Re: Dissapointed
 

Blessing and similar spells that do not target just the commanders could very well have been cast on other blessable troops in the vicinity. I am a little sceptical to claims that the AI has cast nonstackable spells that only targets the caster and has no fail chance repeatedly on itself. I attribute the cases reported to having troops nearby that can be affected by spells, so for example body ethreal has an area of 1 and so can be cast on nearby bodyguards, so that reported incident is most likely not a case of casting a nonstackable spell repeatedly on itself. As for not casting offensive spells on fleeing troops this is most likely stems from not being in range or that the AI calculates that the chance of hitting friendliess is to high. Most people otherwise seems to believe that the AI's friendly fire avoidance is not strict enough. The spellcasting AI will never be human smart, and if it were magic would become even more dominating in the game.

Your other complaint is probably caused by the battle replay bug. Unfortunately sometimes the battle replays does not match the battle. This might happen more if you participate in an MP game where the game is hosted on another platform. This bug has not been localised.

Edit: Also in the 2.07 patch the spell AI will drop the estimated worth of some protective enchanments. As it stands it will also value protective enchanments less and less as turns go by.

[ January 27, 2004, 13:16: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: Dissapointed
 

I am sure many people have posted this suggestion but...

Why not add a spellbook management for the mages , something simple like:

Switching on/off spell he could cast.

Some other spell order can be usefull:

Order him to cast 1 spell continiously. ( so we can give him this as the 5th order ).


This is very bad when you lose undead spellcaster because thet doesnt cast raise undead but go to spell protection or decay http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Anyway I would greatly like the possibility to "tweak" the mage spellbook so we can have him serving in the purpose we want without having to hold his hand too much.

Re: Dissapointed
 

On the other side of the coin, I'll bet there are some who would complain if the spellcasters did not case protection spells at the start of the battle. Maybe a defensive or offensive switch?

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I just had a funny experience. I had 3 Serpent Priests stacked on the same tile in a rear corner, and one of them (my prophet) decided to cast Berserkers on the group instead of the Fanaticism he was scripted for. The 3 quickened SPs outran their bodyguards (I had mistakenly deployed those in the opposite corner), and gave chase to a few flying militia until they reached the opposite rear area. They were mopped up there by more routing enemy troops. Luckily for me the entire enemy army was routed before my Last priest died, as my army was now leaderless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif These 3 priests were my only casualties BTW.

Re: Dissapointed
 

I love the idea of a "don't cast" list.

Much easier than fussing with the AI which tends to be very time consuming (in the little bit that I've done).

The spell queue is nice and another option would just be to expand it to 10 spells although that would be more clicking in some cases when there are a few spells I just don't want casted.

A bit deeper on this topic, I actually REALLY like not managing the tactics of my troops. In Total War you have to manage your troops and while it is very fun sometimes, it can also get really tedious. You can let the AI do it, but you get such better results doing it by hand that you really have to unless you have a 10 to 1 advantage.

The downside to how Dominions does it though is, indeed, that when the AI does something absurd it can be very frustrating.

[ January 27, 2004, 14:51: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well I was just playing the demo -- try it out and see if I am wrong. I don't think so.
Anyhow, I am not the first person to "complain" about this. Other people say it about "barkskin". In any case, even if there was a chance that some neighboring troop could get a bit of that "body etheral" area effect 1, that is IMHO not a good choice for the AI in most of the situations I saw.

Are you happy with it? Would you like it to stay as it is in the full Version? If you were on the programming team would you think my "complaint" was uncalled for?

Re: Dissapointed
 

I have the full Version and I have never had this problem with the AI casting multiple non-stacking boost magic. I think my game is blessed , because it never behaves bad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Dissapointed
 

1) There's already patch 2.06, and 2.07 is in the works, as one could have guessed from johans article.

2) johan is on the design team http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

3) I've never seen the AI cast the same, unstackable spells with target "caster" more than once. Unless the commanders are scripted to do this. Keep in mind, though, that some spells do stack with themselves or each other.

4) ".. in the 2.07 patch the spell AI will drop the estimated worth of some protective enchanments. As it stands it will also value protective enchanments less and less as turns go by. .. think this will take care of most problems. Even if for some reason the AI doesn't recognize an enchantment already done, it wouldn't cast the spell again after some (5 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) combat rounds.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have had the AI cast Body Ethereal on my (quickened) pretender six consecutive times in the same battle. That's all my pretender cast for 3 complete combat rounds. Body Ethereal does not stack, nor did I script it.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have had the AI cast Body Ethereal on my (quickened) pretender six consecutive times in the same battle. That's all my pretender cast for 3 complete combat rounds. Body Ethereal does not stack, nor did I script it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Send the trn file to support@illwinter.com so we can take a look at it. Explain what is wrong so we have clue what to look for.

I have never seen anything like it, but there are some reports here that it has happened. No one has sent us any bugged files though, so it is hard to do anything about it.

Re: Dissapointed
 

I agree completely with the magic system actually. It's the ONLY thing in the game that actually angers me a bit. I've had that exact same problem. "Fire Shield, Fire Shield, Fire Shield, Fire Shield" I mean he only needs one ;P

I think this game only really needs two things to make it as eternal as the other classics (i.e. SEIV), and that's increased modability(but this is already in the works =), and an improved magic combat sytsem.

I'm afraid the excuse of "it's only a suggestion" or, "it's a chaotic battle, he'll do what he thinks is best" just don't cut it. It is NOT a suggestion when I tell my caster to not kill my own men. I should definatly be able to take more control over them - the AI just isn't capable of using it's magic to it's full potential. The old problem of the caster casting summoning spells when it already has a HUGE army comes to mind...

Plus, equally important - or even more so really, is that it makes it funner! =) I mean, giving the players more opportunities to play with the massive amounts of spells just increases gameplay 10 fold I think. Spells are fun, it could be really entertaining trying to find secret combinations of spells etc.

That list of 5 spells just doesn't cut it IMO. Esp how he doesn't even listen to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Johan, you really shouldn't so readily dismiss reports by players of odd AI behavior. My pretender was alone, no bodyguards or other casters within range 5. And the AI DID cast a caster-only spell repeatedly (Body Ethereal), to the tune of six times. The only reason it stopped at six was the battle ended. I wouldn't remember the event so well if it hadn't been such outrageous behavior on the AI's part.

I really resent the attitude that because you don't understand why the AI did something stupid, that we who are doing the reporting must be wrong somehow. Enough people have been reporting this type of problem that I would expect you to sit up and pay attention. Not make excuses and cavalierly dismiss our reports. It's beneath you.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Re: Dissapointed
 

MY biggest issue really is that the ai will cast offensive spells that damage the caster, even when other options are available that would not harm the caster, and have a better damge/area/fatigue ratio...


This really only becomes an issue if you have a rainbow mage with lots of options available and deep evocation research...

Magma eruption was definitely the worst choice for the Ai to cast... the troops being targetted were militia so not heavily armored.

IMHO the routine should consider:
Note this is only for a caster that has meleers attacking them.

--Number of targets hurting me
--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
--Armor of troops attacking me
--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.
-- how much will thi spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.

Of course the overall system is obviously very complex indeed and any kind of AI programming is a herculean task by any means. By tackling the at least the issue of offensive spell choices could be made more efficient.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks for listening. Alas, however much I'd love to do so, so that this bug can be squashed, I don't have a trn file from that game. It happened over a week ago, and I wasn't keeping turn-by-turn saves. Hopefully someone else will have kept their file(s) and can show you similar behavior.

I do understand that you cannot fix what you cannot replicate. I've been a programmer for almost 30 years and I can sympathize.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Under no circumstances should the AI be permitted to cast a spell that will incapacitate the caster when the caster is engaged in melee combat. It shouldn't even permit it when there are enemies that can reach the caster in the enemy's next turn (regardless of bodyguards).

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sorry, I haven't seen this reported behaviour myself. It's just that quite often people reports 'bugs' that are caused by factors that are not readily apparent, such as their commanders being out of range for their combat spells or Ermorian priest not succesfully beating the MR of all undead troops and thus casting blessings repeatedly etc. Since the systems involved are a little opaque many behaviours might be caused by 'legal'mechanisms that players are not aware of. In the case of repeated casting of non stackable spells mosts of the mechanisms ahs been around since dom 1 times and I haven't myself seen this behavoiur during the 5 or so years I have been playing various Versions of dom1/dom2. But as Kristoffer said, if there is an apparently buggy behaviour send the trn file to support@illwinter.com.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The AI does consider these things with the possible exception of AOE. Which of the above do you believe the AI must rate as more or less important a factor and in what cases?

The placement of AOE>1 is randomized and thus difficult to calculate regarding risk to your self.

Re: Dissapointed
 

Lest J & KO think that I'm being highly critical of their work, I'd like to take a moment to thank them for what I know is the monumental task they've done in creating what is arguably the best AI of any strategy game I've played (HttR has a very good AI as well, perhaps even better, but it's a different style of game and an argument can be made that it's not as complex a game as Dom 2). Sure, the AI in Dom 2 needs some work. It has its quirks. But if it wasn't already a very good AI, we wouldn't all be so fond of this game as we are. And you cannot please everyone, no matter how hard you try. If IW had the manpower and money that some other dev shops do, one can only wonder what truly incredible things they could accomplish. (As long as some idiots like Atari didn't buy them out and then kill their projects.)

Some of us also appreciate that every minute you spend reading (and replying to) our postings here is time we've taken away from your being able to enhance the game. Or having a personal life.

Once again, thank you for giving us such a fine game.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The AI does consider these things with the possible exception of AOE. Which of the above do you believe the AI must rate as more or less important a factor and in what cases?

The placement of AOE>1 is randomized and thus difficult to calculate regarding risk to your self. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In order ...

--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
(if the target is immune, there is no point to casting the spell)

--how much will this spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.
(if the caster is in imminent danger, making the situation more dire is a bad idea)

--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
(only consider hurting self if you can destroy appreciable numbers of foes, I'll leave it to others to argue over what's 'appreciable')

--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
(never cause more than, say, 1/4 remaining damage to friendlies unless you are assured of victory by wiping out the opposition. no one enjoys pyrrhic victories)

--Number of targets hurting me
(if you are being hit by six enemies, casting a spell that only hurts one of them, and won't even kill that one, is silly)

--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
(see earlier comments)

--Armor of troops attacking me
--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">More control would be bad for SP, I believe -it would make computer opponents even weaker.

Even improvements on the spellcasting AI would not be without setback entirely -I think Magic vs. Might in Dom2 is already a little bit too much on the side of Magic.

Re: Dissapointed
 

First let me say: Great work so far guys; AI programming is the holy grail of gaming.
Let me add, there is always room for improvement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Most important to least important:


1. Are my targets immune to this damage type? (if yes ignore this spell)

2. Do I have any spells I can cast that my targets are especially vulnerable to? (examine these first)

3. Do I have any AOE spells I am immune/resistant to but my enemies are succeptible to? (this should be chosen over AOE spells that I am not immune/resistant to)

4. How many IMMEDATE threats can potentially be eliminated with this casting.
4.1. Area of the spell
4.2. Damage potential
4.3. Armor penetration potential
(focus on damage/AOE for light armor enemies)

5.Consider fatigue impact. By this I mean you can come up with a fatigue to damage potential ratio.... The most efficient spell should be used.
Discount any spell that will make me go unconcious.

6. Will friendlies be hurt?


This is where things start getting recursive; and very difficult to weight. I don't envy your task at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

7. Will the potential number of surviving enemies attacking me be capable of killing me next round?
7.1 Can I remove myself from danger without fleeing the battle? (hard to calculate I guess)
7.2 Can I protect myself from the ensuing potential damage?

8. Can I cast 2 spells a turn? Can I augment my abilities before considering which offensive spell to cast?


Thanks for reading, considering and communicating with your customers.

[ January 27, 2004, 17:06: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ]

Re: Dissapointed
 

Johan, did idea of a spellbook list went into developpers ?

What was the pros/cons against it ?

I think it could probably solve 9 out of 10 problems with the current casting as you can easily switch you caster spell selection considering the opposition expected and avoid many of the IA mistake....

Any luck of it making way into Dom III ?

Re: Dissapointed
 

>Originally posted by Arryn:
>In order ...

>--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
(if the target is immune, there is no point to casting the spell)

The AI does not use spells that the enemies are immune to. Anyhting suggesting otherwise might be a bug and should be reported.

>--how much will this spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.
(if the caster is in imminent danger, making the situation more dire is a bad idea)

The AI casts less exhaustive spells if nearly unconscious, but it follows your script, unless there is strong reason not to (immune enemies, out of range etc). The issue of following scripts is a difficult one. Players dislike when the AI overrides scripting, but also dislike when the AI follows their orders and cast spells that inevitably will damage friends.

>--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
(only consider hurting self if you can destroy appreciable numbers of foes, I'll leave it to others to argue over what's 'appreciable')

Not sure to what extent this is calculated.

>--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
(never cause more than, say, 1/4 remaining damage to friendlies unless you are assured of victory by wiping out the opposition. no one enjoys pyrrhic victories)

In one spell? What is assured victory?

>--Number of targets hurting me
(if you are being hit by six enemies, casting a spell that only hurts one of them, and won't even kill that one, is silly)
>--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
(see earlier comments)
>--Armor of troops attacking me
>--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.

The AI sums up the probable dmg dealt to the enemies and this includes dmg, penetration, targets, distance etc. Targets close by are more likely to be targeted as they ar percieved as possible threats.

I rephrase my question. Which of the above do you believe the AI doesn't give enough importance.
Every possible spell is given a 'preference factor' when a mage is about to cast a spell (this is what takes time during battle replays if you have done a great deal of research). The spell and target with the highest 'preference factor' is cast.
So which of the criteria is not given enough influence on the 'preference factor' of a spell. What kind of spells are cast too much or too little and under what circumstances?

Re: Dissapointed
 

The biggest issue then as far as my experiences go is that the mages can and do hurt themselves more than their attackers are, in the process of eliminating their attackers.

The next issue would be they favour defense over offense (which is being dealt with in next patch). You should always aim to eliminate your enemies, thus making defense unecessary.

Quickness should always be the first thing cast if available and not scripted already.


IMHO the player spell tools should NOT be made more powerful without making the AI smarter too. This would unbalance SP games immensely and favour magic too much. Improving the weightings of the AI routines would be enough.


SIDE NOTE: Why don't archers have a hold and fire routine available? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 27, 2004, 17:18: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ]

Re: Dissapointed
 

The only "problem spell" I seem to encounter is Breath of Winter. My Water Mages often freeze out their bodyguards and other nearby units by casting it when their script isn't right for the occasion.

I think a check should be made for that sort of situation: abort a defensive spell if other friendly units are too close.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It was boring to make, but it is likely to appear in the 2.07 patch.

Re: Dissapointed
 

Three cheers for K.O and co. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Breath of Winter is a problematic spell as it is both defensive and passivly offensive (Soul Vortex is another). AOE makes it even more difficult as it can be rather large and random. Script mages and place them prudently.

Other option: Should BoW be a spell never or rarely cast unless scripted?

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It was boring to make, but it is likely to appear in the 2.07 patch. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">THANK YOU!!!

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Precisely. I have never seen a single example of the AI casting this spell when it would do any good and many times when it will be harmful.

As Strages Sanctus mentioned, Quickness should be the very first spell the AI tries to cast, when going down its list of available spells, unless the spell is already in effect or scripted.

Re: Dissapointed
 

The AI should only cast Breath of Winter if scripted. Put a little note beside the spell description if you need to. A player can script his pretender to cast it, if it's important for it to be cast.

This of course will limit the Death 9 reanimation for no-upkeep units, but it will also save anyone near a mage with 2+ in Water.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is. Not 100% but rather likely. OTOH if there is a flying elephant on the battle field you would probably prefer Souls Slay to quickness that first round of battle.

Also, if you consider Frozen Heart 30 Fat. If you cast quickness you will get one less casting of the Frozen heart before falling unconscious. Lvl 1 and to some extent lvl 2 mages are rarely helped by quickness.

Re: Dissapointed
 

I agree with Zen and Arryn: BoW should only be cast when scripted. I can't recall ever getting an enemy with it and have lost track of how many friendlies have been frozen over.

I wouldn't want Quickness cast all the time though. There are too many times when I would want something else first, such as establish a Communion to ease the fatigue load.

Re: Dissapointed
 

Hmm the flying elephant type dealie is a good point.

Also I was definitely thinking of higher powered mages when I said that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

This just goes to show how complex the task is. Things which seem clear cut aren't always so.

Edit: Also I am talking about non-scripted mages. They should give Quickness a very heavy bias over anything but imminent destruction aVersion, making quickness a moot point.

I would definitely imagine that setting up communion would be a very complex AI consideration and that it would not value that as an option very highly.

[ January 27, 2004, 18:01: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ]

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Blue Version of Dragon - BoW - attack rear.
Niefeljarl - Quickness - BoW - attack
Bog Mummy - likewise with Soul Vortex and/or BoW

Works very good!

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Blue Version of Dragon - BoW - attack rear.
Niefeljarl - Quickness - BoW - attack
Bog Mummy - likewise with Soul Vortex and/or BoW

Works very good! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Okay, you've a good point. Now consider the same situation with mixed water-based and blood-based magics. Methinks the summoned devils won't much like the BoW effects.

As others have suggested, perhaps modifying the cast list with checkboxes so that you can limit what spells the AI has to choose from might make most people happy. I can imagine this may be a fair amount of coding work, but I think it'll solve a lot of issues people have been griping about.

Re: Dissapointed
 

Yes, but as you can see it is very specific in what you want to do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Don't forget Ice Devil

Quickness > BoW > Attack and other various spells.

The BoW spell should only be cast if the unit is melee combat friendly and only right before it charges into combat.

If this is too complex to script, turn it off. I'd rather have to take special consideration for every Combatant Caster than have to with every 2+ Water mage A.) Spread out and ignore any bodyguards (if any) B.) Fatigue out the caster so he is less likely to cast BoW.

This really isn't much of an issue except when battles progress a while and the AI gets confused on what to cast, you have a communion or you cluster your mages (to take advantage of spells like Luck/Body Ethereal), but it is a significant disadvantage of the AI as it wastes the fatigue and spell casting time by doing it.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">you mean a spellbook for each mage? This would be MM hell.
Just add a final order 'cast spell xxx each round', and most vets here will be happy!

Re: Dissapointed
 

there is a buggy behavior though, that is rather annoying, and detrimental for scenarios settings too: leaders which are dual fighter/mage has a too strong tendency of fatiguating themselves in casting spells before engaging in melee. For example research some spells, and let an archdevil engage in battle. He will cast up to 90+ fatigue pts before thinking of either fighting, or resting a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe that it is your fault http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif . IIRC mages will not attack unless told to. If the arch devil is tired and then attacks you are to blame.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If an option could be made to repeat every order X times (hold, attack, fire, cast spell..) it'll be even more cool ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is something to this. Currently the only way to prohibit certain spells to your Mages is to avoid that line of Research entirely. This is not ideal.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think he meant one spellbook that is the same for *all* Mages. (A yes/no flag for any battlefield spell researched if it should be used by your Mages or not.)

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If an option could be made to repeat every order X times (hold, attack, fire, cast spell..) it'll be even more cool ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Too much control. I actually like that you have to work with limited options.

But there should be an option to globally "gray out" spells that you want your Mages never to use.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe that it is your fault http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif . IIRC mages will not attack unless told to. If the arch devil is tired and then attacks you are to blame. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">mmmh, I was speaking of indeps (so my reference to scenarios), or AI units which are not scripted too. AI should have a max fatigue limit depending on how melee-able is the caster.

edit : a max fatigue level that the AI strives to not pass.

[ January 27, 2004, 21:12: Message edited by: Pocus ]

Re: Dissapointed
 

What I would like is the same (with some adaptations of course, like removing spellcasting, obviously, and adding a fire "single round command" on the topmost list) orders screen for units as the one for commanders.

It will use already existing implemented UI/mechanics, and alleviate a lot of problems commonly mentioned.

It will help against firendly fire (you could script your bow troops to fire-fire-fire then hide behind other troops). It will give value and flexibility to dual weapon types troops (light infantry/cavalry/poison spitters), with orders like hold-hold-fire-fire then attack closest.
It will also help "coordinate" flankers (very fast and flying units attacking without support even with hold and attacks) with slower units. Exemple : your huscarls could be set to attack closest, your vans could be hold-hold-attack rearmost, and your valkyries could be set to hold-hold-hold-hold-attack rearmost (just examples, not sure how it would work out in reality http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Re: Dissapointed
 

Also, tactics designed to exploit the tactical combat ai should be squashed. One example I read was to attack a large army with a force of only hydras. When the hydras routed(which was planned) they would leave a trail of poison into which the enemy army would run. This evidently results in a VERY positive kill:loss ratio. Maybe, this is part of the reason Pythium is considered overpowered. I would be very disappointed if these types of engine exploits were used in a multi-player game.

Aikamun

Re: Dissapointed
 

That is an expensive and slow way. The more prevelant and exploitive way of using the AI is against indeps (for early expansion). Their Archers/xbows/missile units are all set to fire closest. Thus you can leave a single unit with a shield in front of a mass line of archers. Most of the time if you have a decent archer brigade, the lone shield bearing lamb will surive due to the spread of arrowfire, while you incure no losses and most indeps break before they get to your line.

Another is that all normal fighting troops are on attack closest (as far as I can tell, I've never had anyone attack a flank that didn't engage them first). So you can exploit it in that fashion with spells, retreating options, etc.

Side Note: Nearly all Indeps (with the exception of some Amber Tritons, Amazonians) have only normal priests for their morale support. So you can easily use fear to cause routs without worrying about any losses.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not sure if units should really be as flexible as commanders.

Re: Dissapointed
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Engine exploit? Are you sure this wouldn´t work in real life? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I think this is cute Hydra tactics, rather than an exploit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif