The Art of Placement
 

This is based on advice I gave to Llamabeast after I killed a bunch of his magi with blade wind.

When fighting against another player, your chief concerns in placing magi are:
* You want to be able to hit the enemy with your zap spells (or your own units with buffs, whichever).
* You want your enemy's zap spells and archery not to hit your magi.

This is somewhat similar to the dillemma faced when placing regular units, who gain bonuses for outnumbering enemies, but are very vulnerable to spells like Falling Fires when deployed in tight formation.

AFAICT, the following considerations are applied when the AI targets a damaging evocation. I'm prepared to be told that I'm wrong:
* Potential damage dealt. Thus, a caster shooting blade wind will prefer low Prot targets, someone casting falling foo will avoid targets resistant or immune to the elemental damage, and so forth.
* Number of anticipated hits. Thus, a low precision caster will tend towards closer/more tightly packed foes while a high precision caster will take other factors into consideration - and AoE attacks will tend to avoid small skirmishers and hit tightly packed enemy ranks (if they expect to hit at all.)
* Quality. I've only really noticed this with a few single target spells, but hitting a better-quality target does seem to enter into the calculus. It might just be a function of damage dealt - don't know enough to say.

Finallly, if everything else is a wash, the AI seems to prefer targets in the *middle* of the enemy ranks. These are often the targets of choice for archers set on "fire" with no specified target, as well - making this often a good choice.

This means that leaving your magi in the default position is the worst thing you could possibly do!

In addition to spreading your magi out - which is also a good idea in case enemies break through to melee or anything else untoward happens - place some actual skirmishers (low prot, no elemental resistances) in front of *each* individual mage, so that they'll be targeted instead, if it comes to that.

Spreading out is a must, since that way, even if you mess up and place a mage in harms way, at least you won't lose all of them at once.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I'm not sure that precision effects choice of target. Otherwise I agree with you on all your points http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Another point, which follows from your advice but was not explicitly stated is: Do not ever put two mages in the same square. Especially if one of those mages is an astral mage.

One thing that I like to do when placing mages is give each mage two bodygaurds (assuming the mage is size 2). They will stay near him in the same square and drop the probability of an arrow striking him to 1/3.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

If you have a big nasty guy you may bring elephant bodyguards assigned to a closer-to-enemy commander.
Elephants will be targeted by single unit attack spells that often choose biggest enemy (and closer I assume).

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems to me that when I cast blade-wind + wind guide, my svartalf tend to shoot over the heads of enemy heavy infantry at whatever is behind them.

When wind guide is *not* up, they just shot at the closer targets.

So I do think that precision plays some rule in target prioritization, but I could easily be mistaken.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Hmmm? I thought the formula for an arrow striking was dependent upon how tightly-packed the square was. Something like (12 + Shield*2 - Fatigue/10) vs. (10 + 2 if magic + total size in square). Placing bodyguards in his square might reduce risk a little but it's clearly not 1/3 because if the mage is selected as the target the chance of him actually getting hit goes up to a near-certainty.

Incidentally, are astral mages more likely to be targetted or something? If anything, I would have thought putting other mages in his square would make them more likely to be under Body Ethereal and Luck.

-Max

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Magic duel has an AE of 1 Max, so the loser's buddies get 'sploded too.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I believe that arrows target squares, not individual units. And if they contact with the square it randomly chooses a target from those available there. If there is only one, he will be shot. If there are three, it is 1/3.

Thats just what I recall from dom2. Could be anecdotal or changed in dom3, but I havent had any trouble with my bodyguard placements yet?

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Yes, but even after it chooses a target it's not guaranteed to hit it. There's an opposed roll to determine if the target is hit, and if so of course there is another opposed roll vs. Protection to see if he takes damage. My point is that having extra bodyguards appears (from the formula in the manual) to increase your chances of being "hit," which partially offsets the gain from having bodyguards.

-Max

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I guess the game determines "quality" of a unit by its gold cost or something?

Re: The Art of Placement
 

If you don't mind me asking...
How big is the placement grid?
When I get back home, maybe I can try putting a mage in each corner, getting in a battle, and turning on the grid. But if anyone knows offhand, or can tell me I'm overlooking something in the manual and what section, I'd appreciate it.

I suppose, I might as well ask how big the battlefield is, also.

Thanks in advance.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

When it comes to 'quality'... I believe that Prec 100 single target spells aim for high-hp targets

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I think the grid is this size, please correct me if this is wrong.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ions/field.jpg

Your armies start in the 18 by 18 red squares. If you have a lot of units they can overflow and fill the entire white area too.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

This is the pattern I normally use when placing my units.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ARP/ARP112/Ftb_Play.jpg

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I did the calculations, and 2 bodyguards HELPS. Yes, if your mage is selected, the chance of being hit (assuming 100 fatigue and non-magic weapons) goes from 86% up to 95%. On the other hand, your mage only has a 33% chance of selection (vs. 100%).

The result is 86% chance of being hit vs. ~31.5% chance.

That is a DROP of ~54.5% (over 50%!).

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Foodstamp - genius! I will certainly be using that from now on.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Thank you, vfb. So, if you're correct, there's almost no protection from curse spells except hanging out in the very back and hoping that lizardman shaman doesn't move up.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

wouldnt having the 2 bodyguards increse the odds of that square being initially chosen as a target x3 though?

you'd have to add in the odds of the mage getting hit due to his bodyguards being "missed"

assumed targetting process:
pick target unit. (1x mage +2x guards)
determine Target square.
determine square actually hit. (assume good accuracy)
determine unit hit in that square (if any -- guards "pay back" here 1/3 chance of picking mage).
determine if that unit IS hit.
determine damage.

I think it comes out near a wash, but the bodyguards may be slightly counterproductive.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Well, any grouping of men will attract fire... but you are really picking hairs here. I mean, so long as you dont place the mage+guards square provocatively, you are fine. You have to think like the targetting AI: should I fire at this lone square with three men? Or this enormous cluster of 5x5 squares packed full of men? Two extra guys doesnt really make a difference.

Additionally, if you choose good bodyguards - normal hp, high prot, elemental res (if you can of course), then it makes that square even less appealing as a target.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

That is unlikely to work either. I've seen casters run up to cast spells (well, they were running for some reason, and I know I didn't tell them to!) at a siege, and get whacked by an arrow from a tower. So if you're worried about a unit getting cursed, it's better not to bring him to the fight. But if the unit is always hanging out in the back anyway, it doesn't really matter if it does get cursed, since that only has a negative effect on melee units.

Just don't bring your uber melee guy to clean out the lizards. A bunch of slingers or archers or casters will most likely be more efficient in any case.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Just a few points:

* The placement diagram is I think wrong in that the available placement square is just about the entire side of the neutral zone, and the default placement area is in the middle of the available placement square, but doesn't touch the neutral zone.

* I think adding a couple of bodyguards will reduce the chance of a mage getting hit roughly in the way Fate describes. Of course it also helps a lot in the event of a not-overwhelming melee attack too. I don't think a couple of bodyguards are very likely at all to attract any more enemy fire than the mage would, unless they are a targetable type (large monster, missile, or cavalry) and the enemy uses such orders (much more risk against human players). I guess it might be an increase if the enemy has single missile snipers set to Fire Rearmost.

* Technically, Curse has some risk of extra afflictions for any unit that might get hurt, not just melee.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Nice map there vfb.

Foodstamp, we're not playing American Football. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: The Art of Placement
 

That looks like a Hook and Go pattern. How exactly do I script that?

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Thanks, but I'm not sure it's 100% accurate. PvK thinks the zones are incorrect. I created one army with 4 commanders in the corners to determine the standard starting area, and then a 4000 unit army to see what happened in that case. From there I just counted the grids on the battle map.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

The grid is more like 58 wide by 28 deep. If the default placement spots are both filled to 4x4, then there are 26 squares between them. I think if you place a commander on the back edge, he starts out in the very rearmost square, or close to it.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I've got 26 squares in the neutral zone, that's the yellow/black striped area.

I've got the 'startable' areas as 28 by 28, growing to 38 by 54. Should the max be 38 by 58 instead?

I know what you're talking about in respect to starting at the back edge. It seems commanders there don't have to run 10 full squares as I have it, when they retreat. But I have seen enemy flyers surround a commander on the back edge. I'll have to test it again.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

And of course it's possible to move off the edge of the grid, e.g. when being trampled, and then the tramplers pursue off the grid too.

-Max

Re: The Art of Placement
 

If having two bodyguards is effective, why not ten? Ten of your cheapest brand of troop, since the idea is to soak up ranged attacks, not to fight. Most mages, I daresay, cost more than ten chaff troops.

-- Mal

Re: The Art of Placement
 

The idea is to fill up the square of the commander being guarded. Two bodyguards will do that just as well as ten.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

The battlefield grid actually grows depending on the size of the attacking and defending army.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

One thing I have noticed and haven't seen mentioned is that single unit spells (paralyze, soul slay, eg)seem to preferentially target by size, ie, the size 5 and 6 creatures are targeted first, regardless of placement on the battlefield. They don't seem to pick out commanders per se, just the largest units on the field.

Because of repeated losses I stopped using SC pretenders against anything but indies. I also try to change spell scripts from single unit spells to AOE spells if scouting reports do not indicate large commanders or troops. No pleasure like soul slaying a slinger (say that fast 3 times).

Re: The Art of Placement
 

The AI calculates the greatest loss in HP (other factors are probably included) when deciding what and where to target a spell. Thus soul slay mainly hits big units and AoE spells targets a HP-dense location with low protection density (unless the spell is AN).

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Thanks KO. Very useful explanation of spell casting targeting.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

As a slight different idea...

Is there any way to code the AI so that it targets spells based on 'greatest loss of combat effectiveness'? As an example, say you have 10 Caelian High Seraphs on a battlefield opposing 30 HI and 70 Archers. One of the Seraphs has a Staff of Storms, and they all have Air Shield on items (i.e., they don't have to cast it).

The threat of the archers is practically 0. Therefore, if I'm throwing, say, Thunder Strikes, could the AI be programmed to go after the HI preferentially over the Archers?

(I'm not saying the current system is broken. I'm just looking at ways of tweaking it.)

Re: The Art of Placement
 

It would be nice to have a little more situational awareness.

Ignoring archers during a storm with Air Shield up is one example. Prioritizing Air Shield if there are arrows falling around you would be another. Or casting Resist Lightning when Wrathful Skies goes up.

It's not a simple task though. Lots of things to think of and check for. It seems obvious, but really isn't and could easily introduce even weirder behavior.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Hmm... if the system were really optimized to cut enemy effectiveness, wouldn't it kill all the enemy mages first? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The Art of Placement
 

First, I'd like to start by declaring that American Football shall henceforth be known as simply 'Football.' Everything else formerly called Football is hereby to be called Gayball.

Secondly, is there a way to optimize the AI to target spells based on gain to society as a whole?

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Cant use that, the name is copyrighted. It is what rugby players call the NFL game becouse of the armor, helmet and heavy protections http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: The Art of Placement
 

That's like a naked slinger calling the heavy infantry cowards for wearing their helmets, shields, armor, and swords...

Re: The Art of Placement
 

And then proceeding to kill the heavily-armed Goliath and decapitate him with his own sword.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

obviously rugby is a game for the more skilled and brave... home of the brave...hahaha

Re: The Art of Placement
 

http://shup.com/Shup/34830/battleform.png

Here's my mage-only battle formation. This is for when the enemy is using supercombatants or other mage-only armies in which normal units would die in seconds.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

In reply to the American Football comparison with Rugby....

As a Linebacker in college and a Flanker in Rugby at the present I would like to submit this comparison I have heard before.

Soccer...A gentlemens sport played by Ruffians

Rugby....A Ruffians sport played by Gentlemen

American football...A Ruffians sport played by Ruffians

Having no foot skills of my own I can't answer for soccer, but after playing American Football for 12 years and Rugby for almost 30 years (sigh...yes I am that old), I prefer to play the Grand 'ol' hybrid game of THUGBY or "Hit to Kill" and run faster than the opponent!!

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Hmm, I think cavalry flanking with 'attack rear' orders might cause some problems, unless the mages retreated quickly.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Well, as for the American football analogy, I can only say that if you are facing 300 pound monsters that have used steroids and hgh growth hormone for the last 10 to 15 years, I think I would want to have on as much pads/armor as possible.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I don't know for how long rugby player will continue without protection : professional players have surprisingly enlarged those past years, and they are only getting bigger : must be what Darwin called natural evolution...

Re: The Art of Placement
 

.. or "unnatural". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

-SSJ

Re: The Art of Placement
 

When does the battlefield grid grow? I've run in debug mode and it seems even with fairly large 500 unit battles the grid is still roughly 30X60. Debug mode gives the labeled grid coordinates on an x,y basis, btw.