for the human players and the AI controlled players. Dominions is all about role playing accuracy. And as far as I can see, there's no sense in one army behaving differently then another simply because it's controlled by the computer. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeap, that is absolutely correct. The only possible very rare exception is the topic of this very thread, as I said myself earlier. And that had nothing to do with choosing of which spells to cast. Accursing developers of malicious intend to secretly screw the player by forcing him to use "bad" spell-selecting algoritm, while strategic AI got to use the differnt "uber" spell selecting algoritm is very... errr... strange. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[archaeolept]

i've never seen an AI pretender cast more than 5 spells and then go on to attack. If the unit were berserk, of course that could happen, but otherwise no.

[Lex]

" Accursing developers of malicious intend to secretly screw the player by forcing him to use "bad" spell-selecting algoritm, while strategic AI got to use the differnt "uber" spell selecting algoritm is very... errr... strange."

ROFL well, never underestimate the mind of a programmer lol.. maybe the devs got tired of hearing all you veterans kicking the snot out of the AI (which I'm sure they worked very hard on) so they decided to curse all of you (or maybe just Norfleet) with bad algorythms, meanwhile all the newbies got copies of the game with the same combat algorythms as the AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by archaeolept:
i've never seen an AI pretender cast more than 5 spells and then go on to attack. If the unit were berserk, of course that could happen, but otherwise no. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeap. It never happens AFAICT.

[ August 03, 2004, 02:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Alexi:
" Accursing developers of malicious intend to secretly screw the player by forcing him to use "bad" spell-selecting algoritm, while strategic AI got to use the differnt "uber" spell selecting algoritm is very... errr... strange."

ROFL well, never underestimate the mind of a programmer lol.. maybe the devs got tired of hearing all you veterans kicking the snot out of the AI (which I'm sure they worked very hard on) so they decided to curse all of you (or maybe just Norfleet) with bad algorythms, meanwhile all the newbies got copies of the game with the same combat algorythms as the AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL. Probably just Norfleet. After he publicly accursed devs of installing spyware on his computer few patches ago, maybe they have decided to throw him another bone, to keep him happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ August 03, 2004, 02:56: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Smauler]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Note also how, if left up to the AI, your pretender will be allowed to cast spells until it faints from exhaustion....but the AI's pretender won't do this: You can easily witness the AI's pretender casting its spells, and then ATTACKING YOU. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've seen an AI pretender do this in DM against another AI. I don't remember who vs who, but one cast spells until completely fatigued, the other cast spells, wasn't as fatigued, then just came and whacked them on the head repeatedly with a spoon until they died.

[Norfleet]

There we go, we have a witness. It happens.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
There we go, we have a witness. It happens. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"><shrug> It may be unique to Deathmatch event, which is a special case in several regards, it may be a bug, it may be another ultra-rare legacy artifact from Dom1, it may wrong observation. I've played probably a hundred SP games, and never seen it happen. So even if it exist, it is so rare that it can be disrgarded, just like "attack commander" artifact from Dom1 game.


You can bet your *** that there are no two different algoritms for human mages and for computer mages. If it would be the case, than we all would witness it all the times, not a once-in-a-lifetime observation or anecdotical evidence.

In any case your false logic in general about dinamic AI and strategic AI having "principle advantage" over human player because "computer is always in control of thier troops, unlike human who in control for only 5 turns" just clearly shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. You are just trying to change a topic.

[ August 03, 2004, 05:17: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by Smauler:
I've seen an AI pretender do this in DM against another AI. I don't remember who vs who, but one cast spells until completely fatigued, the other cast spells, wasn't as fatigued, then just came and whacked them on the head repeatedly with a spoon until they died. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When a mage runs out of spell options he is likely to run into combat (say, you have only researched a couple personal buffs and no range offensive spells, and have already cast the first ones on all legal targets), so this certainly doesn't prove anything.

JK doesn't like coding AI, why would he go through the pain of coding 2 different AI rutines when coding just one is a chore for him? Norfleet is just being paranoid.

[ August 03, 2004, 07:26: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

[Wendigo]

Hmm, quoting myself...

Originally posted by Wendigo:
When a mage runs out of spell options he is likely to run into combat... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">TO be more precise I believe the mage defaults to 'stay behind troops', yet, if there are no troops to stay behind (as it's very likely in a DM) that results in the seen behaviour.

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally written by Norfleet:
Note also how, if left up to the AI, your pretender will be allowed to cast spells until it faints from exhaustion....but the AI's pretender won't do this: <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> Originally written by Smauler:
I've seen an AI pretender do this in DM against another AI. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> Originally written by Norfleet:
There we go, we have a witness. It happens. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, but this does not support your statement. You said this would only happen to player pretenders. Smauler says it happens to AI pretenders too.

[Lex]

you've gotta be pretty bored to get into these arguments.. (and by "you" I mean everyone in this thread except for the original poster&replies) but i'll admit its quite amusing

[PrinzMegaherz]

you've gotta be pretty bored to get into these arguments.. (and by "you" I mean everyone in this thread except for the original poster&replies) but i'll admit its quite amusing <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are right, I have so much time to say that every other post here has any topic related content except yours. Now who is wasting time?

[Lex]

sorry.. i work with a college, and this thread reminded me of the committee meetings I have with them sometimes, where hours are spent discussing semantics or shifting the subject to try to come out on top as the "winner" of the argument.

its very academic. i've learnt to laugh at it rather then get frustrated by it. Besides, if it's engaging, then its time well spent (truth of any good form of entertainment, and why controversial topics are so popular). and this thread has been very engaging, despite its lack of educational value.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Alexi:
you've gotta be pretty bored to get into these arguments..<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's a well-known fact that Dominions players have no life. If they did, would they be here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Lex]

Originally posted by Arryn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Alexi:
you've gotta be pretty bored to get into these arguments..<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's a well-known fact that Dominions players have no life. If they did, would they be here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">true enough.. i've spent many hours readin through your AAR thread Arryn, starting from the beginning, and I'm still not caught up! LOL

although the trick to having a life and playing Dominions is the precious laptop! being a turn based game without a sense of urgency in the turns, you can take the addiction to a new level by squeezing in a few turns where you'd otherwise be sitting around doing nothing

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Alexi:
true enough.. i've spent many hours readin through your AAR thread Arryn, starting from the beginning, and I'm still not caught up! LOL<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah, another fan! hehe

although the trick to having a life and playing Dominions is the precious laptop! being a turn based game without a sense of urgency in the turns, you can take the addiction to a new level by squeezing in a few turns where you'd otherwise be sitting around doing nothing <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And this reply of mine is being written on my laptop -- which doesn't have Dom 2 installed on it ... yet (it does have JA2, Civ3, and Diablo 2, though; it's an old 600MHz laptop).