Dissapointed

[PDF]

Originally posted by Pocus:
...
Just add a final order 'cast spell xxx each round', and most vets here will be happy!

If an option could be made to repeat every order X times (hold, attack, fire, cast spell..) it'll be even more cool !

[Coffeedragon]

Originally posted by Arryn:
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.

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.

[Coffeedragon]

Originally posted by Pocus:
you mean a spellbook for each mage? This would be MM hell.

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.)

[Coffeedragon]

Originally posted by PDF:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pocus:
...
Just add a final order 'cast spell xxx each round', and most vets here will be happy!

If an option could be made to repeat every order X times (hold, attack, fire, cast spell..) it'll be even more cool !

---

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.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pocus:
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

I believe that it is your fault . IIRC mages will not attack unless told to. If the arch devil is tired and then attacks you are to blame.

---

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 ]

[Kjeld]

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 ).

[Aikamun]

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

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.

[Coffeedragon]

Originally posted by Kjeld:
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.

Not sure if units should really be as flexible as commanders.

[Coffeedragon]

Originally posted by Aikamun:
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.

Engine exploit? Are you sure this wouldn´t work in real life?

I think this is cute Hydra tactics, rather than an exploit.