Light Infantry... what the ****

[Daynarr]

Originally posted by Jasper:
I agree. Improving the use of LI in battle won't by itself address this single player issue, as you still wouldn't want as many LI as the AI builds.

The AI should avoid building (most) LI unless desperate. Instead, higher priority should be given to buying mages or castles. Giving the AI players a prediliction for high admin castles and a good production scale would likely help as well.

I agree that both should be fixed, but fixing one wont fix another. The thing I've learned about AI in SP is that he will build his troops in castle as much as he has gold or resources, but remaining gold will be spent on building units in non-castle provinces - usually militia and LI. If AI could build forts this issue would be much reduces and if LI gets fixed (improved) the problem with AI building masses of weak units will be solved.

The problem with castles was already discussed and the main problem seems to be that its hard to make rules on how would AI decide to build his castles. I would suggest discussing this in another thread since its pretty large topic and it wouldn't be good if this one loses focus on current issue.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Jasper:
Faster fatigue during the battle gives me mental dissonance, as there is no terrain on the battlefield. If the field _were_ uniformly covered in rough terrain, then units like HI, cavalry, and archers should be useless.

Partially covering terrain would be ok, but is just too complex for the dominions battle engine to handle (and is perhaps better handled in another game...).

Accruing fatigue from terrain throughout the battle seems to be more realistic compared to receiving an allocation of fatigue at start of battle. Moreover a relief spell cast at start would render the rule even less plausible, whereas the added fatigue rule would not be as easily circumvented.
Thats all IMHO anyway.

[Vicious Love]

Methinks the LI of such nations as Machaka and Mictlan would be made a lot more cost effective if the "fire and stay behind troops" or "fire and flee to one region/the same region if victorious" suggestions were implemented.
Couple that with skirmishing, and you've got a troop type every bit as a viable as heavy infantry, but with substantially different capabilities and tactical/strategic roles. You might not even have to tweak the AI's propensity for stocking up on the little bastards.

Update: Besides, it's about time we had some guerilla tactics beyond driveby priestings, strikes behind enemy lines, and funky mage combos. And consistent use of these tactics/their countertactics could add a whole new meaning to battlefield mobility, maybe give light cavalry another two of their RL roles back(Either fire and flee or mow down whoever tries to flee).

C'mon, this game isn't nearly complex enough at the moment.

[ April 15, 2004, 12:13: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

[Jasper]

[quote]Originally posted by Daynarr:

The problem with castles was already discussed and the main problem seems to be that its hard to make rules on how would AI decide to build his castles. I would suggest discussing this in another thread since its pretty large topic and it wouldn't be good if this one loses focus on current issue.

I think a simple heuristic would go a long way: If the AI doesn't have enough resources to acheive a force mix dominated by heavy units, it should build castles instead of an army of LI. Or put another way, limit the percentage of available gold that will be spent on light units, and spend left over money on things other than troops.

This relatively closely approximates what I do. Some work would be involved in marking a factions units into appropriate catagories, but that should be straight forward.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Pocus:
Accruing fatigue from terrain throughout the battle seems to be more realistic compared to receiving an allocation of fatigue at start of battle. Moreover a relief spell cast at start would render the rule even less plausible, whereas the added fatigue rule would not be as easily circumvented.
Thats all IMHO anyway.

I disagree, IMHO of course. Accruing fatigue faster during a battle implies that the field is covered in rough terrain -- which rare if ever happened.

On the other hand, marching troops for long distances was exhausting -- even without rough terrain. Ancient military strategists describe the danger of fighting with already exhausted troops, and apparently took it seriously.

[Vicious Love]

Ooooh, feel the realism.
Next patch, let's implement camp followers!

Update: Or at least pneumonia. Throw me a bone here.

[ April 15, 2004, 12:17: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

[Firebreath]

Camp followers?

Camp hoes you mean

I'm sure they'd give a nice morale boost before any battle.