[Arker]

It may seem a little wierd to reply to myself, but I thought over what I've posted and have a bit to add. Editing the post this long after it's posted would be even wierder.

Arker said:
In fact, this is why I think yanking these spells entirely is probably a better idea than introducing a user interface to ban certain spells. That, I'm afraid, WOULD favour the human over the AI.

I think this stands up, but with some qualification. Simply adding the interface for humans and nothing else would be unbalancing - human players would milk this and the computer players would have no counter. BUT, if the computer players were given the same ability, and the logic to handle it, that would be very different. Trouble is the logic would probably be a LOT more work than the human interface. Bleah.

For some spells the case for removal is better than others, though. BoW obviously is more likely to harm the AI than to help it, but that is probably not true of protection. Heat-radiating units are much more rare than non-cold-immune units. Still, it's just as bloody annoying to the human player when it's cast at the wrong time.

After some thought, I'm not sure the case here actually IS weaker than for BoW. It's true that fire-radiating creatures are relatively rare, but fire magic in general certainly isn't. Protection *might* still be an advantage assuming random opponents, *but* it's very exploitable. I know if I see an army with nature mages in it, I make sure I've got as much fire magic as possible scripted when I attack. So even if it helps the computer players, on balance, when fighting each other, I'd bet it's a net loss for them against human players, which is really what counts.

1. Are we in range of target?
--->A. Yes. Is target within their movement radius of melee range?
------->I. Yes: Is our missile range greater than their movement range?
----------->a. Yes: Retreat to our maximum missile range, or the maximum range we can achieve while still retaining movement points to fire one volley, whichever is less, then fire.
----------->b. No: Stand and fire.
------->II. No: Stand and fire.
--->B. No. Advance our maximum movement, or to our maximum missile range, whichever is least. If movement points are left, fire.

This could even be simplified a bit and still work pretty much as it should. At its simplest, you'd remove all reference to the targets movement abilities, and simply try to stay at maximum range. It could also be made more sophisticated, for instance using an estimated optimum range instead of maximum, aiming to stay as close as possible without being drawn into melee. At any rate, I do think this line of thought is absolutely the key to making light cavalry playable, and it would improve the gameplay and the usefulness of all ranged-attack units. (And of course the AI should NOT be perfectly effective at this - it should definitely screw up sometimes, part of the charm of the game - but as it is it screws up every time, and the units are essentially useless beyond the ability of any modder to fix. This is a real shame, as these units are some of the more interesting in the game, for instance mounted Vanir, T'ien Ch'i cavalry, Centaurs... units that should really be very useful and fun, but aren't, because the combat AI just can't use them properly.)