February 26th, 2004, 09:46 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 510
Thanks: 24
Thanked 31 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: national armies?
Quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
But if the people who feel the AI should be "fixed" to purchase Heavy Infantry over light infantry (for Ulm is their usual example) then I think it would end up causing Pangaea to purchase Minotaurs instead of Satyrs. The point being that as long as its just 1 AI and 1 rule then it needs to be one that either takes the middle road as far as pros and cons, or be the rule most likely to boost the weaker nations.
|
Not entirely. That presupposes that the only measure of weight is how well the AI does in battles. While that is certainly a dominant aspect, it is not the only one.
Another important aspect is that of setting the right fantasy world mood. This is strengthened when different nations field different sorts of troops - even when not in optimal force composition - and significantly degraded when all the opponents field the same sort of armies with a large percentage of default troops.
To put it bluntly, I would prefer a colourful but slightly less efficient AI over one that believes that light infantry rules the world. It might even mean that you would have to adapt different strategies towards different AI opponents to a higher degree than currently.
__________________
When I said Death before Dishonour, I meant alphabetically.
|