Dominions 2. AI. Suggestions, that how to fix it.

Gandalf Parker · #1 November 9th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aristoteles:
Well, than what would you suggest? Since the AI won't use too many heavy units in the demo, it is clear that we must make a suggestion about it. I think this is a 'quite simple' example, we cannot post too many details about this one...or can we?

WHAT AI doesnt use enough hvy troops? WHAT hvy troops do you wish he would use? What percentage? Maybe we could use the mini map to figure out if that is even a good idea and what nations its a good idea for. Definetly not all of them. Some nations would definetly go from decent to sucky if they used more hvy troops (Pangaea being a big example). And most nations would regret it as a general rule if it was too expensive a move. Is a few hvy troops better than alot of cheap ones in most cases?

The Posts talking about setting hvy troops to 10% of the army made some sense. But Im taking for granted they meant hvy infantry to be mixed in with the lite infantry. Does it also mean that they should have 10% hvy cavalry? Is that 10% of the whole army or 10% of a mounted army? Should they have a walking army where 10% of it is hvy troops AND a mounted army where 10% is hvy troops (with... what was it? 60% lite mounted?)

Gandalf Parker · #2 November 9th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nerfix:
One thing i noticed today:
The AI doesn't play Rainbow mage type pretenders very well:
I saw a Frost Father with 7 in Astral, 3 in Earth and 1 in Water and a Arch Mage with 6 in ir, 3 in Fire and 1 in Earth.
The thing is, those pretenders were very expensive in design points. The AI had poor scales and Mausoleums as forts.

What meant they didnt do it well? It wasnt a good choice for a demo game since Rainbow Mages are a strategy that bears fruit late in the game. How do you feel the AI should have done it. Oh and what race had this pretender since that can make a big difference.

Nerfix · #3 November 9th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What meant they didnt do it well? It wasnt a good choice for a demo game since Rainbow Mages are a strategy that bears fruit late in the game. How do you feel the AI should have done it. Oh and what race had this pretender since that can make a big difference.

They spent huge amounts of design points on those pretenders. They had poor forts and negative scales.

Uhhhh, sir, we are talking bout' RB Mages with 7 in one path... Getting to 4 in one is hard and expensive enough with a RB Mage pretender
I usualy take 1-3 of every path with my RB pretenders. It may not be the best choice, but it is less expensive that taking 7 in one path with pretender like Crone.

Pythium had the Frost Father and Vanheim had the Arch Mage.

[ November 09, 2003, 14:42: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Taqwus · #4 November 9th, 2003, 07:43 PM

The AI should pay more attention to supply lines and the risk of strategic encirclement.

If it's going to risk being cut off, it really should make an attempt to forge supply items and bring them along (which requires nature magic; perhaps AIs should make more use of indy druids et al). This is particularly true when using troops with a low base morale, because of the 4 point penalty...

e.g. Last night playing the demo solo as Jotunheim (Utgard theme), I found and attacked the Machakans. At one point, they attacked a forward fort of mine. Their sieging force, mostly Machakan light foot with spider knights, was adjacent to only one Machakan-held province, which in turn was adjacent to their only castle (Machaka itself). In this single-province bridge lay another Machakan force led by the spider lady herself. Next to this bridge lay my main force.

The next turn, my main army (led by my Son of Niefel, fairly small but composed mostly of giants and with a number of Skratti and Godes et al) attacked -- not the besiegers, but the bridge. The Machakan force on that bridge, before the attack hit, joined the besiegers. That meant that the besiegers, while they were now making decent progress against the walls, were completely surrounded -- and I annihilated them the following turn, as the morale-4 troops were trivial to rout. Well in excess of half of the total Machakan armed forces, including a decent national hero, were obliterated at little cost since they had nowhere to run... That made it far easier to take Machaka a couple of turns later.

HJ · #5 November 9th, 2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taqwus:
The next turn, my main army (led by my Son of Niefel, fairly small but composed mostly of giants and with a number of Skratti and Godes et al) attacked -- not the besiegers, but the bridge. The Machakan force on that bridge, before the attack hit, joined the besiegers.

I would say that this is another example of the AI constantly pacing back and forth with his armies, and not a deliberate move. If you wanted to fight that army, you should have just waited and attacked the next turn - they would have walked back from the besieged province. It's a very predictable behavioral pattern for some reason.

Mortifer · #6 November 9th, 2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HJ:

quote:
Originally posted by Taqwus:
The next turn, my main army (led by my Son of Niefel, fairly small but composed mostly of giants and with a number of Skratti and Godes et al) attacked -- not the besiegers, but the bridge. The Machakan force on that bridge, before the attack hit, joined the besiegers.

I would say that this is another example of the AI constantly pacing back and forth with his armies, and not a deliberate move. If you wanted to fight that army, you should have just waited and attacked the next turn - they would have walked back from the besieged province. It's a very predictable behavioral pattern for some reason.

Yup one of the many problematic points of the AI.
This is already a well known AI weakness btw...

[ November 09, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

NTJedi · #7 November 9th, 2003, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mortifer:

quote:
Originally posted by HJ:

quote:
Originally posted by Taqwus:
The next turn, my main army (led by my Son of Niefel, fairly small but composed mostly of giants and with a number of Skratti and Godes et al) attacked -- not the besiegers, but the bridge. The Machakan force on that bridge, before the attack hit, joined the besiegers.

I would say that this is another example of the AI constantly pacing back and forth with his armies, and not a deliberate move. If you wanted to fight that army, you should have just waited and attacked the next turn - they would have walked back from the besieged province. It's a very predictable behavioral pattern for some reason.
Yup one of the many problematic points of the AI.
This is already a well known AI weakness btw...

This is why I suggested multiple personalities for the AI opponents because then we would not see this problem. Even as the developers improve the AI for this game as time passes more and more weaknesses/flaws will be discovered thus only leaving a challenge for human multiplayer games. If the AI opponents had multiple AI personalities it would keep gamers guessing... especially if the personalities would randomly change every 40 turns.
Hopefully Dominions_III they will be able to provide this or a miracle patch. I've suggested the same to the developers of Age_of_Wonders series and most of the gamers there also seem to agree.