national armies?

Pocus · #1 February 25th, 2004, 10:25 PM

AI dont know how to sneak. For the AI, its head to head, or die. So yes, it can for the armored minotaurs and other beasties.

Gandalf Parker · #2 February 25th, 2004, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen:
I wouldn't vote for Satyr Hoplites (in their current form), they are useless. I'd say Centaur Warriors and Coral Guards for Atlantis.

But I dont think the AI does them that way. Isnt it more like lt troops, hvy troops, lt cavalry, hvy cavalry? Its just one AI. If the good thing for Ulm is hvy infantry over lt infantry then Pangaea and Atlantis get the same change dont they?

Of course if it goes to seperate AI's for each nation then all kinds of great strategies could be put in.

#3 February 25th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Well couldn't you just label a unit type as a
"Priority 1" or "Heavy Infantry" for each nation ?

So you label Abysian Infantry with a Morningstar Priority 1, and Coral Guard, and Centaur Warrior and that accounts for a certain % of the gold usage.

Or use something like Protection greater than 14 (If it's stat based)?

I don't know exactly, but if the limits of deciding gold usage on troops cannot be defined or labeled, what is it doing right now?

#4 February 25th, 2004, 10:36 PM

Of course this doesn't address the Mage production issue, which I feel if the AI has no reason to produce a non-mage unit, it doesn't. It's standard or default should be mages. You could even go as far as having the AI make 1 Normal Troop commander for every 5 mages (to carry troops) and have % of those mages (depending on the threat of neighbors) put into active duty with armies.

And of course, the AI should dome it's research centers.

[ February 25, 2004, 20:37: Message edited by: Zen ]

PDF · #5 February 25th, 2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:
Originally posted by Zen:
I wouldn't vote for Satyr Hoplites (in their current form), they are useless. I'd say Centaur Warriors and Coral Guards for Atlantis.

But I dont think the AI does them that way. Isnt it more like lt troops, hvy troops, lt cavalry, hvy cavalry? Its just one AI. If the good thing for Ulm is hvy infantry over lt infantry then Pangaea and Atlantis get the same change dont they?

Of course if it goes to seperate AI's for each nation then all kinds of great strategies could be put in.

If you just change the order to Hvy Inf, Hvy Cav, Lt Inf, Lt Cav it'll be OK IMHO - From what I've seen in MP this is more or less what 90% of players do

...

Arryn · #6 February 25th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I think the best answer will be splitting the AI. And Id love to see them outside scriptable.

Which is what Paradox did with HoI, for example. IMO, the only thing that makes HoI remotely worth playing is the fan-made tweaks to the AI, since Paradox has no clue how to code a decent one. IW has made a good one, but it could be made far better if the almost unlimited amount of time that fans can devote to it were to be applied to externalized AI files. It would also free up IW's time to devote to other aspects of the game.

[ February 25, 2004, 21:25: Message edited by: Arryn ]

mlepinski · #7 February 26th, 2004, 12:03 AM

It seems like the single most significant thing that could be done to improve the AI is getting it to build some forts early in the game. (Since in the long run these forts lead to more resources, more income and more oppertunities to build national troops). I'm personally of the opinion that any simple heuristic (whether it be build a fort in "any high income province", "any province with many neighbors I control" or "every fifth province") would be better than no AI fort building. Getting the AI to build forts in truly strategic locations seems difficult but it seems very likely that even sub-optimal fortress building would still help the AI significantly.

- Matt L. :->